Thursday, August 27, 2009

Response to Friend Two

Friend Two from Facebook, "Actually, now that we're steaming ahead on this discussion, let me pose the matter in another light as I'm curious for your view from this angle: For a moment, divorce the parenting issue from the gay marriage issue. Not all couples (straight or gay) want to be parents. For many couples, marriage is a commitment to each other that basically acknowledges that "now it's harder to walk away, so we will work together to make this work," you know, the whole richer-or-poorer bit. This is a commitment to each partner, and is not directly related to God's view or consent. I'm talking marriage as a social matter, not a religious one. Consider also the fact that making/keeping gay marriage illegal or illegitimate doesn't make "gayness" go away. It just doesn't.

So, for gay couples that would be gay whether they can be married or not, and who don't want kids, answer this: What's the harm? Why not let them commit to each other the same way straight couples do?"

My response is that I have never brought God into any of my arguments so far, so I will gladly leave Him to defend Himself. The marriage commitment as you describe does not exist. Due to no-fault divorce, marriage means almost nothing in legal terms. It is currently easier to legally break a marriage contract than it is to break a bicycle warranty. The social approval of childless marriages only dates back to about the 1920s and the advent of feminism and mass produced contraception. The social and legal benefits of marriage were designed to create a family, not to allow two people to be DINKs.

I never claimed that "gayness" would go away. We still have thieves, even though there are laws against stealing. We still have drunkenness, even though there are an assortment of preventative laws. Laws enforce social norms and teach what is acceptable and not for a civilized society. The anti-social behavior is wrong, regardless of whether the law prohibits it.

Marriage is about love and sex. Sex is about procreation and love, even Freud agrees. The two can not be separated any more than nutrition and pleasure can be separated from eating. If they are separated, the act is perverted, much as bulimia perverts eating.

"What's the harm?" is not a sufficient argument to overthrow hundreds of years of social custom and the only stable arrangement to raise the next generation. The harm is that a counterfeit is passed as the real thing. Two men can not express love the way a man and a woman can. It is a lie that men and women are interchangeable. The love of a man and a woman is fruitful; the love of two men or two women is sterile (I also maintain that contracepted sex is a lie, even in marriage).

I counter with a question. What's the harm in allowing a brother and sister to marry if they are not going to have kids?


Renee said...

Found your blog through Jen's recent posting on your favorite post.

I law review article from Howard Law School addresses your argument.

Bill Duncan in a recent Howard Law publication has in Portrait of a Marriage

From page 105/116

“The new kind of civil union exists merely to amplify the self-
confidence of the partners. Children, neighbors, community, the world –all such others are strangers to the deal.”47 For instance, mar-riage between a man and a woman has been understood to create obligations to children, because children may result from the marriage, whether as a result of choice or not. The decision to marry creates an obligation to support the children of the marriage, an obligation not contingent on desire. A same-sex partnership cannot create the same
obligation because there is no potential for unintentional procreation in that context.
Some of the courts try to compensate for the absence of obligation by invoking concepts like “commitment,”48 but commitment is an awfully diluted substitute for obligation. Commitment and even love are terminable in a way that obligation is not because both are subjective and can, to some degree, be chosen or unchosen. On the other hand, one may ignore an obligation, but cannot will it out of existence. An obligation is objective."

I believe in one of Jen's posting she tells the story of her parents not wanting children, yet she surprised them.

Anonymous said...

I'm really disappointed that views like this still exact in the 21st Century.

JimmyV said...

If I have spoken in error, please correct my error or guide me to a refutation of my arguments. If I have not spoken in error, why be disappointed?

I seek truth, if you lead me there; I will be most grateful.

Anonymous said...

One of the complexities of humanity is that we have not yet mastered the art of mind reading.

I cannot tell if my homosexual brothers and sisters were born that way (Darwin) or chose that path (the Catholic church).

As such I admit ignorance.

Until such time as this problem is solved, I will take the side of humanity. For humanity shows its face to me every day, whereas the divine refuses to recognize its faithful.

JimmyV said...

Mind reading would be sweet; I would love to be Matt Parkman. I don't particularly see the relevance however, so I apologize for any obtuseness in my response.

Since Darwin's theory is based on more offspring coming from beings with beneficial mutations, homosexuality would, by definition, be a detrimental mutation.

While the Catholic Church does teach that choice is involved, that does not preclude humans being 'born that way.' People with ADHD or antisocial personality disorder are most likely born that way, however they are still obliged to choose to behave in an upright manner. The existence of kleptomania does not make thievery acceptable. See Courage - - for a better explanation of the Church's teaching than I can give.

God has recognized this member of his faithful, in a very personal way. I shall pray that He reveals himself to you, Anon.