E
- Status
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Which legality are you referring to? The historic states’ original promotion of man-woman marriage? Or this new phenomenon with same-sex “marriages”?
M
marymary1975
Guest
You have brought up.an excellent.point! And what about single.parents? You don’t het to enjoy social.securiry benefits either. Another good point to.add to the sea of.contradictions.that exist on.this area.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Right and wrong can be discussed outside the context of the “Catholic” position. People from different religions can still appeal to each other’s sense of right and wrong without referencing any particular religion’s dogma.
The reason for state involvement may be for something quite independent of incentivizing procreation, such as ensuring that procreation, if it is done at all, is done in a way that provides benefit to the child. So you must consider a wider range of goals than simply “incentivizing” procreation.
But the question is wrong for another reason. When deciding questions of public policy that create a duty on the part of the rest of society, the default position should always be to avoid creating that duty unless it is shown to bring about a commensurate good. This is the case with same-sex marriage. If it were a matter of just “letting” a couple do something that they want to call marriage, that would be one thing. But the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is essentially a duty imposed on the rest of society to “play along” with that couple’s game. This duty is expressed in many ways, from granting favorable tax status to providing services that others associate with the more restrictive form of marriage, to subjecting our children to indoctrination into the acceptability of the game the same-sex couple is playing in public education. It is these duties that argue against the legal recognition of same sex marriage.
Now one could argue that the legal recognition of man/woman marriages also imposes a duty on the rest of society, and to this I agree. That is why it is up for debate whether and to what extent this duty to legally facilitate regular marriage is worth the trouble. But that is at least the correct debate - not the “what’s the harm?” debate.
V
Vico
Guest
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given the answer:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
6 … Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
- Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition.
- Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage.
…
Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase. - … It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.
…
- The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Here are comments from Mark Regnerus regarding Simon Cheng and Brian Powell’s study:I see you’ve included something from the Family Research Council on the Mark Regnerus Study:
washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/
I have a lot of confidence in studies that include people who are 7-feet 8-inches tall, but nevertheless weigh only 88 pounds, were married 8 times and had 8 children…
thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/05/14978/
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
This is from 2007, it provides some interesting insight. Sociologist David Blankenhorn:
weeklystandard.com/defining-marriage-down-.-.-./article/14566
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Mr. Regnerus sometimes tries to sound reasonable, but he can’t help showing his own ideological biases. For example, to support his claim to the idea that “sexual difference matter,” he has a link to a book by Roy Baumeister, Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. The blurb on this book at Amazon says:
Those poor non-culture building women!
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Seriously…condemning “ideological bias”. There’s of course non of that going on in the same sex marriage arguments. LolMr. Regnerus sometimes tries to sound reasonable, but he can’t help showing his own ideological biases. For example, to support his claim to the idea that “sexual difference matter,” he has a link to a book by Roy Baumeister, Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. The blurb on this book at Amazon says:
Those poor non-culture building women!
W
Wretched_One_1
Guest
Mr Regenerus doesn’t have to try and sound anything as long as he is posting truth. According to your profile you aren’t even Catholic so where do you come off posting your pro gay agenda filth in here? You’re not trying to ask a question or hear the Catholic point of view. You’re just trying to bring your Luther informed ERROR into our forum! Why don’t you go misinform your fellow heretics over in the Lutheran forum with your degenerate drivel. Or is there not enough left of the Lutheran “church” left to despoil?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Why don’t you inform me in what way the claim by Mr. Baumeister (which Mr. Regnerus apparently supports since he had a link to Mr. Baumeister’s book) is a Catholic point of view? His claim that “the reason men dominate culture and rule the world” is because “culture grew out of male relationships” whereas women “are not culture-building” sounds kind of sexist to me, but perhaps I’m mistaken. I’m also not sure why you think that my disagreement with this claim has anything to do with a “pro gay agenda”.
Also, Mr. Baumeister’s book was published by Oxford University Press, has got many good revues and is perhaps a better book than what it originally sounded to me.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Why don’t you inform me in what way the claim by Mr. Baumeister (which Mr. Regnerus apparently supports since he had a link to Mr. Baumeister’s book) is a Catholic point of view? His claim that “the reason men dominate culture and rule the world” is because “culture grew out of male relationships” whereas women “are not culture-building” sounds kind of sexist to me, but perhaps I’m mistaken. I’m also not sure why you think that my disagreement with this claim has anything to do with a “pro gay agenda”.
Also, Mr. Baumeister’s book was published by Oxford University Press, has got many good revues and is perhaps a better book than what it originally sounded to me (although I have my doubts about this).
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Does this have anything to do with the specific study Mark Regnerus was part of or the criticism from Simon Cheng and Brian Powell that Mark Regnerus responded too?Why don’t you inform me in what way the claim by Mr. Baumeister (which Mr. Regnerus apparently supports since he had a link to Mr. Baumeister’s book) is a Catholic point of view? His claim that “the reason men dominate culture and rule the world” is because “culture grew out of male relationships” whereas women “are not culture-building” sounds kind of sexist to me, but perhaps I’m mistaken. I’m also not sure why you think that my disagreement with this claim has anything to do with a “pro gay agenda”.
Also, Mr. Baumeister’s book was published by Oxford University Press, has got many good revues and is perhaps a better book than what it originally sounded to me.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Mr. Regnerus has a link to the Baumeister book in his response to the Cheng and Powell study, so he apparently feels that it buttresses his own argument about why children need both a mother and father. Although it could be argued that a household with two fathers has two culture builders instead of just one. Kids who grow up in such families should be twice as cultured.
amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
He cites the book, but that doesn’t necessarily agree with everything in there. Either in a professional capacity or casual conversion, don’t people cite sources to back up your argument or refute the argument, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with everything that referenced source says. I can’t speak for Mark Regnerus though.Mr. Regnerus has a link to the Baumeister book in his response to the Cheng and Powell study, so he apparently feels that it buttresses his own argument about why children need both a mother and father. Although it could be argued that a household with two fathers has two culture builders instead of just one. Kids who grow up in such families should be twice as cultured.
amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
W
Wretched_One_1
Guest
This is gay agenda propaganda. A child cannot have 2 parents of the same sex. It is impossible because natural law dictates that a child is born from the procreative act of exactly one man and one woman period. If a tragedy precludes said child from living under the loving protection of their father & mother to subject the child to living under the care of a same-sex attracted couple is to expose that child to scandal which can result in the malformation of their conscience which may ultimately lead to the forfeiture of their eternal soul.
M
Midwest88
Guest
Why should it be legal?
Why is same-sex “marriage” being brought up as a “right”?
What’s the point of marriage once we set aside the whole modern day “love-you-commitment” talk?
Why is marriage between a man & a woman not sufficient enough?
Why is same-sex “marriage” being brought up as a “right”?
What’s the point of marriage once we set aside the whole modern day “love-you-commitment” talk?
Why is marriage between a man & a woman not sufficient enough?
M
Midwest88
Guest
He’s a homosexual. Once I learned that, it all made sense. Another poster who kept on bringing up the “Catholic Church’s obsession with gay ‘marriage’” or something like that turned to be a homosexual as well.
E
EnterMeJesus
Guest
Tell me: why shouldn’t it be legal? Why is heterosexual marriage being brought up as a right? How does same-sex marriage being legalised affect you in any meaningful way?
W
Wretched_One_1
Guest
- Status