A New Angle on Defending Marriage


#1

It's not news to anybody on CAF that the "marriage equality" argument has been as effective for its backers as the "woman's right to choose" argument has been for the abortionists.

But it has an equally fatal weakness as an argument. Like "choice" it relies on distracting people away from what the issue really IS rather than taking an honest and rational look at the issue itself.

The revelation I had yesterday is that the promoters of "gay marriage" (as they call it) are desperately trying to get people to NOT notice what is inside the package, but to by sympathetic to people in a tough spot instead. What don't they want you to notice? The fact that a legal redefinition of marriage that can encompass two men MUST necessarily (if implicitly) include the rejection that marriage has any innate relationship to making babies.

Let that sink in for a second.

If two individual who, by their very nature, have a sterile relationship must be considered "married" in the same way that a man and woman are married, then marriage has absolutely nothing to do with parenthood anymore. Is that really what we want to say? Why are there perks and priviledges attached to marriage in the first place? Because by its nature it tends towards expensive dependents!

Yet here we are buying claims that it is "unfair and unjust" to deny the perks of marriage to people whose relationship simply isn't oriented towards the actions that those perks were designed to reward!

We've gone insane as a society. This is one small step away from a lawsuit claiming discrimination by a man who wants to be declared a mother.


#2

I understand what you're saying.

What about couples that cannot have sex, physically? (Due to handicaps, etc.) Should they not be allowed to get married?

What about couples that can have sex but can't necessarily reproduce? Should they not be allowed to get married?

What you're saying makes sense to me, overall... just don't understand how it applies to those cases.


#3

The answer in those cases lies in circumstances, not in nature.

The NATURE of a woman doesn't change if she has a hysterectomy or menopause. She doesn't stop being a woman if those things happen. The nature of the relationship is still one that is fundamentally oriented towards parenthood, even if incidental circumstances block it. Same goes for when the man in a marriage becomes sterile for some reason. He doesn't stop being a man because of a handicap or a zero sperm count. His nature doesn't change.

A relationship of two men is not blocked by mere circumstances from resulting in parenthood. It is the NATURE of their relationship that it is sterile.

See the difference? Anyone who claims that both cases are equally marriage is inherently making the argument that marriage is NOT related to parenthood.

And incidentally, this is reflects the next logical step in the destruction of Judeo-Christian sexual worldview. In the 1920's they de-linked sex and procreation (contraception). In the 60's they de-established the innate link between sexual intimacy and marriage. Now they are attempting to decouple marriage and procreation. The traditional family that made Western civilization possible relied on the fact that people innately KNEW that sex, marriage and babies were all an interlinked, beautiful and complex subject. In our era, we've completed the transition to pretending that these are ala carte subject than can be picked and chosen at whim and will. And it's no coincidence that our society is unraveling as a result.


#4

[quote="manualman, post:1, topic:324053"]
The revelation I had yesterday is that the promoters of "gay marriage" (as they call it) are desperately trying to get people to NOT notice what is inside the package, but to by sympathetic to people in a tough spot instead. What don't they want you to notice? The fact that a legal redefinition of marriage that can encompass two men MUST necessarily (if implicitly) include the rejection that marriage has any innate relationship to making babies.

[/quote]

I see what you're saying and don't want to imply you're wrong or start an argument, but I think there's one problem with what you're stating. Gay marriage proponents don't reject that marriage has an innate relationship to making babies. They accept that completely - they just believe that the emotional, relationship-building side of sex and marriage is equally important. Lesbians have babies and gay dads adopt. One of the key arguments being made is that the children of such relationships are being hurt by the current definition of marriage.

Anyways, I don't want to discourage this kind of debate. Just my 2-cent's worth.


#5

That's an interesting argument, not derailing at all.

Being a Midwest suburban white boy, my gay culture contacts are admittedly rather small! While I can think of a few dozen gay people I've known in the past decade or so, I can't think of even one that adopted a child. Is it really a viable argument to say that gay relationships are as intrinsically oriented towards parenthood as heterosexual marriage is? Personally, I highly doubt it. Simple biology militates for the opposite conclusion.

I suspect that if you really looked at statistics you'd find that gay couples that adopt are rarer than hetero couples that choose never to have kids (TV sitcom fiction characters don't count, mind you). That's a pretty big flip-flop, but I admit that it's totally assertion not in evidence at the moment.

But regardless the logical progression is irrefutable: If "gay marriage" is the same thing as hetero marriage, then the procreative aspect of marriage is irrelevant to that nature of marriage itself (not just "equally important" as you stated). If it's relevant than the difference is a difference and the two types of relationships are therefore NOT the same. No?


#6

I do agree a new angle is important as the pro gay marriage activists can pull at the heartstrings and appeal to those who truly do not understand the issue.

Two approaches that I have heard suggested: Do not refer to "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" being banned or stopped but say do not redefine marriage which is currently a unique relationship. This doesn't mean Joe and Bob can't love each other or visit each other or leave each other property in their will. It means you cannot decide to change an ancient societal norm.

The second is to state that marriage is the only institution that can bind children to their biological parents. In that it is unique. In that it provides stability for children and thus a more stable and prosperous society. All other arrangements between persons fail in that respect. To claim otherwise is to ignore the "god" of science.

One that I believe is also valid is that this turns human beings into commodities to be bought, sold, or bred like animals. Two men or two women are unable to procreate. This is the truth. Thus for homosexual partners to have children (other than adoption which is nearly impossible due to all of the abortions in this country) then the partners will use the very same technology that I used when breeding farm animals. In no way does this mean the resultant children are not blessings or God's creation but by making children a commodity, it is dehumanizing and objectifying.

I love your argument about our inherent nature. As you said a woman's nature is as a woman and is ordered toward conceiving and bearing a child even if circumstances prevent it. A man's inherent nature is as a man and as a father through joining with a woman. Nothing changes this nature and nothing allows two men or two women to be ordered toward this. Excellent!

Lisa


#7

[quote="manualman, post:1, topic:324053"]
It's not news to anybody on CAF ....

[/quote]

are you more offended that the gays call themselves "married" or by the economic arrangements they make between themselves?

F/


#8

[quote="Fairwinds, post:7, topic:324053"]
are you more offended that the gays call themselves "married" or by the economic arrangements they make between themselves?

[/quote]

More like I'm saddened and frustrated that the culture I live amongst no longer recognizes the basic building blocks of what marriage IS. If we hadn't lost that we'd not be having silly arguments about round squares or gay marriages.


#9

[quote="manualman, post:5, topic:324053"]

I suspect that if you really looked at statistics you'd find that gay couples that adopt are rarer than hetero couples that choose never to have kids (TV sitcom fiction characters don't count, mind you). That's a pretty big flip-flop, but I admit that it's totally assertion not in evidence at the moment.

But regardless the logical progression is irrefutable: If "gay marriage" is the same thing as hetero marriage, then the procreative aspect of marriage is irrelevant to that nature of marriage itself (not just "equally important" as you stated). If it's relevant than the difference is a difference and the two types of relationships are therefore NOT the same. No?

[/quote]

I see what you're saying about procreation being important to the definition of marriage, and I think it's a good point. I think, though, that pro-gay-marriage individuals will agree with what you say about them - that procreation isn't important to the definition marriage for them.

I think you're right about the 'less gay parents having kids than heterosexual parents not having kids' idea, though I'm not sure of the statistics. I think my workplace is a bit of an outlier - out of the 4 gay people I work with, 3 are in long-term relationships, 1 has 2 children and the other 2 are foster parents.


#10

[quote="Peter12rb, post:9, topic:324053"]
I see what you're saying about procreation being important to the definition of marriage, and I think it's a good point. I think, though, that pro-gay-marriage individuals will agree with what you say about them - that procreation isn't important to the definition marriage for them.

[/quote]

In fairness to the gay activists who feel this way, they didn't create the basic problem. American pop culture has been trying to redefine marriage to remove the procreative aspect of its identity for many decades now with great success. Once it was basic commons sense that marriage was a permanent union of a man and woman in a self-giving relationship that was fundamentally oriented towards having and raising babies.

But our cultural definition has gradually degraded to be merely "the union of a man and woman who feel love for each other, want to celebrate that love publicly and want it to last forever." When that's the best you can do for a definition of marriage, it's no wonder that people find it arbitrary and unfair to "exclude" gay people. So I don't think it's fair to blame the whole thing on gay activists either. They're just wanting in on the new definition for marriage our culture has already adopted. Who can blame them for that?


#11

I’m not talking about two gays who called themselves a married couple. I’m talking about two people who hold property as joint tenants, are each other’s insurance beneficiaries, take from each other’s wills, etc. and you wouldn’t know they were gay from the paperwork. In other words, they have the economic structure of marriage without using the name, “marriage”.

Are you still offended?

F/


#12

Our bodies are not designed for same sex activity. God and nature have made our organs to fit properly for procreation as nature always wants babies. Menopause is a natural thing, therefore, it does not change the nature of marriage. The couple probably had kids in earlier years. Nature knows what it is doing better than we do. Sterility does not change the nature of the sex act. The bodies are still designed to fit organ wise and is a natural
act. I believe that any sex act outside the heterosexual way is not natural. I do not believe anyone should change the definition of marriage. I certainly believe that the Catholic church cannot change her teaching on it, either.


#13

[quote="VeritasLuxMea, post:2, topic:324053"]
I understand what you're saying.

What about couples that cannot have sex, physically? (Due to handicaps, etc.) Should they not be allowed to get married?

What about couples that can have sex but can't necessarily reproduce? Should they not be allowed to get married?

What you're saying makes sense to me, overall... just don't understand how it applies to those cases.

[/quote]

I'm not gonna lie, I really don't understand why it would be so problematic to deny such people the legal contract of marriage. Legal marriage is not the same as natural marriage or sacramental marriage, but obviously normally accompanies it.

(I should note that couples that cannot physically have sex cannot ever enter into a valid marriage anyway so I don't think they are the best example to bring to the table anyway)

(Also, yes, I am aware that currently there is a canon law that says that one must be able to marry legally in order to marry validly, but this is a changeable aspect of canon law and if the countries laws about marriage were restricted to only fertile couples then I am sure this canon would be changed to allow an exception for infertile couples)


#14

[quote="Fairwinds, post:11, topic:324053"]
I'm not talking about two gays who called themselves a married couple. I'm talking about two people who hold property as joint tenants, are each other's insurance beneficiaries, take from each other's wills, etc. and you wouldn't know they were gay from the paperwork. In other words, they have the economic structure of marriage without using the name, "marriage".

Are you still offended?

[/quote]

I'm not sure what "offended" has to do with the discussion, but I'll answer anyways. Do I believe it's my business if two men own a home together, list each other in their wills, each have durable power of attorney for health care decisions, etc? Nope.

But I do have to wonder why we should extend the legal benefits of marriage to such relationships when the character of the relationship doesn't match the reason those benefits were established in the first place. We customarily allow a working person to get health care coverage subsidized by an employer for his spouse precisely because common sense understood that that spouse was likely to be home for significant periods of time unable to work due to maternity. This is the same reason widows can keep their spouse's Social Security benefits. This is why there is no estate tax when your spouse dies. Old time common sense recognized that marriage was a relationship that was ordered towards the financially brutal outcome of making and raising kids, so policies were put in place to at least partially offset those hardships. Why should two people who simply DON'T have that sort of relationship be given those benefits when the nature of their relationship is such that each is able to work his own way through life? Indeed, the financial reality is that gay couples have tremendously more financial resources on average than married couples do. In the big picture, there is no reason to extend those compensations to gay couples.


#15

[quote="manualman, post:14, topic:324053"]
I'm not sure what "offended" has to do with the discussion, but I'll answer anyways. Do I believe it's my business if two men own a home together, list each other in their wills, each have durable power of attorney for health care decisions, etc? Nope.

But I do have to wonder why we should extend the legal benefits of marriage to such relationships when the character of the relationship doesn't match the reason those benefits were established in the first place. We customarily allow a working person to get health care coverage subsidized by an employer for his spouse precisely because common sense understood that that spouse was likely to be home for significant periods of time unable to work due to maternity. This is the same reason widows can keep their spouse's Social Security benefits. This is why there is no estate tax when your spouse dies. Old time common sense recognized that marriage was a relationship that was ordered towards the financially brutal outcome of making and raising kids, so policies were put in place to at least partially offset those hardships. Why should two people who simply DON'T have that sort of relationship be given those benefits when the nature of their relationship is such that each is able to work his own way through life? Indeed, the financial reality is that gay couples have tremendously more financial resources on average than married couples do. In the big picture, there is no reason to extend those compensations to gay couples.

[/quote]

Good point and note that despite the claims that it's about "marrying whom you love" the reality is that the court cases are FINANCIALLY based, particularly the DOMA case. So what's love got to do with it? Not much. There are no restrictions against "love" no matter how or whom. But society has long understood that it has a vested interest in stable homes and financial support for families which provide the next generation.

Oh and I totally understand that homosexual couples can buy or breed a child just like I bred farm animals but is there any evidence that this practice is equivalent to a husband and wife raising their children? Does this sort of practice have the child's best interest at heart. I say no.

Lisa


#16

[quote="manualman, post:14, topic:324053"]
I'm not sure what "offended" has to do with the discussion, but I'll answer anyways. Do I believe it's my business if two men own a home together, list each other in their wills, each have durable power of attorney for health care decisions, etc? Nope.

But I do have to wonder why we should extend the legal benefits of marriage to such relationships when the character of the relationship doesn't match the reason those benefits were established in the first place. We customarily allow a working person to get health care coverage subsidized by an employer for his spouse precisely because common sense understood that that spouse was likely to be home for significant periods of time unable to work due to maternity. This is the same reason widows can keep their spouse's Social Security benefits. This is why there is no estate tax when your spouse dies. Old time common sense recognized that marriage was a relationship that was ordered towards the financially brutal outcome of making and raising kids, so policies were put in place to at least partially offset those hardships. Why should two people who simply DON'T have that sort of relationship be given those benefits when the nature of their relationship is such that each is able to work his own way through life? Indeed, the financial reality is that gay couples have tremendously more financial resources on average than married couples do. In the big picture, there is no reason to extend those compensations to gay couples.

[/quote]

it has to to with the conversation because I asked, and you more or less answered. don't take it personally. I'm surprised you're so hard on childless couples, but that's just how you see it.

thanks.


#17

[quote="VeritasLuxMea, post:2, topic:324053"]
I understand what you're saying.

What about couples that cannot have sex, physically? (Due to handicaps, etc.) Should they not be allowed to get married?

What about couples that can have sex but can't necessarily reproduce? Should they not be allowed to get married?

What you're saying makes sense to me, overall... just don't understand how it applies to those cases.

[/quote]

Actually, the Catholic Church will NOT marry someone who is physically unable to have sex, such as someone who has lost their genitalia through an accident, certain birth defects, certain (but not all) handicaps, etc., as consummation of the marriage is a requirement for it to be valid.


#18

[quote="LisaA, post:15, topic:324053"]
Oh and I totally understand that homosexual couples can buy or breed a child just like I bred farm animals but is there any evidence that this practice is equivalent to a husband and wife raising their children? ...

[/quote]

Even if there were such evidence, the relationship between the two adults itself is not itself ordered towards that outcome. There are homosexual people that make the decision to adopt or artificially inseminate, but that is a separate and conscious decision. The relationship itself doesn't incline them to that outcome the way a real marriage does. Genuinely married couples generally only avoid children if they make the same sort of conscious and deliberate decision, but in their case it is a decision NOT to have a child. See the difference? The relationship dynamics are reversed! Irregardless of whether two gay men or two lesbians can be good parents, the nature of their relationship isn't inclined to that outcome.

We moderns aren't used to thinking this way because we are so shallow. We're no longer used to looking below the surface at the nature of things, only at our desires and our wills.


#19

[quote="Fairwinds, post:16, topic:324053"]
... I'm surprised you're so hard on childless couples...

[/quote]

Good dig, but I already addressed this in post #3.


#20

[quote="manualman, post:19, topic:324053"]
Good dig, but I already addressed this in post #3.

[/quote]

its not a dig. I said, don't take this personally. not everyone here is trying to push your buttons. I'm personally surprised you're so hard on childless couples.

I'm like you, I don't care what economic arrangements gays make..


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.