Why Homosexual Unions are Wrong

HabemusFrancis, if it one stage you became estranged from your religion as you said then why are you still following their beliefs? Why can’t you move forward with the times? If there’s an orphan and a gay married couple wish to adopt the baby and they’re in a stable home and earning good money then what is your issue? Do you think it’s better for the child to grow up in the foster system and develop illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression? If you do think that’s better then I hope you never have children.

Grace & Peace!

The difficulty, though, is that the things expected of men and/or women are not universally identical in every culture. What is not present in every instance of a thing cannot be said to be essential to the thing. To the extent to which gender roles vary from culture to culture, that is the extent to which it is impossible to speak of a fundamental right to experience any of those particular encultured expression of that role. I.e., to say that we all have a specific right to a mother’s love is one thing, but what we might recognize as a mother’s love in our particular culture may be more analogous to a father’s love or a sibling’s love or an aunt’s love or a cousin’s love in another culture. We may find some other culture’s notion of motherly love unreasonable and unmotherly. It would be more appropriate to recognize that a child does well to receive a certain quality of love from its caregivers, a quality we have come to call “motherly love” because of the way our particular culture has developed. Which is to say, it’s difficult to see how we can say that certain ways of performing gender are essential to a particular sex or naturally arising from a particular sex if those ways of performing (as well as the sexes that perform them!) vary from one culture to another

It simply will not do to assume that our cultural expectations of men or women constitute a universal law–it is therefore unreasonable to assume that modelling our expectations to a child in our particular cultural way is in any way constitutive of or exhaustive of a child’s right to love and care. If we did make that assumption, we wouldn’t actually be talking about qualities intrinsic to one sex or another that are somehow necessary for a child’s development, but qualities intrinsic to our culture’s understanding of the sexes.

Is there an essential man-ness or woman-ness that is not culturally mediated, that naturally radiates from a man or woman by virtue of their sex and that is necessary for a child to absorb via regular proximity to both a man and a woman, the absence of which proximity constitutes an unjust hardship for the child? Perhaps–and maybe someone could elucidate what those essential,* sui generis* and un-culturally mediated things are. This is not to say that I don’t believe a child does best with both a mother and a father who love and care for it. I do, in fact, believe that a child does best with a mother and a father who love and care for it, and I believe as I do for largely cultural reasons. But it’s also clear that gender complimentarity alone cannot magically lighten the burden of having a mother and a father who are abusive or apathetic or not fit parents. Moreover, the socio-economic conditions of a household may play at least as important a role in a child’s development as the complimentarity of its parents’ sexes (see the “word gap” studies for more info). All of which is to say, in one way or another: it doesn’t make any sense to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Under the Mercy,

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

You should try the non-catholic religions forum. This forum is for Catholic answers involving Catholic moral theology.

Good luck and welcome to the forums.

The need for a child to have both a father and a mother is one important point.

Another argument against single-gender unions as marriages: A man and a woman have everything necessary within their union to procreate children. (It is true that, in practice, some may not be able to procreate, due to a defect in one or both.) However, by definition, two men or two women lack what is needed, and require some outside intervention to have children. The two situations are not really very similar, even by analogy.

I think the question is what happens when there are no children to be adopted out and homosexual couples want children? because people have set it up as the norm for family.

**I believe the only way homosexual couples can get children is for heterosexual couples to do the wrong thing **

Either they concieve with intent to deprive the child of of their biological mother or father, or **** happened, the former I believe is gravely immoral and the latter I at least understand, but in any case I believe it provides them with an incentive for heterosexual couples to do the wrong thing when it comes to children.

Thank you for reading

When we are talking about ‘institutions’ like marriage or justice or medicine…we are conceiving of universal ‘standards’ that informs the rules and laws and practices of society. That some people defy that standard, doesn’t negate the standard. For example, some people reject immunisation of their children and in a highly immunised community, those unimmunised children will likely remain disease free their whole lives. That doesn’t mean that the standard ie. immunisation, is unnecessary. It means that some people can live ‘alternatively’ without consequence, but only due to the standard that exists to which other people adhere.

Similarly with hygeine; the standard is to wash hands after toileting or handling unhygeinic things. The fact that many people don’t wash hands after these activities and remain disease free… is due to a societal standard that most responsible people adhere to out of respect for societal health. Even small children can appreciate a rule or standard without understanding the longrange reasons for the rule or standard… because within every human, we have the ability to appreciate ‘standards’ as the protector of human health and survival.

Marriage, the ‘standard’ which defines the business of procreation and family, will continue to safeguard the wellbeing and dignity of the human race, even if some defy that standard in their own lives through ignorance or selfishness… but how shortsighted and dangerous to think that if some people can survive in non traditional unions, than traditional marriage is unnecessary and defunct.

…which sounds like an excellent argument for dispensing with those standards. :shrug:

Why raise a generation of bigots who will mock each other for not conforming to arbitrary roles?

There are many family ills the church speaks out against and which afflict our society. But I still think being raised by a homosexual couple is the worst one. Yes. Worse than a divorced couple, worse than a single parent, and worse than adoptive heterosexual parents.

Because with all of the above, there is a mother and father figure in the childs life, or at least hope of one in the case of the single parent. I just feel the whole pretense of gay parenting is dishonest, the idea of having two parents of the same gender ( an impossibility.)

Furthermore, I think it is essential for the gay couple to not want their child to know who their father or mother worse ( it would be terrible if the father were just some sperm donor… yet I fear that is getting increasingly common…)

Also, many teenagers deal with unhapiness and insecurity. To have two gay “parents” would be throwing just one more odd and confusing thing to the mix. I think it goes without saying that a mother and father ( even adoptive ones) is a more preferable option than gay parents.

The above mentioned imperfections (single parents, adoption) are just safe guards or a good thing rendered imperfect by circumstance. With gay parents, it seems misguididely that the unideal circumstance for a child, is the only way they can have kids themselves. I don’t want to believe gay couples motives are that selfish, yet part of me stronlgy believes it to be so…

But America is a single culture nation, a “melting pot” if you will. In a melting pot, all ingredients are melted together into one new substance. The opposite of the Melting Pot theory is the Kaleidescope theory, in which multiple cultures live simultaneously separated… Just imagine a kaleidescope. :shrug:

Wouldn’t the kaleidoscope theory be naturally more segregated while the Melting Pot theory more of a ‘single-culture’? Now if the US is one big culture, then why would we want to raise children under a culture that is not the main line culture? Oh wait, I get it now -progressives want to change the culture.

…they want to change it from God to no God. Or all gods equal -if they’re melting pot type progressives. :wink:

…but why? Why change it now after thousands of years?

The question you pose is internally inconsistent, and declaring the question to be hypothetical cannot circumvent that problem. As such, the question has no meaning. By definition, for we humans, procreation requires male + female, for that is what the words mean.

Interesting point, and almost begs the question whether gay marriage, where a child is to be procured via conception, should intrinsically be a union of three (or four under some scenarios)?:wink:

Well thought out and a great post!

What if there is a child with special needs that no heterosexual sexual wants to adopt (and there are many) and a homosexual couple wants to?

Is your question “is it better for the child to remain in institutional care or to be adopted by a gay couple”? I can’t answer that - I don’t know the likely outcomes of institutional care, nor of parenting by gay parents.

I can only say that, other things being equal, a heterosexual couple is a preferable choice. Why? Because it provides the more natural family unit, which for millennia our nature has preferred (by a large margin). And if one wishes to introduce morality into the discussion, it avoids exposing the child to an immoral environment (homosexual relations) presented as normal.

That’s not what I was talking about, but in that case, I know that when it comes to adoption, there is no “one size fits all.” So I do not know what advice to give, too many variables.

I do know however, that for homosexual couples to have children, it requires the removal of a third party (biological mother or father e.g. surrogacy or IVF), or both (biological parents e.g. adoption). Is this something that you think should be encouraged? The former with IVF or surrogacy I believe is gravely immoral and I at least understand that when it comes to adoption unfortunatly it happens that children need adopting, but to encourage this? is this the new family ‘norm’ society wishes to advocate?

Thank you for reading

That’s like saying if I don’t have breastmilk/milk to feed my child but I have a fridge full of beer to quench it’s thirst, why wouldn’t that do? You don’t do it. The childs needs are very specific. Give it beer, which it will suckle hungrily due to thirst, and it’ll be nourished by poison. Just because something will be accepted by a vulnerable child who is hungry, doesn’t mean it is in the childs best interest.

A tip for you, my friend: If you’re going to defend the notion that America should be a Melting Pot, avoid using the term “Melting Pot” at all costs. It was originally a derogative term used by those who disliked the idea that America dilutes other cultures over time. It was meant to insult the act of assimilating other cultures, not to applaud it.

Wouldn’t the kaleidoscope theory be naturally more segregated while the Melting Pot theory more of a ‘single-culture’?

Under a very loose interpretation of the word, yes. But “segregation” typically has the connotation of involving force or oppression. That is precisely the opposite of what I’m advocating. I would allow other cultures to live in peace rather than pressure them to conform to the “main” culture. In other words, any segregation that would occur is purely voluntary and would be quite unlike the segregation between blacks and whites before the 60s.

Now if the US is one big culture, then why would we want to raise children under a culture that is not the main line culture?

Just because something is unusual doesn’t mean it is harmful. If you eat a different cuisine than most other people, that doesn’t make it right for them to criticize you. Why should they? You aren’t hurting anyone.

…but why? Why change it now after thousands of years?

America/British colonies had slavery for centuries. Why did we change that after all those years?

Strictly speaking, procreation doesn’t require such an arrangement. Look up “parthenogenesis”. Again, males and females are defined by their sex chromosomes, nothing more.

That’s weird. As an Australian born in the early 60’s, I’ve known the idea of ‘melting pot’ to be very positive. It conveys the dropping of racial and class prejudice in favour of recognising the value of a person for who they are. What country are you from to have conceived it so negatively? The middle East perhaps? You are way off there.

Just because something is unusual doesn’t mean it is harmful. If you eat a different cuisine than most other people, that doesn’t make it right for them to criticize you. Why should they? You aren’t hurting anyone.

That would depend on what you are promoting as cuisine. Cats and dogs aren’t acceptable cuisine in our culture. Neither are certain poison fish or mushrooms. Some cultures accept things as edible due to desperation or ignorance. There is a group of people addicted to inedible things also. This comes from some form of misinformation. These things are objectively detrimental to the human diet though.

Strictly speaking, procreation doesn’t require such an arrangement. Look up “parthenogenesis”. Again, males and females are defined by their sex chromosomes, nothing more.

No coupling has ever produced progeny from their union except a male and female. That’s 101 in every discipline that deals with human nature.

That question was asked of me. Institutions, however well run, can never give that individual love. Surely, a terminally ill child or a severely physically disabled child would appreciate a home and love shown to him, even if it is by a gay couple? No straight couples want him let’s suppose.

What about children in a household where both parents see nothing wrong with having affairs although they treat their kids with love? Should those children be removed ?

My view has been that gay couples should not adopt I could not however, answer that question put to me. I have been thinking about the issue and it would seem that not being able to adopt appears to be a punishment placed on homosexuals. Heterosexuals who sin are not told to give up their children.

Sorry, this is off-topic.

Where the sin is understood to represent a continuing danger to the children, the state may well remove them. For example, if the parents hold orgies in the home, or make adult movies, or whatever, without adequately insulating the children from access to this activity.

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.