Same Sex Marriages

[picchick]

I was just wondering how to defend marriage from a non religious point of view.

I know how to defend it to people who have faith of some kind but what about people who do not believe in God at all? I have tried to think of some logical steps to defend marriage but end up quitting or getting stuck.
I am always trying to find ways to defend religion and morals even to those who are not religious. Thanks

I have a few ideas
1. It is against nature. Man and women were made to produce offspring. "Adam and Steve" were not
that's it Any other ideas?

[phatcatholic]

these may help, from hananiah, one of our fellow apologists. i'm sure he won't mind if i link to his website

--[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/gaymarriageessay.htm"]Why the Government Should Not Legalize Homosexual Unions[/url]
--[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/gaymarriage.htm"]A Rational Argument Against Homosexual Marriage[/url]
--[url="http://www.cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html"]Homosexuality and Hope: A Statement by the Catholic Medical Association[/url]

if i have time, i will try to find some more for you. i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Crusader_4]

I am going to quickly reply an answer not using religion for those that disagree from a secular point of view.

1) you could as is it a right to get married? for example if i want to get married...but no one wants to marry me is it my right that i get married? (that works for people with poor arguments who are not bright) they will then say that what about two consenting males who want to get married should they be denied that option and i will say yes and here is why

2) Natural law proves against it. For example even if they redefine marriage and say that homesexuals can get "married" they are in fact not getting married only exchanging passions and thus it will always be less then a hetrosexual marriage even the worst hetrosexual marriage. Why? Because in a hetrosexual marriage it is not simply based on feelings marriage is the fundemental union of two people that can producne a third to continue the human race. It is within this setting that humanity has been designed to produce. It is within a union of a male and female that life can come between. If it was simple bassed on passions or feelings marriage is no different then two animals making love. It needs the intention of life or the openess to life wth a gay marriage this obvsiouly is not possible thus contradicting natural law. Now the first point they will bring up is what about sterile men and women...the simple argument here is their infertility is caused by a disease or a very certain circumstance rather then a whole gender which is universally wrong.

[Crusader_4]

Now Obvisouly if your debating with a religious person especially Catholic its not a very hard case to make i think. But when dealing with a non-religions agnostic or atheist its a little tougher.

[picchick]

thanks
That gave me more to build off of. I have never had to debate this topic with anyone but I always try to be prepared on the recent topics in today's world.

[Crusader_4]

Although not directly addressing the issue of Same-Sex Marriage Paul VI's historic Encyclical "Humane Vitae" is really prophetic and one can really understand the Church's position on a matter of sexual matters in particular contraception from that document as well its uses natural law and is very prophetic.

[Hananiah]

Wow, my website is Phatmass's primary resource for defending marriage. I'm flattered.

[Apotheoun]

The central argument against homosexual activity from reason alone is teleologically based and is founded upon the natural moral law which is discernible through the use of right reason (recta ratio). The way to approach the matter is to look at the final end of the conjugal act, which is twofold in nature, i.e., procreative and unitive. These two principles, the unitive and the procreative, are inseparably bound together, and this is why artificial birth control, adultery, masturbation, and homosexual activity, along with any other activities that frustrate the natural use and end of the sexual faculty are by definition immoral. Artificial birth control does not inhibit the unitive principle of the sexual act, but it does, by an act of the will, prevent the connatural procreative element, and thus it is disordered in its end. Adultery is disordered in that it is a misuse of the unitive principle of the sexual act, while it may or may not frustrate the procreative element depending on the use of artificial birth control on the part of the individuals involved. Homosexual activity is disordered in both cases, because two persons of the same sex cannot experience either the unitive principle or the procreative principle, and so homosexual acts are frustrated to an even greater degree than those mentioned above.

When looking at adultery, and homosexual activity in particular, it can be said that both actions are morally grave matter and are thus intrinsically disordered. But the Fathers of the Church would distinguish between the two acts by pointing out that adultery between a man and a woman, although it is gravely sinful in that it is disordered in its unitive principle, and may or may not be disordered in its procreative principle, is at the same time a natural act; while homosexual activity is disordered in both the unitive and the procreative principles, while at the same time it is an unnatural act. Clearly, the sinful character of the homosexual act is far greater than that of an act of adultery between a man and a woman; the former is an unnatural and sinful action, while the latter is a natural act which is sinful because it is done outside of the covenant of marriage.

It should also be noted that there may be some individuals who promote the idea that one is born a homosexual, but there is no scientific evidence to support this contention. Even if such a genetic predisposition were to be found, it would not excuse these acts because they are intrinsically and objectively disordered in their proper end. Take alcoholism as an example; there is some evidence to support the idea that certain people are born with a genetic predisposition to become alcoholic, but this predisposition does not negate human freedom and responsibility. A person with such a genetic problem is still a moral agent, and so he remains responsible for his own actions. He may have a genetic propensity toward becoming an alcoholic, but nevertheless he must exercise his free will in order to avoid becoming a drunkard. The same would hold if it were to be shown that there is a genetic factor underlying the homosexual inclination. Genetics and environment contribute to making up who a person is, but neither of these elements negate human freedom.

In addition, there is a terminological point that needs to be addressed. The Church does not subscribe to the politically correct term "orientation" when speaking about homosexuality; instead, it uses the term "inclination," which is related to the theological term "concupiscence." The term "orientation" indicates an ontological reality (i.e., a thing that exists substantially or essentially within a being), but this is not appropriate when speaking about homosexuality; instead, the term "inclination" is a better word, because it does not admit that homosexuality is a stable existing reality in the being or nature of the human person, but that it is merely an objectively disordered inclination tending toward an intrinsic moral evil, i.e., the homosexual act. The distinction is vital, and so the use of the term "orientation" should be avoided for the sake of clarity. Think of it this way, no one would ever think of saying that someone has an "orientation" to kleptomania, because the very idea is ludicrous. The individual may have an inclination to steal things, and they may be compulsive about it, but they still possess free will and can resist this objectively disordered inclination, although it may take great effort on their part to do so. To summarize: an "orientation" is a stable essential quality existing within a being; while an "inclination" is a disordered appetite directed toward a misuse of a natural faculty, which when acted upon is either venially or gravely immoral.

The difficulty you will experience in debating this issue with others concerns a distinction I made at the beginning of this response. RECTA RATIO (right reason). The use of right reason can show a person from a purely natural perspective that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered in its end, but the problem is that many people do not use "right" reason; instead, it would be better to say that they rationalize and try to accept immoral behavior as moral because it feels right to them, and so in reality they are not using reason at all. The best thing to do in a debate with such individuals is to remain consistent in your own terminology, and in this way to convey to them the objective moral truth about this topic. Clearly, they will try to get you to accept the politically correct terminology promoted by the media, but if you do that, you will immediately weaken your own case, because they are using terms formulated specifically to promote the homosexual agenda. In this situation it is still possible for you to make your viewpoint clear to them, but it is much more difficult.

The natural law is the light of right reason written into the very being of man, and thus it is man's participation in the understanding of the universe and how it operates, it is a participation in the divine Logos, and as a consequence it is immutable.

[phatcatholic]

wow.........excellent first post!

welcome to phatmass Apotheoun!!

i look forward to more insightful responses from you!

pax christi,
phatcatholic

ps: oh, one question tho. can you explain how homosexual sex does not achieve the unitive aspect of sex? thanks

[Cure of Ars]

[color=red]The Rupture between Sexuality and Marriage [/color]

Reflections on unnatural liberation


[color=red]by JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER [/color]



It logically follows from the consequences of a sexuality which is no longer linked to motherhood and to procreation that every form of sexuality is equivalent and therefore of equal worth. It is certainly not a matter of establishing or recommending a retrograde moralism, but one of lucidly drawing the consequences from the premises: [u]it is, in fact, logical that pleasure, the libido of the individual, become the only possible point of reference of sex. [/u]No longer having an objective reason to justify it, sex seeks the subjective reason in the gratification of the desire, in the most "satisfying" answer for the individual, to the instincts no longer subject to rational restraints. [u]Everyone is free to give to his personal libido the content considered suitable for himself.[/u]

Hence, it naturally follows that all forms of sexual gratification are transformed into the "rights" of the individual. Thus, to cite an especially current example, homosexuality becomes an inalienable right. (Given the aforementioned premises, how can one deny it?) On the contrary, its full recognition appears to be an aspect of human liberation.

There are, however, other consequences of this uprooting of the human person in the depth of his nature. [u]Fecundity separated from marriage based on a lifelong fidelity turns from being a blessing (as it was understood in every culture) into its opposite: that is to say a threat to the free development of the "individual's right to happiness." [/u]Thus abortion, institutionalized, free and socially guaranteed, becomes another "right," another form of "liberation."

[url="http://www.goodmorals.org/Ratzinger.htm"]http://www.goodmorals.org/Ratzinger.htm[/url]

[Apotheoun]

I will begin by pointing out that no act of the human will can separate the unitive and procreative principles of the sexual act, and to attempt to do so is by definition immoral. But in looking at the unitive principle alone, always bearing in mind that it can never legitimately be separated by any human intentionality from the procreative principle, it is possible to see the complimentarity of man and woman, and how these two beings complete and fulfill each other. A man finds his physical and psychological fulfillment in a woman, for it is only in this manner that he can find his completion in a communion of life and love that actually brings into being a single living entity, a family. Thus he discovers his humanity in the union of flesh that can only exist between himself and a woman, as head (man) and body (woman), which iconically mirrors the unity of Christ and His Church. He cannot find this unity of flesh in a person identical to himself, but can only find it in a person who, while fully human as he is, is nevertheless different from him, supplying him with that which his being lacks, i.e., the feminine principle. Masculinity and femininity are ordered to each other, and they fulfill and complete each other. Thus a man can only experience the union of flesh open to new life with a woman. It is impossible for two persons of the same sex to experience this unitive principle. All of this holds for a woman as well, for she can only find her fulfillment and completion in a man. So the differences between a man and a woman are ordered to a proper complimentarity, and this is something that is lacking between two persons of the same sex. The intimacy that can exist between a man and a woman, both physically and psychologically, and I would add 'spiritually,' is simply missing in a relationship between two persons of the same sex. That is not to say that two men cannot have a deep and abiding friendship and love for each other, but the love involved is of a different order and of an essentially different nature, because it can never find its fulfillment in a properly ordered and complimentary sexual expression. Biologically and psychologically a man is disposed and ordered to a relationship of love that is open to new life with a woman, and this is not possible in a same sex relationship. Our society is presently promoting an androgynous view of the human person. It wants to reduce sexual differentiation to culturally conditioned behaviors, and wants to say that we can alter these behaviors by social engineering. But this fails to take into account the deep biological and psychological differences which form a part of being a man or a woman. It is our duty as Catholics to proclaim the full human dignity and equality of men and women, but it is also our duty to proclaim unequivocally that although men and women are equal, they are not identical. It is precisely in their biological and psychological differences that they fulfill and compliment each other. Two persons of the same sex cannot do this. This truth can be seen when we look at divine revelation, but it can even be understood when we look at nature alone, for sexual differentiation is clearly intended for a communion of love open to new life. This is part of the 'imago Dei' found within in the human person, and same sex relationships disfigure this image and promote societal disorder, because they are not based on the truth about man, but are founded upon an ideology of freedom divorced from human nature.

[Cure of Ars]

Apotheoun, very well said.

[Guest JeffCR07]

truly, I'm impressed

[phatcatholic]

apotheoun,

dude, do u have a doctorate in theology or what! that was awesome.

both of your posts are going in the "theology of the body" entry of the reference section.

thank you for your monumental insight!

pax christi,
phatcatholic