In between trying to get my site feed up and running, I have been having some interesting discussions here
Joe- the blogger asked: But aside from theology, why are people so afraid of civil unions for gays and lesbians? What difference will it make in your own life unless you, yourself, are tempted into homosexual marriage and feel you need the force of civil law to keep your urges in check?
Here is part of that conversation.
Me: Joe, Republicans are human beings subject to the same human frailties and failings as you or I. Ted Kennedy drowning his girlfriend certainly springs to mind). Therefore your list of “divorced”Republicans is a strawman.
BTW, who could dare to have anything but admiration for Nancy Reagan, wife of President Reagan for 50+ years, who is now his primary caregiver as his Alzheimer’s disease progresses!
What difference will it make in your own life unless you
Homosexual marriages (a direct descendent of the contraceptive revolution BTW) will further decrease the birth rate (see population rates in Europe). That has a number of consequences, including social and economic.
Further, homosexual couples who go for surrogates or other artificial means of conceiving reduce the male and female roles to pure biology. Womb for rent! Sperm for sale!
Lastly, homosexual couples are really saying that there is no need for a “mother” or a “father.” That those rolls are superfluous, unnecessary, and easily replaced.
John: Although I can’t buy into the gay marriage argument totally, you make some valid points in your blog article. I just thought I would let you know that your article is well-written and organized.
The best question you raise is why several politicians are arguing for the sanctity of marriage while having been divorced, some more than once or under less than flattering circumstances. The only reason I can arrive at as to why so many are divorced and arguing for the sanctity of marriage is that most of these politicians are of Protestant or Hebrew beliefs, where divorce, while not encouraged, is permitted. It is not a Catholic belief in marriage permanence.
God Bless,
John
Me: That’s very true John. We can’t expect non-Catholics to hold to Catholic standards although we can encourage and pray for them.
I addressed that on my blog
here
I still have to shake my head at using the Reagans as an example of not honoring the sanctity of marriage. It seems to me they are the epitome of “good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”
Joe: I generally agree with your last point. Divorce should be made more difficult. Why should heterosexuals care if the gay minority seeks some semblance of marriage?
Of course, on the theological side, I would argue in classic liberal fashion that the Church needs to find a better way to reconcile divorced and re-married Catholics – maybe something like the Eastern Orthodox solution. I’m not trying to beat up or pass judgement on the divorced. Rather, Iam simply saying divorce causes more harm to society.
From the viewpoint of civil law, divorce causes more harm to the institution of marriage than permitting gays to marry. Indeed, affirming love between two people – even if they are gay – would only strengthen marriage. But allowing easy “no fault” divorce is disasterous to the institution of marriage.
Elena – My response to Art addresses the concern you have about why I point out how many Republicans are divorced. I am not trying to say Democrats are better (Clinton and Lewinsky are an even better example of Democrat immorality). My point is not to simply point out people’s faults – but to point out the direct threat to the institution of marriage that people’s life-style choices present!
Regarding your second post, I am not concerned about the population rates in Europe either way. I do not believe the world is even close to being overpopulated, nor am I concerned if the population decreases. I simply do not see how population growth plays into the moral consideration.
Indeed, if the concern is that that European culture will be subsumed by other cultures, I detect a hint of racism in such fears. My wife is Black African (from Afraica) and Catholic. If African or Latino Catholics become the dominant Catholic culture in the Church, that causes me no fear or concern whatsoever.
Even if the White race were bred out of existence through intermarriage and lack of population growth, I don’t really care. If it’s never bred out of existence, that causes me no concern either. In other words, the preservation of race and European culture is simply a non-issue to me, while the preservation of Catholicism is important to me. Catholicism and European culture are not identical.
Me: Joe, I’m hispanic. English is my father’s second language! Hopefully this puts aside your fear of bigotry on my part.
Joe I simply do not see how population growth plays into the moral consideration.
Me: You didn’t ask about a moral consideration. You asked what difference will it make in your own life. Anything that affects the society, like the declining population in Europe, will eventually in some way affect my life in some way. Direct answer to your direct question.
Joe:
I see your point that a decline in birth rates does have an effect, even if the effect is not a moral effect. Thanks for explaining.
Thanks also for the clarification of on the issue of race and culture.
I’m with Arty, however, in that I do not believe that gay marriage would contribute to declining birth rates in any significant way.
Lesbians are having children through IVF and other means. Most homosexual males are not having biological children whether they are allowed to legally marry or not. Those gay males who do want children will tend toward adoption.
Though you and I have disagreed on the morality of contraception, we can both agree that the contraceptive mentality has a far greater impact on birth rates than whether gays marry or not.
If we perceive the effect of declining birth rates to be problematic, even if not morally problematic, the solution to the problem more likely to spend our energy fighting the contraceptive mentality.
Which goes back in a way to why I write my article.
Personally, I believe heterosexuals have made a mess of the institution of marriage. We’ve done this by making divorce too easy. We’ve also done this through a growth in the pornography industry, and frequent adultery. We’ve done this through fornication and “living together”. Maybe the contraceptive mentality has even contributed.
The fact that gays wish to marry and adopt children is not a threat to marriage. Indeed, the fact that people want to get married and raise children is probably a boost to an already faltering institution.
Those who believe denying people the right to a civil union somehow strengthens marriage are actually doing further damage to the institution of marriage. The more people who show that committed love is possible, the better.
And again, I am not arguing this on purely theological grounds. I am arguing on purely pragmatic and secular grounds of social conservatism that if marriage is a worthy institution to promote, allowing gay civil marriages is a shot in the arm to a weakened institution.
Me: Joe, Gays marrying is part of the contraceptive mentality – the mentality that for almost 30 years has said it is fine to have sex for pleasure and deliberately make the act infertile. If you have enough people who buy into that, gay or straight, you have a declining birth rate.
Secondly, if you believe that heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage because of the high divorce rate, pornography, fornication etc. then you absolutely have to blame the widespread use and acceptance of contraceptives. There’s no question of that.
Thirdly, not all gays and lesbians want to adopt. There was something in the news this week about a clinic in England I think that wanted to offer reproductive services specifically to lesbians. Rosie O’DOnnell’s and Melisssa Ethridge’s partners both conceived artificially. They want to have their own biological children which again goes back to my second point that it reduces reproduction to pure biology, and the egg and sperm as commodities.
Those types of changes in public outlooks will most definitely have an affect on my life.
Joe: Gays marrying is part of the contraceptive mentality – the mentality that for almost 30 years has said it is fine to have sex for pleasure and deliberately make the act infertile.
Gays are not delibertely making the sex act infertile. When two gay people love one another, and are committed to each other, it is more akin to heterosexual couples who are infertile. Infertile heterosexual couples are not deliberately making married sex infertile. Rather, it is simply an unfortunate part of life – the cross we all bear.
Secondly, if you believe that heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage because of the high divorce rate, pornography, fornication etc. then you absolutely have to blame the widespread use and acceptance of contraceptives. There’s no question of that.
Whatever connection you make between divorce, pornography, fornication, etc…to a married couple using contraception is not as obvious to many as you imply. After all, from the theological perspective, the Church does permit couples to limit the number of children, and even implies they have a responsibility to do so at times.
This is precisely why I see the Church’s teaching as illogical and inconsistent. It’s not so much that the Church condemns contraception that bothers me, as that the Church allows and even encourages natural family planning in some instances, implying there are moral reasons to limit the number of children.
If there is such a thing as a moral obligation to limit children at times, I cannot understand the distinction in means that the Church teaches. Contraceptive techniques that are not abortificient seem as natural to me as taking aspirin for a headache, and perhaps more natural than the techniques involved in NFP.
However, above, I was arguing that if we ignore theology, and argue that for purely secular reasons, marriage is an institution worthy of defense, and the effects of decreased population are negative, it would be more effective to fight the contraceptive mentality than to worry about gay marriage.
What I am saying is that social conservatives concerned about the issues ought to be arguing that NFP is wrong!
You ought to be arguing that it is wrong to marry without the intent to have as many children as possible. Yet, to make this argument is to dissent from Humanae Vitae just as surely as those who dissent in the other direction by using contraception.
I also think you’d have a hard time selling most women on the notion that to be married means to have as many children as biological possible.
Thirdly, not all gays and lesbians want to adopt.
Neither do all infertile heterosexual couples. Are they also a threat to the institution of marriage?
Me:
Of course they are! IT is physiologically impossible for two females or two males to make a baby. The only purpose for two same sex people to have sex is pleasure period. They simply aren’t called to a marital union and as the Theology of the Body teaches us, the truth is written in their bodies.
For infertile couples it is a different story. It is God who is co-creator of a new life, and as the catechism says, some couples through no fault of their own are called to express their openness to new life in other ways. The truth of this is also written in their bodies.
Whatever connection you make between divorce, pornography, fornication, etc…to a married couple using contraception is not as obvious to many as you imply.
I realize that. It is now the norm of the culture and current generations may even be unaware that prior to 1930, not a single Christian denomination condoned contraception.
After all, from the theological perspective, the Church does permit couples to limit the number of children, and even implies they have a responsibility to do so at times.
The Church also clearly states that children are a gift and a blessing and that they can only be limited for grave or serious reasons, and then only by licit means – which does not include contraception.
If there is such a thing as a moral obligation to limit children at times, I cannot understand the distinction in means that the Church teaches.
The church says for grave or serious reasons. The church never says that if you conceive that budget busting baby that you did so immorally! In fact there is language that expresses that parents be generous to life.
Joe: Contraceptive techniques that are not abortificient seem as natural to me as taking aspirin for a headache, and perhaps more natural than the techniques involved in NFP.
Me: DOn’t kid yourself. There is nothing natural but altering your normal healthy anatomy, or artificially manipulating a healthy endocrine system to avoid a natural process of conception and pregnancy.
decreased population are negative, it would be more effective to fight the contraceptive mentality than to worry about gay marriage.
Joe – this push for gay marriage is the result of the contraceptive mentality! This is all connected.
You ought to be arguing that it is wrong to marry without the intent to have as many children as possible.
Well actually I think that is the ideal intent.
Yet, to make this argument is to dissent from Humanae Vitae just as surely as those who dissent in the other direction by using contraception.
“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children.
Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.” HV 9
Todd:
“The only purpose for two same sex people to have sex is pleasure period.”
Unbelievable. People also have sex to strengthen the bond of love. Even the Church concedes there is somthing more to sex than pleasure or conceiving children.
Your earlier comment on population decline is ridiculous. If gay people can’t couple, I wonder how many would really choose a heterosexual partner. And if some gay people did, I can’t imagine wanting to be the heterosexual partner in such a relationship: living a complete lie about the gay partner having a natural attraction to me. Being gay isn’t a choice. And for whatever level gay activity might be sinful, deception in such circumstances is certainly gravely sinful.
I think our host makes some excellent points on the social front. And marriage as a heterosexual institution is more endangered by what is within it than what is outside it.
Me: And something for Todd:
It’s on the end of Marriage in Scandinavia.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.p
Here’s an excerpt:
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern–including gay marriage–is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.
That’s all for now fellas – My oldest is swimming in the championships this afternoon!
Todd: Somehow I have a hard time seeing a connection of the decline of marriage with committed gay activity. Gay marriage will produce no more gay people. Anywhere. All it does is permit homosexuals to make a legal commitment to each other. If anything, it might enrich divorce lawyers.
Scandinavian citizens might have a problem with marriage for a whole host of other reasons. It could be lack of sunlight in the winter, an insufficient percentage of the populace being committed to religion, or even electromagnetic effects from the aurora borealis. Gay activity in the world has also been on the upswing since the defeat of Hitler, but I wouldn’t dream of connecting those dots.
Me: The original question was what effect do I think it would have in my own life. Asked and answered – with an example given. Again, sorry you don’t see it that way but it really does encourage me to work harder to oppose the liberal/Catholic/American agenda.
Todd: A few things:
Perhaps health insurance should be standard for extended family members living at the same address. Say, for example, I wanted to take my aging mother into my home instead of send her to a care facility. If my family and I felt we could care for her in her final years, and she had what she needed, why shouldn’t I (or hundreds of thousands of other Americans) have the benefit of health coverage for this? Would society be better for my daughter getting to live with her grandma as opposed to visiting her once a week at a nursing home?
Smokers and drunk drivers also cut into “my share of the pie,” but that’s part of life. On the ai and surrogate mom front, neither is a good option for straight couples, much less gays. If government should do anything it should make the adoption system easy and safe, not to mention strongly encouraged for the greater good of society.
You seem to labor under the misconception that homosexuality is made not born. A heterosexual will always be better off with a spouse of the opposite sex. However, if your son was gay by genetics or through early childhood influences, would you prefer he hide his root orientation and deceive a woman into marriage? Live a celibate lifestyle as a hermit? Or have the option of a committed relationship with one person. Option number one makes few people happy. And I wouldn’t begrudge anyone the possibility of making choices two or three.
I would hope that your son realizes that while all sin has social consequences, not everything is within his power (or yours or mine) to control. For you and I, a homosexual option is not “equal,” and never will be because we are not gay. For a gay person, traditional marriage is not “equal” either; it is a lie at best, and at worst, a largely unachievable dream.
And lastly, most every gay person I’ve known has had friendships with the opposite sex. I think your suggestion that some women don’t need men or some men don’t need women is a little extreme. Not everything revolves around sex, you know.
Me: 1. Todd, what you are talking about is socialized medicine! Want your taxes to double and wait 6 months for a necessary operation? Move to Canada!!
2. You can’t get adoptions to be easier, because you have a baby shortage, because of abortion. And you have abortion because people think that need to control reproduction i.e. the contraceptive mentality. Are you starting to connect the dots yet?
3.Homosexuals are made, not born and there is no indisputable research that says otherwise.
4. Read that article on Marriage in Scandinavia – that’s what people are concerned about!
5. Not everthing revolves around sex. Joe doesn’t see it that way. On the Curt Jester blog he said just the opposite.
Or maybe that was Dave Armstrong’s blog?
John G: Cripes. Are any of you actually gay? I find this all amazing really. Jcecil3, you did a good job with your blog. There is no reason for anyone to be worried about such a thing, and homosexuality isn’t the cause of population decline in European countries, it’s a result of socioeconomic evolution. As countries are richer and more educated they tend to have smaller families. Poorer countries have higher birth rates because there is less of a chance that all the kids will survive. It’s also a means of social security, that one kid will be around to take care of the parents when they are old or that one of the kids will make it big and be able to send home money. When people are busy with careers and there are better healthcare systems, there isn’t a need to have as many kids, if any. Old, advanced countries therefore have a negative population growth. It’s not religion or homosexuality at all. It’s cultural geography 101.
And Elena, I’m gay, and I was born gay, not made gay. You are crazy to believe that someone is made gay. I’d like to know ONE gay person that believes they were made gay and not born that way. I’m sure my very religious parents and small town upbringing didn’t raise me to be gay. I did Sunday School, Youth Group, and Helped at the Church regularly. I did boyscouts and youth sports. Tell me, which of those MADE me gay?
Med: John, I direct you to Joe’s original question which was how do those of us who oppose same-sex unions feel that it will affect our life. One doesn’t need to be gay to respond to that.
Secondly, it doesn’t matter what you “believe” John. Where is the scientific proof that homosexuals are born that way? As of yet there has not been any indisputable proof (i.e. a gay gene)and there is a substantial amount of work showing that it is environmental.
John G Elena –
HELLO!?! I am living proof that you are born gay! What more proof do you need? Elena, I ask you, do you think you were born without a certain sexual preference and somewhere in your life you had to decide if you were gay or straight? When did you first realize you were straight? Have you always known you were straight? Or did you just not think about it and you just had natural born feelings inside you that you are straight? Think about it.
As straight people don’t decide they are going to be straight, gay people don’t decide they will be gay. You’re born with it. Unless you can prove to me that there is a gene that makes you straight, I can only assume that being straight is also environmental.
Me: You know what they say about assumptions John? Nonetheless yours is an inductive reasoning fallacy and as such does not take the burden of proof off of you to prove your premise. “Feelings” are not proof.
Arty I now understand better Elena what you meant in saying how civil unions would “affect your life”. But where I would differ would probably be to say that to deny people liberties based on a perception of detriment to yourself, you have to at least have rock solid evidence of the detriment.
And I think maybe tenuous connections are being made, and dots being joined, that wouldn’t really hold up to the most stringent analysis.
Me: We deny people liberties all the time and if we didn’t we would have anarchy. For what it’s worth gays and straights have the same liberties- neither one is allowed to marry some one of the same sex, or someone under age, or take two spouses, or marry a sibling, etc.
John G
Ha ha ha. Well why on earth would a straight person want to marry someone of the same sex? A gay person would. Same liberties. Ha!
If we have the same liberties then why don’t gay life partners recieve the same benefits as straight life partners?
You are right about denying some liberty to maintain order. But where does it stop? How many liberties can you deny before you are oppressing? Hitler denied liberties too, but certainly he took them too far….how far are we going to go to “stop the gayness”? We denied blacks liberties too, but when we look back we think that was just awful. History has taught us that denying liberties for classes or races or just plain any group of people has been bad. The blacks, the jews, the women, the protestants, the list goes on….how many more before we learn?
Joe:
I was away a bit, but glad to see such discussion continuing. I want to clarify something Elena alluded to.
On the Curt Jester’s site, he stated something to the effect that Jesus never challenged the institution of marriage.
I responded that his teaching to leave family for the sake of the Gospel and his own celibate life-style were a radical witness that marriage and family are not the absolute center of the Gospel.
I then went on to say that Jesus’ close relationship with men suggested that males need to learn to be more loving to one another.
I suggested that gay unions could be a witness to all men that we should love one another, just as heterosexual marriage is a witness that opposite sexes can love one another.
Then – and this is the part that really bugged Elena – I stated that the Church has already blessed the idea men living together in a very close, intimate and committed relationships already. We call it priesthood.
Someone other than Elena got upset that I would even hint that there is a homoerotic undertone to the priestly life-style – even among chaste or heterosexual priests. I stated that all life-style choices of this magnitude have a sexual dimension, and that all our relationships have a sexual component.
I suggested that there is a sexual dimension to all human relationships. I experience myself as heterosexual, meaning that I am not consciously aware of sexual fantasies and temptations of a same sex nature.
However, I am consciously aware that I am attracted to some men more than others – and for reasons I don’t always understand. I gravitate toward certain people. Sometimes it a person’s sense of humor or intelligence, but other times, I have to admit that it must be something like appearence.
Ideally, we Christians should treat everyone with fairness and equity, and we should respect all people, and even love all people.
Yet, in reality, we are each attracted to certain specific people – not only of the opposite sex, but also of the same sex.
Even Jesus shared a special relationship with “the beloved disciple” and with Peter – a relationship that was deeper than with someone like Nicodemus, who was also a follower of Christ.
I stated on the Curt Jester’s blog that this attraction we have toward people is somehow sexual. Elena took great offense at this, pointing out that her best friend of 20 years whom she loves dearly has never sexually excited her.
But I’m not saying that subconscious, pre-conscious or unconscious sexual attraction leads to conscious lust for anyone. I am merely saying that the invisible force of attraction between any two people has a sexual component that may not be in our consicous awareness. In this sense, sexuality influences almost every relationship we have.
I believe that some people are more powerfully and consciously aware of the sexual nature of this attraction than others. I believe that homophobia often arises out of sexual confusion for some of these people.
In a society that promotes heterosexuality, and threatenes punishment (either in this life or the next) to homosexuals, a person who is consiously aware of sexual attraction to both sexes is more frightened by the homosexual side than the person who is not consciously aware of any same sex attraction. Such people react in fear to homosexuality because it threatens them with a temptation.
People who are confused about their own sexuality are also more likley than others to assume that homosexuality is a choice.
By the way, I find the scientific evidence for a genetic dimension to homosexuality darn near overwhelming, even if we haven’t isolated a specific gene yet. We haven’t isolated the “short gene” yet, but I’m pretty certain I was born that way, and did not chose to be short!
Most people simply are not confused about their sexual orientation. Those who are confused are generally the most homophobic. But I’m not saying all homophobes are gay or bisexual either. For all I know, there is a Republican gene too.
While we all may have a hetero and homo sexual side as I am defining it – a side that plays out even in our choice of non-sexual friends – most people know who and what makes our heads spontaneously turn, and our knees get weak, and our hearts go pitter patter. For the vast majority of people who know they are gay or straight, the whole question of chosing orientation is simply nonsense. We may chose how we will treat people. None of us choses our attractions!
I also believe that almost all of the Church’s teaching against homosexuals has been historically rooted in the fact that an all male celibate clergy attracts a large number of homosexual men who cannot admit their homosexuality, even to themselves.
A man who finds himself completely unattracted to women in any sexual way, and finds himself highly energized in the company of men – much more so than in the company women – is probably gay – whether he is acting out sexually or not. Such men make up a vast number of the priestly ranks – and anyone who has lived with priests or been in seminary knows this!
This description is accurate for about 70 percent of priests in the Roman Catholic Church, whether they call themselves gay or not, and whether they are chaste virgins or not.
I am not saying that all priests are gay. I know quite a few good straight priests. I also know quite a few good gay priests. My experience is that more than half the priest I know are gay, and more and more of them are admitting it to themselves and others.
I also do not believe this is a recent phenomenon brought on by Vatican II. I think the majority of priests have been gay since 1139 AD, when celibacy became the rule of the Latin Rite.
Prior to the nineteenth century, we did not have a word to describe sexual orientation. Homosexual acts were believed to be committed by heterosexual people. Our world view has changed, and it explains much that we did not understand in the past.
Me: For John:
You are right about denying some liberty to maintain order. But where does it stop?
I would ask you the same thing in reverse John, if everyone is allowed to do whatever s/he wishes under the banner of “rights”, where does that stop? and who decides?
As far as I can tell no one is denying “gayness.” IN fact right now it’s pretty hip to be gay, judging from the lip smacker between Brittney and Madonna, Queer Eye etc.
Me: A few things Joe:
Jesus’ teaching about the trinity is a central teaching of the Gospel and Catholic teaching is that in the family we image the trinity. The man loves the wife and the wife the husband and from that love may emanate a new life. It is the only vocation that has that honor to image the triune God in that way.
I suggested that there is a sexual dimension to all human relationships
I know you did. Which is why I pointed out that your philosophy is the opposite of your friend Todd’s.
Lastly you may find this article interesting. http://www.straightistheway.com/tracts/born_gay.htm
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook) and chat on the tag board at the bottom of the page.
