Pope Condemns Same-Sex Marriage
From Yahoo! News:
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope John Paul on Saturday condemned same sex marriage as an attack on the fabric of society and called on Catholics to combat what he said was aggressive attempt to legally undermine the family.
"Attacks on marriage and the family, from an ideological and legal aspect, are becoming stronger and more radical every day," the 84-year old pontiff said in the unusually strong statement.
"Who destroys this fundamental fabric causes a profound injury to society and provokes often irreparable damage."
I must say, he hit the nail squarely on the head. Homosexual marriage _is_ an assault on morality, the family, and ultimately our society. Whether or not they are trying to tear our very society in pieces, I can't say. But I do know what the effects are, and effects are entirely independent of intention.
Any good sociologist will tell you that societies are held together by shared beliefs and a common sense of morality and ethics which are not to be violated. Gay marriage is a violation of natural laws, and what we as humans know to be right. When our sense of ethics is violated in such a way, it causes conflict within a society as a result of the stress between those who believe that objective morality is unnecessary and those who believe that it is part of what holds our society together.
As this morality is violated, another institution in our society is coming under attack: the family. The family is a unit that serves to provide stability in our society. When you go and drastically change such a stabilizing force in a society, it's like changing the height of the pillars in the Parthenon. Suddenly the stability that was provided by a combination of people who fit into different roles and provide different services is gone. The family is a unit that functions only when there are two parents of opposite gender. "Biological destiny," as it is called by some liberals, is what restricts a man to performing the role of father. This "destiny," no matter how much the liberals may decry it, can't be changed. It can, however, be ignored; the problem with ignoring a problem that causes instability, however, is that the instability remains. The family is weakened when an unstable factor is inserted into it, and the weakened family in turn can't support our society.
Now, as individual and common ethics continue to be weakened, society as a whole grows weaker. No longer do people have a common system of values, which reduces strife; no longer can the family support a society, when "family" has become a subjective term that means whatever individuals want it to mean; and no longer can a society stand, when its foundations are so weakened. If America accepts gay marriage, its society will be weakened and threatened. The radical subjectivity of liberals today has never had positive effects on a society; tolerance is great, and it is a great asset to a society, but the uncontrolled subjectivity that is necessary for the acceptance of same-sex marriage is dangerous.
So in light of these facts, I cannot support gay marriage. Other arguments can be made against it, but the effects that it would have on society would be destabilizing and thus it can't be allowed. We must follow the Pope's lead and remain vigilant, at least if we wish to pass on a healthy society to our children and grandchildren.
Peace (through strength),
Neo
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 12/18/2004 03:32:00 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
I find this argument to be one of those moat and beam style arguments. Heterosexuals have done enough to mess with 'traditional marriage' that as a whole I don't think they have a lot of ground to stand on when it comes to saying that this particular change will undermine society.
(Note, the Catholic Church, with their stand against divorce has at least some consistancy with this issue, but many Christians are hypocrits in this regard.)
Millions of undwed mothers and divorces are what is undermining the family and putting society at risk. Two guys shaking up and calling it Marriage is a drop in the bucket compared to that. If heterosexuals had maintained the marriage as an institution for families, rather than a convienient way for two people to temporarily get government benefits while they cohabitated we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.
The Government can not make 'cohabitation' into a true marriage. Neither can it destroy marriage by giving legal rights to alternate pairing choices for cohatitations.
I do think though that their is merit in the argument that unlimited choices marriage are a fundamental right and that therefore this decision should be settled by legislatures rather than courts.
The fact remains that gay marriage is a minor change to the structure of families compared to changes that we as a society have already made.
Using your Parthenon example, this is like worrying about adjusting one column a couple of inches when you have already knocked down a couple of other columns.
Moving one column could knock down the whole tower. It is true that divorce and sex out side of marriage is a big problem in America, but homesexual marriage will just make it worse, it's more then a drop in the bucket, it's a splash in the bucket.
How the hell is two guys or two girls getting married "attacking the family"? I just don't get it. What the hell is "the family" anyway? I suspect that by your meaning it's a family with a working father, a housewife, and two to five kids. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, that family was smashed a long time ago. It was smashed when wages became so low that families needed two incomes. It was smashed when women demanded their rights and got them. It's been smashed for the past few decades. Get over it.
If you want a family like that, I'll give you some advice: HAVE ONE! Don't go and marry another of your sex. Don't go and get a divorce. Live your life the way you want to, as long as you don't interfere with other's lives.
If you don't plan to go and ban eating oysters, why ban gay marriage? If you don't plan to go and start stoning adulterers, why ban gay marriage? Those are all sins according to the Bible, so why don't you start campaigning about those? Wouldn't that be promoting "family values"?
I don't think it's attacking "family values", which seems to have been stolen by the right as a codeword for Christian values. The only possible reason for banning gay marriage is a religious one. And due to the Seperation of Church and State, that should not be an issue.
I'll tell you what. Conservative Christians have been attacking my values of liberty and freedom. I think I'll go and bash up a few Christian conservatives, blow up a church and starting printing cartoons depicting you as evil bastards unwilling to see the light. After all, it's all in the name of protecting my "values", isn't it?
You don't get "family values" from the government. You get them from your family.
BTW, I think TheLoneStrawman is a much better way to write my name. Do what you will.
Any good sociologist would, after reading you post, point you in the direction of some reading that would straighten out your misguided notion of what keeps societies together and what tears them apart. You should read a little Max Weber and learn about his theory of anomie and Emile Durkheim's works on boundaries and social norms. Socieities are never, and I repeat never, totally cohesive in terms of their values and ethics, and that is what makes society worth studying in the first place. You say that gay marriage is a violation of natural law...but what is that really? Are you referring to animal kingdom natural law or some religious form of "natural"? You're also leaving yourself wide open for ridicule when you say the family functions as a successful unit only when there are two parents of opposite genders. What about all the very successful single parent families? Widowers and divorced parents of both sexes have been quite successful at raising children and providing them with a good sense of family and values. I'm also very interested in how you "know" what the effects of gay marriage are on the society? To make a bold statement such as the ones you make in this post about how gay marriage has a direct effect on the weakening of society requires some stastical support. Have you run statistical analysis on this subject? What data set are you using? I'd love to see you analysis and discuss your findings.
Your opinion is clearly valid in your own eyes and you present it in a respectable manner, but you should never make a causal statement without the proper evidence to back it up
- a sociologist, Philadelphia, PA
Kleokatra,
The ethics of, say, not stealing and not killing are not Biblical ethics and morals. They are morals that are almost universal. Almost every religion has a phrase like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's not a "Christian" ethic. I'm an atheist, and I think killing and stealing are wrong.
I do find myself slightly disgusted by homosexuality, but if it's what they want to do, they can do it. I wouldn't want them interfering in my life.
You said something about God creating men and women. That is a belief, not a fact. My belief that God does not exist is a belief, not a fact.
America was founded by Christians. But it is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation. That is what the seperation of church and state means. It means that you don't make laws based on the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or even the Kama Sutra. Outlawing gay marriage is making a law based on religion, and you don't do that.
You say that marriage is a Christian thing, so no laws should be based on it anyway? Guess what: marriage went on for millenia before 0 CE. Many (admittedly small) cultures have had gay marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if such cultures existed longer than Christianity.
Marriage might be a "Christian" thing, but it is also a secular thing to. Look at all cultores and you will see that their is marriage. If marriage was defined by the government as a uniting between a man and wife, would it hurt our country? No. Some people might say it violates their rights if their was a law like that, but where in the constitution does it say it is okay that two men or two women can have the same benefits as a man and woman?
I fail to see how a quiet gay couple moving in down the street is going to affect my way of life, positively OR negatively.
Most gay couples wouldn't be having sex in the yard, or staging pride parades instead of block parties.
I think the Pope -- and all Christians in general -- should be more concerned with the way HETEROSEXUALS are acting. The divorce rate is actually higher within the Church than it is in the "mainstream."
Divorce is something to be worried about. Broken homes = broken lives. Gays marrying, big whoop.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
OMG! Tell me that I'm not reading these comments! Please! Help me here! I'm about to die! This invovles everyone! If our Country keeps going this way Gay people will be having Sex in their front yards! This has to stop! As for the religous part of it... many people don't believe in God, But don't you get groosed out when you see two guys kissing? Don't you get the feeling that it is wrong?
Where Is The Line here? When Are you going to say NO? When it is too late?
A broken home is when a Mom or Dad isn't there. When a gay or lesbian couple adopt a kid, does the kid have a dad and mom, no, he either has two dads or two Moms, children need a dad and a mom in the home, and the tragady of the rate of divorces is horrible and wrong, but right now there is a huge problem in churches today. I am very sad to say this but there are many divorced Christians in the church who believe being divorced is okay. They don't listen to their pastors or anyone with advise against this horrible practice. It is wrong and they will be judged.
It may seem that there are no Christians that are against divorce and that they are not challenging it, but their are people who are, you just don't hear about them because they're doing something that is most likely not news worthy. Praying. It is the strongest tool that Christians use, Joshua prayed in the Bible to God for more time to finish the battle, and God stopped the sun from moving so that he could. Prayer is more powerful then people chanting in the street, it changes people like nothing else, but no one really sees it.
I pray that gay marrriage will be outlawed, and that marriage will remain between the man and the woman, and I also pray that divorce would be also outlawed, it might not come in my life time or in my childrens life time, but I pray that it will.
Giggle,
I suppose you always believe the infamous Christian "excuse" for outlawing gay marriage:
"If everybody were gay, the world would end, because nobody would be procreating!"
To answer your question, no, I'm not grossed out by two people of the same sex kissing, because I have had homosexual feelings all my life. I choose not to live that lifestyle (I am very happily married to a man), but I DO understand the feelings behind it.
And I don't believe divorce should be outlawed.
God ALWAYS hates divorce, but there are cases in which it is acceptable. Very EXTREME cases, but cases nonetheless.
it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is not something your born w/, in my opion it is a disease of the mind caused by mal-nutrition and belief in evolution.
if homosexuality were genetic then why can people come out of it? huh? there are places that help homosexuals w/ their problem. if it were something that cannot be helped God wouldn't have made it an abomination. sin is sin. murderers, liers, thieves, homosexuals, rapist... it is something God will forgive if only one will ask. homosexuals, murderers, etc. will not go to hell because they sinned, it will be because they don't believe.
It is definitely not scientifically proven that homosexuality is a disease, and the only people who claim that will be the same people who claim that evolution is a lie propagated by liars and gaybos.
Does legalizing straight marriage make people any more likely to have sex in their front yards? I think not. That has to be one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard.
I have perfectly well-adjusted, normal friends who have grown up in single-parent households. Their lives have not been shattered, though I'm sure they'd prefer that their parents were not divorced. All sorts of families can exist succesfully: the structure doesn't matter as long as the members work together and support each other.
I do find homosexuality slightly disgusting. However, I find the idea of discrimination against homosexuals far, far, far more disgusting. I find many things people do to be disgusting (supporting George Bush as president, etc.), but I would never, ever support legislation against it.
The thing is, outlawing gay marriage would be legislation according to a religion. Would you be happy if they decided to force all women to wear Burqas? No? Then think again about your support of gay marriage.
It is definitely not scientifically proven that homosexuality is a disease, and the only people who claim that will be the same people who claim that evolution is a lie propagated by liars and gaybos.
Does legalizing straight marriage make people any more likely to have sex in their front yards? I think not. That has to be one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard.
I have perfectly well-adjusted, normal friends who have grown up in single-parent households. Their lives have not been shattered, though I'm sure they'd prefer that their parents were not divorced. All sorts of families can exist succesfully: the structure doesn't matter as long as the members work together and support each other.
I do find homosexuality slightly disgusting. However, I find the idea of discrimination against homosexuals far, far, far more disgusting. I find many things people do to be disgusting (supporting George Bush as president, etc.), but I would never, ever support legislation against it.
The thing is, outlawing gay marriage would be legislation according to a religion. Would you be happy if they decided to force all women to wear Burqas? No? Then think again about your support of banning gay marriage.
FYI, there is not a "separation" clause in the US Constitution. There is an "establishment" clause that basically says the government cannot establish a particular religion or sect as the "official" religion or sect of America. This is an important distinction that has recently become an Urban Legend among those who think all vestiges of religion should be banned from the public forum.
Also, it is not an effective argument to point out the shortcomings of traditional marriage to bolster the case for gay marriage. If that's the argument, however, it actually bolsters the case to preserve and protect traditional marriage. Why continue to tear it down and make it inconsequential when it is demonstrably better for children to live in a stable mother-father home?
I'd suggest an in-depth study of the criminal population and how the break-down of the family is a primary contributor to their incarceration (and I'm not saying gay marriage is a contributor, but non-traditional arrangements are historically not healthy to America's well-being). Marriage laws are on the books for an important reason -- they contribute to the public good. It would be a far better idea to study the lifestyle consequences of homosexual partnering and child-rearing before jumping blindly into it. Most people don't know the consequences and ramifications, and that's why they oppose it. When 70-80 percent of the US population is against it, it's probably not based on purely religious grounds; it has more to do with an unease about the consequences. We may find there are no discernable negative consequences to gay marriage, but the facts aren't in -- those that are in tend to be biased one way or the other. Either way, it must be demonstrated that there will be no ill consequence to the public good. For further discussion on the reasoning behind foundational US law and Constitutional matters, I'd suggest a thorough reading of the Federalist Papers, and the writings of the Founders.
Post a Comment
<< Home