This gives quite specific reasons for why homosexual marriage is undesirable.
It being fundamentally disordered is good enough for me
You always evaluate morality in light of the good. Throwing prohibitions around only goes in circles. Prohibitions and restrictions always point to and serve a higher good.
What is the good we are talking about in marriage?
The existence of human beings. It is good to be alive and made in the image of God. Marriage is the unique vehicle that participates in human existence and allows human beings to flourish.
Anything that attacks or detracts from that should not be promoted, because the existence of human beings is, well…kinda special.
(and please notice, I did not have to say one negative thing about our gay brothers and sisters there, and I didn’t have to throw any scripture passages around, so anyone can approach this idea)
People with SSA have fought for a type of liberty, on the one hand, and a type of legal protection, on the other hand. They probably deserve both, within the bounds of morality.
As poorly as SSA is understood, the people who are against SS unions have little to fear, except for exposure to SSUs when they would prefer not to.
SSUs don’t threaten the breakdown of marriage itself, in the slightest. Divorce still stands as the greater threat to marriage and will probably always will. Secularization is also a threat to marriage and the family.
We’re in an awkward period of adjustment to SSUs that liberals, in particular, have forced on society, directly or indirectly as an attack on the Church.
There’s a LOT of things not prohibited by the constitution of the U.S. and I’m sure I wouldn’t like a lot of those things when they come around.
The “lines” are drawn very clearly on the matter of SSUs. For a follower of Christ, a disciple, there is always the challenge to love our neighbor, even our enemy. None of us likes change, and this adjustment is a difficult one.
Except that most of them, in my opinion, aren’t true. For example, the author says, “When same sex marriages then end (and they do at a much higher rate), think of the ramifications on the children.” But same-sex marriages don’t end at a much higher rate:
The Netherlands’ Central Bureau of Statistics found that in the 15 years since the country passed marriage equality, same-sex couples have boasted a lower divorce rate overall than straight couples…
That research is backed up by a recent survey from the Williams Institute, which showed that the gay breakup rate is about half of what it is among their heterosexual counterparts: Overall, about two percent of married straight couples separate each year, compared to just one percent of gay couples. Those rates held steady in Britain and Wales: 2011 numbers from the Office of National Statistics showed that, since 2005, straight couples were twice as likely to call it quits.
And then the author, Marcel, says:
If we truly want what is best for another person, then we would never advocate same-sex marriage, because it takes a risk with another person in every realm of their life – mentally, socially, spiritually, physically, etc. Same-sex marriage and homosexual sex is not real love.
I don’t know what mental, social, spiritual and physical risks he imagines. Being in a stable, monogamous relationship would be better for most gay men than being single and living alone. Researchers have found that people in relationships live longer than those who live alone.
I don’t know why the author spends so much time trying to argue against SS marriages from a worldly point of view, when there are simple and suitable arguments from the argument of order and disorder.
A marriage exists to produce children… if a man and a woman cannot physically engage in the ‘marital act’, then their marriage isn’t valid either:
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
So it is nothing about their rights or freedoms, or any spiritual/mental/social risks… but that it will not be a marriage. Marriage is the fulfilment of the very first commandment: “be fruitful and multiply”. SS couples cannot do this, and so cannot be married.
Marriage is also a symbolic mirror with the relationship between Christ and his Church. Thus there must be a groom and a bride.
Generally speaking, same sex unions DO detract from marriage because most advocates claim those unions to be something they are not. Marriage equality is claimed, and not just in a civil and financial sense, but in a quasi sacramental and spiritual sense, and a familial sense. And those are deceptions.
Deception necessarily brings chaos and confusion which are not good for any institution.
And all you have to do is look at human history and observe the consequences of deceptions related to basic human realities. When human nature is obscured or denied, very bad things happen.
St Paul had it right, it’s not just sex that causes people problems, but the larger and more insidious problem of deception.
Not all couples (Hetro) can have children?
the church is against IVF treatment as if it is an unholy thing to try medical science to conceive of a baby and follow the commandment of God? baffling to me.
It’s not just about IVF. I know a couple who got married. Later on, the young lady found out she couldn’t have children. He didn’t abandon her. They were Christians but not Catholic.
The Church does not see science or the conception of a baby as unholy. It objects to conception outside the complete marital act.
The commandment of God you refer to is given to real human people in relationship with one another…
Better yet, what ISN’T wrong with homosexual marriage
In fact, it makes a series of claims either unsupported by evidence or supported by very weak evidence or question-begging arguments. Catholic oppose gay marriage because they think sex is moral only when within a valid marriage and open to conception. All these other ‘reasons’ are window-dressing to try to either widen the appeal of the argument or to distract from the fact that outside the Catholic Church almost no one shares this view of sexual morality. Catholics in my view should have the courage of their convictions and say what they really think and not argue from things like the claimed damage caused by having three people acting as parents.
Impotence is the inability to participate in the marital act; infertility is the inability to participate in conception.
This is not correct.
Here’s what morality is:
The evaluation of human acts in relation to the good.
The Catholic Church observes that it is good to be alive. Do you agree with that?
What is the one unique way human life happens? What is the one unique way that life flourishes?
On that basis, the Church simply observes what is revealed and proclaims it. If human life is good, and sacred, then shouldn’t we order our actions toward that good end? Is a gay union ordered in the same way toward that end as marriage? No. Do you assert otherwise?
It’s a very simple thing really, and doesn’t require a bunch of fancy scripture passages,and not one negative thing has to be said about gay people.
At the end of the day, it’s not about sexual prohibition or running others down, it’s about “the good” of human existence.
IMHO, at least 75% of the destruction of marriage occurred as the result of the acceptance of artificial birth control and no-fault divorce, with the original point of ddestruction being changing marriage the view that marriage is a xocenental relationship to being a mere contract.
The first broke down marriage by breaking the unity of sexual activity and babies. Sex no longer includes the potential of procreation, so sex can be had anywhere, anytime, with anyone.
No-fault divorce rendered the “contractual” aspect of marriage–marriage is no longer an agreement anyone can rely on. Marriage just becomes a fancier way of going steady.
All that SSM does is follow the logic set in place by the above.
You bring up a good point, which is that there is a difference between true marriage and secular or legal marriage. The first is according to what God wants, and the second is according to what people want.
We kinda need to say same-sex marriage, because it is legally a marriage; the idea of a union was scrapped.
Good article. But, I don’t know why Governments are passing such laws that allow homosexual marriages. They don’t know these relationships will destroy the social and family lives?
When they wouldn’t able to see their next generations. You know most of fathers work hard at offices to take their kids on a trip or gift new dress to their wives. Homosexuals would miss the kids. I understand, you will say they make their lives productive without having kids but keep in mind, it is against the nature.
There is no such thing as Homosexual Marriage; Marriage is a Catholic Sacrament.