Homosexual Marriage

[icelandic_iceskater]

Few weeks ago an atheist I know asked me why I'm against homosexual marriage. At the time I didn't really know much on the subject and I've been having a hard time asking some of her questions...

I explained how it can increase the divorce rate by undermining the meaning of marriage. She asks if black people get divorced more often and thus undermine the meaning of marriage, is that any reason to deny them the right to marry?

I showed how rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol and substance abuse, dependancy on psychiatric care, etc did not go down as the acceptance of homosexuals went up, and how it seems that the American Psychiatric Association removed it from its list of social disorders more from political pressure than medical evidence. She says even if it was a mental disorder thats no reason not to get married.

I tried to explain how you cannot separate the unitive aspect of sexuality from the procreative, but she's an atheist. I don't know any secular reasons why contraception is wrong. When I tried to explain it to her she replied with "So homosexuals cannot appreciate making love for anything more than lust and pure pervertedness?" and "Newslfash: sex is not only about having children. Newsflash: you can have sex, without wanting children or having the possibility to have children. Newslash: doing either of those things does not mean a person cannot "appreciate the fullness of sex."

She says that because I once pointed out a few benefits of heterosexual marriage "Isn't that basically saying that you do not think homosexuals have the right to be happy or healthy?"

When I mentioned promiscuity in homosexuals she says: "Have you ever been to a high school? How about you ban marriage for 95% of teenagers who sleep around."

Mainly she wants to know a political/legal reason (not regarding to religion) why "two people who love each other can't get married".

Sorry if that came out kinds long-ish. Thanks in advance for your help!

edit: O and I kinda need answers FAST. ty

Edited March 12, 2008 by icelandic_iceskater

[Theoketos]

Simply, unless society upholds that marriage is for union and procreation, society will fail. A homosexual marriage is for neither of those two things and so is therefore bad for society.


More complicatedly (Note how I am only going to use Reason so that this applies to even non-Christians);

First, anytime sexual powers are used outside the bounds of marriage is both harmful to the particular persons involved and therefore at the same time harms society at large. For what is bad for the person is bad for the common good. Homosexual "sex" or sodomy (which I would argue is violent and physically harmful), is never procreative, and so is inherently selfish. And so contracepted sex is wrong for the same reason!

Sex can only be properly ordered inside of marriage, which is a commitment to be faithful, fruitful, free, and total. If any of those for commitments are broken sex becomes disordered. It loses its true meaning or end. The twin purpose of sex is also union and procreation. The kind of commitment that orders sex to those two things only happens inside of marriage. When sexual acts happen outside of this commitment the persons involved are being used as things for some other purpose that is disordered. It is hurtful.

When procreation is removed from the sexual act, and the sexual act from marriage, then the purpose of the act is, again, selfish it is not fruitful. And so because it is willfully sterile, then it can never be fruitful and therefore never be marriage.

_____________ _______________ ______________


As a side not, but a very important one, the government does not have the ability to change the definition of marriage. If the government can change or attempts to change such things then it will eventually decide it can do what ever it wants. The definition of marriage is not just that it is between and a man and a woman, but a marriage is for the sake a family. Even an adoptive homosexual couple does not fit this definition. If the government does not accept transcendent truth then it will not be truthful at all and will become a dictatorship or moral relitivism.


_____________ _______________ ______________

Something else to think about...Many say that we should not or cannot legislate morality. In sentiment I agree, people have the freedom of speech and conscience. We should not take away rights that found in out nature. However saying that we should not or cannot legislate morality is itself to legislate a king of morality. It is not a question of why we should not or cannot legislate morality but of what morality we should legislate. I posit that it should be one based on something called natural law, which are things we can know by reason alone, and not on moral relativism which either leads to anarchy or totalitarianism.

Here is a great article that unpacks everything I have just said.

[url="http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/mlowery_homosexuality1_jun07.asp"]http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features200...lity1_jun07.asp[/url]

There is also a really good book about such things which can be bought here:

[url="http://www.catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1004188/Good-News-About-Sex-Marriage/"]http://www.catholiccompany.com/catholic-bo...t-Sex-Marriage/[/url]