Will "gay marriage" really destroy the institution of marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Racer_X
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Racer_X

Guest
If so, it is only because heterosexuals have already beaten marriage within an inch of its life.

I agree wholly with this NY Times writer’s assessment: nytimes.com/2005/07/05/opinion/05coontz.html?ex=1123128000&en=68530b10c81873e5&ei=5070&th&emc=th&oref=login (Although I doubt she and I would agree about whether traditional marriage ought to be saved.)

Professor Coontz writes:

My research on marriage and family life seldom leads me to agree with Dr. Dobson, much less to accuse him of understatement. But in this case, Dr. Dobson’s warnings come 30 years too late. Traditional marriage, with its 5,000-year history, has already been upended. Gays and lesbians, however, didn’t spearhead that revolution: heterosexuals did.

Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.
 
Starting from the (correct) premise that homosexuality itself is a sin, and an abomination, this should make the condemnation of the act of uniting homosexuals in marriage quite easy and a natural progression.

So we don’t tolerate a group’s behavior, but we support their union to continue the spread this behavior.

As Catholics, this makes ZERO sense.
 
And I do not disagree that heterosexual marriage is in shambles.

However, that doesn’t make homosexual relations of ANY kind acceptable.
 
I do agree to an extent that secular heterosexuals have long been devaluing the institution of marriage with such things as divorce/remarriage, contraception, abortion, and in vitro fertilization. That said, this whole article is a straw man. It subtly implies that those who oppose gay marriage are the same ones who want to maintain other draconian abuses of marriage, such as wife beating, unequal legal rights for each spouse, and the like. Then it claims that, since abandoning these atrocities has been good for marriage, then homosexual marriage can only be a good step as well…? Maybe I’m misreading something, but this just doesn’t follow.

What the article ignores is the true purpose of marriage–bonding and babies, as found in the book of Genesis. And of course, this includes a lifetime of true love and commitment. When either “bonding” or “babies” is ommited from the picture, then the marriage act is incomplete and selfish. Since “babies” is not possible within gay marriage, then it necessarily is missing a key component to a true loving marriage, and is by definition incomplete. This is why I oppose gay marriage. It has nothing to do with abuses of the past.
 
Allow homosexuals to institute their illicit relationship (based entirely on their sexual preference), then what basis do you have for prohibiting anyone else (based on their “preference”) from demanding legal sanction for their “union”? The institution of marriage as recognized throughout history will lose it’s meaning, purpose and function as the building block of civilized society. Liberal social engineers tend to ignore this projection.
 
The point that I agree with in the article is that if you look at what marriage actually is today in the U.S., there is no logical basis to not extend it to homosexual partners (or even, I would argue, multiple partners.). Which is precisely why we are facing the issue of homosexual at this particular moment in our history.

We Catholics can recognize that the seeds for “gay marriage” were sown long ago. At the latest, it was when contraception was legalized. If one form of contraceptive sex (e.g., condoms) is proper within marriage, on what basis do we exclude any other contraceptive sex (e.g, homosexual sex)?
 
Racer,

Very true. I would argue that the definition of the word “marriage” has been destroyed over time as well. Now, when people hear about “marriage” they think “contractualized responsibility-free sex for an indeterminate amount of time, with a dash of warm fuzzy romance”. If that’s all that marriage were, then there’d be no reason not to let gays have at it as well. We, as Catholics, ought to work to bring back the original definition of marriage by being shining examples in our own marriages to others.
 
Why the focus on marriage at all?

The crux of the matter is that by definition, ANY ACTIVITY between active homosexuals is illicit and should be condemned.

Homosexual sporting events - wrong.

Homosexual picnics - wrong.

Homosexual marriage - wrong.

Does anyone support people guilty of beastiality on a daily basis, or necrophiles, in their unions of marriages?

Mortal sin is mortal sin. Once you hit the threshold, it doesn’t matter how far you go. Even the “smallest” mortal sin will destroy your soul if not dealt with.

I just don’t get arguing this on the basis of marriage. This almost validates homosexuality as acceptable, which as any Catholic knows, is NOT.
 
40.png
JohnnyArcade:
I just don’t get arguing this on the basis of marriage. This almost validates homosexuality as acceptable, which as any Catholic knows, is NOT.
Click to expand...
Of course, of course. We all know that homosexual behavior is wrong. But, we have the capability to replace this wrong with a right–and that right is a good, loving Christian marriage.

One cannot simply point the finger at homosexuals and leave it at that. But we as Christians are called to remove the beam from our own eyes before we point out the splinter in someone else’s. We remove the beam by cleaning up our own marriages first. That’s why I’ve been talking about marriage.

If only more Christians would treat homosexuals in a loving manner (without accepting their behavior)…then maybe, some of them would be inspired to a conversion of heart.
 
There is a fine line between treating with love and condoning. One often leads to another, that is the problem.

I do not advocate hate. Compassion, prayer, an helpful, kind explanation of what is wrong are all great. Much you need to handle children (who are ignorant of right and wrong). You do not tolerate bad behavior, but this doesn’t mean you stop loving them. In fact, you discipline and try to correct them BECAUSE you love them so much. We all everyone to get to Heaven, we have to in fact.

The whole “remove the beam from your eye” is too often thrown about when people feel like someone is judging them. So are we to simply NEVER condemn that which is wrong? That is a quick road to the creation of New Soddom.

Trying to stop that which is wrong AND cleaning up the problems in your own life ARE NOT mutually exclusive. As faithful Catholics (and all Christians, since these principles are not entirely Cathlocentric), we have an obligation to do both.

A lot of people fought to stop Terry Schiavo’s husband from killng her. I know for a FACT none of them led perfect lives. Should they have been silent?
 
A homosexual picnic is a picnic between two active homsexuals. By definition, we cannot support it if we disavow homosexuality as acceptable.

Look at NAMBLA. The debate isn’t that pedophiles should not be allowed to congragate and have meetings (a legal issue), the debate for Catholics is that they should not be allowed to continue being pedophiles.

We need to help them pray for them, enlighten them as to why what they are doing is wrong.

I am less concerned with the fact that NAMBLA is allowed to hold meetings than I am with the fact that pedophiles are roaming the planet at all.

Therefore, starting from the premise that homosexuality itself is immoral and wrong, why even debate whether religion by said homosexuals is okay? It becomes a non-issue, and steers people away from the REAL issue itself.
 
40.png
JohnnyArcade:
A homosexual picnic is a picnic between two active homsexuals. By definition, we cannot support it if we disavow homosexuality as acceptable.
Click to expand...
There must be some reasoning between, “Homosexual sex is wrong,” and "It is wrong for two people who are homosexual to have lunch together.

I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I’m just not following you.
 
How can you support any act between deviants?

That is the question.

The logic of “I approve of homosexuals dining together, but not of homosexuals themselves” seems contradictory.

It is the same as supporting institutions that promote homosexuality, but condemn it itself. Life TV shows that glorify it, movies, organizations, etc. It is hypocritical to say I deplore the act of homosexuality, but crack up watching “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy>”

All that does is promote a stereotype of homosexuals, and increase the acceptance and “harmlessness” of the act.
 
40.png
JohnnyArcade:
The logic of “I approve of homosexuals dining together, but not of homosexuals themselves” seems contradictory.
Click to expand...
What do you mean when you say you don’t approve of homosexuals?
 
Let’s see now: homosexuality is not a race, not a religion, not a preference, or an ethnic group. Homosexuality is emotionally disturbed behaviour; homosexuals are intrinsically disordered.

Also, homosexuals cannot reproduce; and since they cannot reproduce they misuse the sex act for pleasure and not procreation. The homosexual inability to procreate denies them both paternal and maternal instincts and the ability to pair bond.

Because the homosexual can only misuse the sex act for pleasure and not procreation, the homosexual forms no pair bond with their partner and becomes routinely promiscuous. In fact, it was discovered through studies of the AIDS crisis from 1986 thru 1990, in which homosexuals were interviewed regarding their sexual activity, just how promiscuous are homosexuals. One homosexual frequenter of a bath house divulged that he had over 200 sexual contacts in a single weekend. Homosexuals are narcissistic and self-centered to the exclusion of all else.

Homosexuals have the highest rate of suicide, homicide, promiscuity, partner abuse, psychological abuse, alcoholism, and all forms of anti-social behaviour. The very idea of a homosexual ‘marriage’ is a blatant absurdity in the eyes of man and God.
 
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.” Hebrews 13:4

I heard Father Corapi speaking the other day about “tolerance.” He said that the true definition of tolerance is allowing differences that are of good, such as different ways to pray or different religious orders, or different tastes in food. Those things we tolerate as different in each other are not harmful to ourselves or others.

The secular world confuses “tolerance” with “permissiveness.” Permissiveness is letting others do things that are harmful to themselves or others. Active homosexuality is harmful, physically and spiritually.
 
40.png
JohnnyArcade:
And I do not disagree that heterosexual marriage is in shambles.

However, that doesn’t make homosexual relations of ANY kind acceptable.
Click to expand...
One of the tactics employed by those who oppose “gay marriage” is claiming that allowing it will have adverse effects on the institution of heterosexual marriage. I disagree. Any conclusions one could draw from acceptance of “gay marriage” about what marriage means, or why people should marry, or why they should stay married, are already held by most of society, including most American Catholics.

There are moral reasons for opposing “gay marriage”, yes, but the supposed practical reasons don’t hold up.
 
i think the word “marriage” has been seriously misused nowadays. i think what people do is confuse “holy matrimony” with “civil unions” (i.e., a bond recongnized by the state to bestow certain CIVIL priviledges and rights).

any couple can go to a naval captain,mayor, judge, or JOP and recieve a “civil union”, but they do not receive the sacrement of holy matrimony. the government makes no distiction between couples married in a church or in a drive through chapel.

marriage for Cathoics is TWOFOLD. the priest almost always is LICENSED by the STATE to perfom a civil ceremony, as well as the sacrement. but the civil and religious are performed together. the government doesnt care HOW you get married (there are couples ive heard who have done it doing extreme sports), just as long as the official is LICENSED.

that being said, homosexuals want the right to have the CIVIL bond that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy.

i really wish that the gov’t would start using the term “civily bonded” for ALL couples, as opposed to “married”. marriage is strictly a religious institution.

as far as the contraception argument, the state has no compelling interest WHATSOEVER to intrude into the bedroom of people and dictate how they manage their bodies sexually.

as far as “civil unions” for homosexuals, it most likely will happen. Loving Vs Virginia established [civil] marriage as a fundamental right, and deserves “equal protection”.

unless people want to roll back civil rights and interracial marriage, the state itself will be compelled by legal precedent and the equal protection clause to extend CIVIL unions to homosexuals.

the institution of [holy] marriage itself will be untouched because there will not be many, if any churches that will perform such ceremonies.
 
Racer X:
One of the tactics employed by those who oppose “gay marriage” is claiming that allowing it will have adverse effects on the institution of heterosexual marriage. I disagree. Any conclusions one could draw from acceptance of “gay marriage” about what marriage means, or why people should marry, or why they should stay married, are already held by most of society, including most American Catholics.

There are moral reasons for opposing “gay marriage”, yes, but the supposed practical reasons don’t hold up.
Click to expand...
I am unsure if you are playing the role of protagonist or are simply cynical and in need of a good spiritual revival. FYI–the faithful have always been the few. Just because the prevailing societal ethos does not support the Christian ethic, does not mean that Chrisitians should throw the towel in to the cultural war.

I would reserve conclusion until you get results from longitudinal studies, plugging in all the variables and factors. For example, little Johnny is raised by Jeff/Jerry or Suzzie/Sarah, now as an adult, Johnny has difficulty maintaining and sustaining healthy relationships that are not symptomatic of his unmet developmental needs for bonding, attachment, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top