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

[JimG]

While I entirely agree that acceptance of homosexual “marriage” can only further corrupt society, I have to agree with Racer-X that the concept of marriage has already been sufficiently degraded to such an extent that ‘gay marriage’ is now considered only the next logical step.

We removed from marriage the idea of procreation. No one any longer thinks that one has to be married to have or to raise children. Finding a child with two parents (of opposite genders yet) is no longer a statistically sure bet.

No one now thinks that sexual activity must be kept within the bonds of marriage. Indeed, the prevailing ethos is that any sexual activity of any kind, with whomever, is perfectly acceptable and even necessary.

No one now thinks that sex must always be open to life. Condoms are everywhere, and often given away free to school children.

No one now thinks that sex must be a unitive activity. Simple pleasure is sufficient, thank you. No bonding needed.

No one now thinks that sex or marriage must imply either permanence or fidelity. 50% divorce rate and cohabitation says it all.

So now that marriage is all but destroyed, we are really getting upset that gay marriage threatens to finish it off.

Of course I’ve exaggerated somewhat. Not everybody holds those beliefs, but enough to put marriage in the condition we find it today.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

BioCatholic:

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.

I could not agree more!

Also, regarding the “practical” arguments relating marriage with social cohesion etc., it would seem to me that if practicality is our concern, polygamy should be our model rather than monogamy as it maximazes the number of social bonds that can be formed and strengthened between families in a community.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Bella3502]

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.

But “babies” are possible within gay marriage. At least in our parish they have them. It would be wrong to deny their existence.

 

[JimG]

Bella3502:

But “babies” are possible within gay marriage. At least in our parish they have them. It would be wrong to deny their existence.

Well, it is not possible for a gay marriage as such to be procreative. So if there are babies, they are not the product of the union of the gay couple.

 

[Servant1]

JohnnyArcade:

And I do not disagree that heterosexual marriage is in shambles.

However, that doesn’t make homosexual relations of ANY kind acceptable.

You are absolutely right.

That being said, heterosexual marriage - the only real marriaage - got itself into shambles long before the ascendency of the homosexual agenda.

I am married. Whatever the law does with homosexuals will not affect my marriage. My wife and I are the only two than can destroy our marriage or allow it to be destroyed. If I say otherwise, I am giving away power to those who do not have it. All the homosexuals in the world can’t touch my marriage - no matter what the law says about their activities. My wife and I can, though.

 

[PLAL]

Here is a Catholic Answers on the topic of the Looming Assault on Marriage Laws. It was on Catholic Answers on 7-1-05. You can listen to the show here…

catholic.com/radio/calive.asp?date=7/1/2005

The Looming Assault on Marriage Laws
Daniel Cere
[Listen] - [Download]

---

Here’s another called In Defense of Marriage on 2-6-04…

catholic.com/radio/calive.asp?date=2/1/2004

In Defense of Marriage
Charles LiMandri
[Listen] - [Download]

---

and here’s another from 6-27-05…

catholic.com/radio/calive.asp?date=6/1/2005

Preventing Homosexuality
Joseph Nicolosi
[Listen] - [Download]

 

[PLAL]

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0049.html

**A ‘Culture’ of Inverted Sexuality ** **PATRICK FAGAN **

The massive social and psychological disorder we see all around us is not the making of the “gay community.” Our current problems — including even the gay-rights" movement itself — arose as a result of disorders that first became prevalent among heterosexuals. If we want to take the mote out of our “gay” brothers’ eyes maybe we should first remove the beam from our own.
http://catholiceducation.org/images/nature/yellow flowers.JPGIt is impossible to look at the changes in our culture over the last few decades without realizing the extent of the changes wrought by the new sexual mores. The thesis of this essay is that the strength of the present homosexual movement and the other radical sexual movements are rooted in these changes.

Major changes in thought on the nature of the sexual act began in the latter part of the 19th century, gathered steam in the early part of this century, and achieved a significant breakthrough in 1930 with the breakdown of the unified tradition of Christian religious-moral teaching on the nature of the sexual act.

By the late 1940s American married couples were contracepting in growing numbers. By the 1960s the children of these contracepting couples became the leaders of the sexual revolution, rejecting the need for marriage as the context for the sexual act — a rejection logically based on their own experiences. By the 1970s the next generation, had enshrined a “woman’s right to choose” abortion, thus making it legally possible to be rid of the natural fruit of the sexual act. A generation later, in the 1990s, we have seen the rise of the homosexual-rights movement. All of these gradual “Slouchings towards Gomorrah” are the natural by-product of the severing of the sexual act from the prime end of that act, and from its fundamental natural function: the begetting of the child. That severance changes the focus of the-sexual act and in doing so changes the adults who so act, both in their own psychological dispositions and in their interpersonal relations. From being ultimately “other focused,” sexual mores become “self focused”; from extroversion, sexual affairs move toward introversion; from hetero-focused they become auto-focused.

MORE catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0049.html

 

[Les_Richardson]

Here is an article that comes at the issue with a similar assessment of marriage as it is but with a much different perspective on where we go from here.

catholic-legate.com/articles/adhom.html

 

[Bella3502]

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.

Yes they can and do reproduce. What you are saying is simply NOT true.

 

[JimG]

Bella3502:

Yes they can and do reproduce. What you are saying is simply NOT true.

I guess I’m missing something here. Can you explain how two homosexuals engaging in homosexual sex results in the procreation of a child?

 

[JohnnyArcade]

I understand the point of this thread is the discussion of the destruction of marriage prior to homosexuals even being involved, but I think as Catholics, the more we even argue the issue of homosexual marriage, the more credence we give homosexuality as acceptable. The marriage issue is, in essence, a red herring.

Homosexuality, as defined by our beloved Church, and many others, is unacceptable. Thus, the debate ends there. No marriage. No civil unions. Nothing is to be made legitimate because the foundation upon whcih these arguments are based is not legitimate, namely, that homsexuality is acceptable. Love them? Yes. Educate them, pray for them? Yes. Tolerate them? No.

Again, why do people rail against NAMBLA? It isn’t because people feel as though pedophiles should not have the right to convene, have meetings, and create a website, it is because they feel pedophiles are immoral and that it is an illegitimate lifestyle. Sounds a lot like the way homosexuality was viewed decades ago, until the devil tricked humanity into thinking it was no big deal; just a normal thing. Sounds like the mentality he used on Eve, and Adam…

People don’t even allow the discussion of NAMBLA’s rights, because they start from the premise of “pedophilia is wrong”. Modern society may not support the morals and values our Church espouses, but that is why we are needed; to refuse to bend to this dissolution of values and stand firm for what is right. Arguing about what rights homosexuals and immoral lifestyles should have presupposes they are okay to begin with, when in fact, they are not…

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Bella3502:

Yes they can and do reproduce. What you are saying is simply NOT true.

How do two married homosexual men reproduce? Adoption is not reproduction.

Lesbians couples reproduce through artificial insemination, or using a surragote male, then psychologically traumatize the child into homosexuality.

Married homosexuals do not reproduce.

 

[felra]

Bobby A. Greene:

How do two married homosexual men reproduce? Adoption is not reproduction.

Lesbians couples reproduce through artificial insemination, or using a surragote male, then psychologically traumatize the child into homosexuality.

Married homosexuals do not reproduce.

Interesting how this point of basic physiology stills needs to be clarified. Though you have to give the homosexual activists credit for their influence of the language and subtleties of perception in support of the gay agenda.

 

[Brad]

Racer X:

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.

Bunk. Gays and Lesbians have been working the agenda, the soundbites, the media, the activist organizations, the schools, and the churches for the past 40 years. Them, in combination with the radical femminists, are responsible for the ideologies that unwitting heterosexuals adopted due to the “education” that was given to them. Today, it is the exception, not the rule, whereby one escapes from the prevaling ideologies spread be femminists, homosexuals, and their sympathizers (unresponsible adults) that are crammed down their minds as they march through the school systems.

 

[Brad]

Racer X:

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)?

Because many do not treat the sacred institution of marriage to be what it is does not make it logical or necessary to radically redefine it. The inmates should not run the asylum.

 

[Racer_X]

Brad:

Bunk. Gays and Lesbians have been working the agenda, the soundbites, the media, the activist organizations, the schools, and the churches for the past 40 years. Them, in combination with the radical femminists, are responsible for the ideologies that unwitting heterosexuals adopted due to the “education” that was given to them. Today, it is the exception, not the rule, whereby one escapes from the prevaling ideologies spread be femminists, homosexuals, and their sympathizers (unresponsible adults) that are crammed down their minds as they march through the school systems.

Too true. I don’t know why you began with “bunk” though. Your observations do not conflict with my opening post.

 

[Racer_X]

Brad:

Because many do not treat the sacred institution of marriage to be what it is does not make it logical or necessary to radically redefine it. The inmates should not run the asylum.

Amen to that.

 

[Brad]

Racer X:

Too true. I don’t know why you began with “bunk” though. Your observations do not conflict with my opening post.

Because the author is blaming heterosexuals in general in an effort to avoid placing blame on femminists, radical homosexuals, and their sympathizers in particular. This breakdown of the family did not happen in a vacuum. It was in large part planned and implemented.

 

[Lost_Found]

Bella3502:

But “babies” are possible within gay marriage. At least in our parish they have them. It would be wrong to deny their existence.

You’re right - we musn’t forget about these babies and children! They will not have a mommy and a daddy, as our Lord wishes. They will be exposed to very liberal sexual views, from a young age.

Jesus spoke very sternly about leading little ones astray:

“He said to his disciples, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.” “Luke Chap 17: 1-2 (also see Matt 18:6)

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Originally posted by Racer X:
How can you support any act between deviants?

Isn’t that what this message board is? You’re saying that homosexuals are sinners, therefore deviants. I gotta admit, I’m a sinner. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure you’re a sinner. I bet that everyone else posting on this board is a sinner. Therefore, we’re all deviants, and as this board is interactions between us, you condemn supporting this board.

I just got done writing one of these in another thread, but I’ll say it all again.

Remember that part in the Bible where a man asks Jesus, “Which is the most important commandment?”

Jesus answers that there are in fact 2 most important commandments: “Love God with all your heart, mind, body and soul” and “Love your neighbor as yourself”.

There was no exception made there for “Love your neighbor unless your neighbor is a jerk, or kind of a geek, or he’s a sinner, especially if his sin is homosexualtiy! Then, you can just batter them with tales of hell until they stop sinning.”

You can love while not condoning. I have a friend who caught me off guard by revealing that she was a bisexual and she asked me what I thought. I told her that homosexuality is wrong, but that nothing could destory out friendship. Now that she knows I don’t approve, she doesn’t bring up the topic with me. But by my presence, she is constantly reminded that I don’t approve. If she ever decides to clean up her act, she’ll know there’s someone she can turn to for help.

Had I lectured her on what a terrible thing she is doing, that would have been the end of our friendship and the end of my good influence on her. She would have stormed off more determined in her ways than ever.

If you want to help someone, the very first thing you have to do is to love them. Only then can you really pray for them. What kind of a prayer is, “God, please help Susan because she’s gay and that makes her a terrible person! But even though she deserves to go burn in hell for the rest of eternity, maybe you could help me to help her because I am your wonderful servant who doesn’t sin as much or as badly as she does!”

Wouldn’t a much better prayer be “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do!”?