One Man, One Woman
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
One Man, One Woman
by Cindy Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:02 am
One Man, One Woman
Catholic Answers Action
What is marriage?
Marriage is a covenant "by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life [that] is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring" (CCC 1601).
Why is marriage only between a man and a woman?
Marriage is oriented toward procreation, and only a man and a woman can procreate. Also, God made men and women to complement each other, both physically and psychologically.
Two men or two women do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do. They are not physically or biologically compatible, and they cannot produce children.
This is why cultures all over the world recognize the uniqueness of marriage. It is marriages that produce children, the future of every society, and so every society recognizes the uniqueness of marriage compared to any other social relationship.
"Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives" (UHP 2).
Can there be such a thing as homosexual marriage?
No. Marriage simply is the kind of union between a man and a woman described above.
Stretching the term "marriage" to include homosexual unions doesn't change the underlying reality. It is just playing games with words. It does not alter the fact that a man and a woman are capable of having the kind of union that two persons of the same sex are not.
While it is possible for governments to play games with words and stretch the term "marriage" to include things other than marriage, the reality of marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.
Should society recognize homosexual "marriages"?
No. To do so would harm society in numerous ways. In the first place, it would harm the people contracting such unions because society would tell them that they are married when in fact they are not. It would be a "social lie" that would deceive the people involved in these unions and prevent them from recognizing the reality of their situation.
"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
"Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as a serious depravity (cf. Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:10; 1 Tim. 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (UHP 4).
The compassionate thing to do for those who struggle with homosexual temptations is to be honest with them, in a kind and charitable way, concerning the truth about human sexuality and marriage; not to facilitate a deception that pretends homosexual activity is good or that marriage between persons of the same sex is possible.
How else would society be harmed by homosexual marriages?
Giving legal recognition to homosexual marriages, or even to "civil unions" between homosexuals, "would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. Lifestyles, and the underlying presuppositions these express, not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage" (UHP 6).
Indeed, treating homosexual unions as marriages would open the door to a new era of religious persecution.
How would homosexual marriages lead to religious persecution?
To be faithful to the teaching of Christ, the Church must proclaim the truth about human sexuality and marriage. This includes the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and that true marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.
Further, individual Christians must reflect these truths in their own lives. They must proclaim them to society as part of their witness to the Christian faith.
If the government treats homosexual unions as marriages, this puts the machinery of state on a collision course with both the Church and the individual Christian. Religious persecution already has begun in those places where legal recognition has been given to homosexual unions (for example, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden):
Wherever legal recognition has been granted to homosexual unions, homosexual activists have seized the opportunity to use the machinery of the state to compel both churches and individual Christians into silence, to separate the Christians' faith from their public and business lives, and to make Christians behave as if homosexuality and homosexual marriages are perfectly legitimate and acceptable.
If society shouldn't recognize marriage between homosexuals, should it recognize civil unions between them?
No. In the homosexual agenda, "civil unions" are merely a stepping stone toward homosexual marriage. They are seen as a temporary solution whose only purpose is to prepare society for homosexual marriage.
"The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage. . . . If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good" (UHP 8 ).
As a kind of quasi-marriage, civil unions between homosexuals only further serve to obscure the truth about marriage.
What about the issue of fairness?
This is not a question of fairness. It is a question of reality. The reality is that marriage is possible only between a man and a woman.
A man and a woman are capable of joining with each other in a permanent union that brings new life into the world. Two men or two women are simply not capable of this, and it is not fair to them, or to society as a whole, to pretend otherwise.
The fair and compassionate thing to do is to be honest concerning the truth about human sexuality and marriage, not to obscure it by treating things that are not marriage as if they were.
How are people with homosexual temptations to be regarded?
Like everyone else, they are human beings for whom Christ died. Like everyone else, they have temptations, and their call is to overcome their temptations and to unite themselves to Christ.
"According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is, however, objectively disordered and homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity" (UHP 4).
What responsibilities do Catholics have concerning civil unions and homosexual marriages?
They must oppose them. "Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. . . . Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. . . . In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection" (UHP 5).
What responsibilities do Catholic politicians have concerning civil unions and homosexual marriages?
Catholic politicians have the same duty to oppose homosexual marriages that ordinary Catholics do. They cannot use their position as public servants to shirk this duty.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth" (UHP 10).
Where can I learn more?
Visit www.caaction.com for more information on this and other topics concerning the Catholic faith.
ABBREVIATIONS
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church
UHP Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
Catholic Answers Action
What is marriage?
Marriage is a covenant "by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life [that] is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring" (CCC 1601).
Why is marriage only between a man and a woman?
Marriage is oriented toward procreation, and only a man and a woman can procreate. Also, God made men and women to complement each other, both physically and psychologically.
Two men or two women do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do. They are not physically or biologically compatible, and they cannot produce children.
This is why cultures all over the world recognize the uniqueness of marriage. It is marriages that produce children, the future of every society, and so every society recognizes the uniqueness of marriage compared to any other social relationship.
"Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives" (UHP 2).
Can there be such a thing as homosexual marriage?
No. Marriage simply is the kind of union between a man and a woman described above.
Stretching the term "marriage" to include homosexual unions doesn't change the underlying reality. It is just playing games with words. It does not alter the fact that a man and a woman are capable of having the kind of union that two persons of the same sex are not.
While it is possible for governments to play games with words and stretch the term "marriage" to include things other than marriage, the reality of marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.
Should society recognize homosexual "marriages"?
No. To do so would harm society in numerous ways. In the first place, it would harm the people contracting such unions because society would tell them that they are married when in fact they are not. It would be a "social lie" that would deceive the people involved in these unions and prevent them from recognizing the reality of their situation.
"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
"Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as a serious depravity (cf. Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:10; 1 Tim. 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (UHP 4).
The compassionate thing to do for those who struggle with homosexual temptations is to be honest with them, in a kind and charitable way, concerning the truth about human sexuality and marriage; not to facilitate a deception that pretends homosexual activity is good or that marriage between persons of the same sex is possible.
How else would society be harmed by homosexual marriages?
Giving legal recognition to homosexual marriages, or even to "civil unions" between homosexuals, "would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. Lifestyles, and the underlying presuppositions these express, not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage" (UHP 6).
Indeed, treating homosexual unions as marriages would open the door to a new era of religious persecution.
How would homosexual marriages lead to religious persecution?
To be faithful to the teaching of Christ, the Church must proclaim the truth about human sexuality and marriage. This includes the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and that true marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.
Further, individual Christians must reflect these truths in their own lives. They must proclaim them to society as part of their witness to the Christian faith.
If the government treats homosexual unions as marriages, this puts the machinery of state on a collision course with both the Church and the individual Christian. Religious persecution already has begun in those places where legal recognition has been given to homosexual unions (for example, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden):
- Pastors have been prosecuted for preaching sermons on this subject.
- Christian ministries, no matter how mildly and charitably they phrase the truth about homosexuality, have been muted on the subject through "hate speech" laws.
- Individual Christians have been arrested under the same "hate speech" laws.
- Schools have been forced to teach children that homosexual marriages are just as acceptable as heterosexual ones and that homosexual activity is morally permissible.
- Orphanages have been forced to place children with homosexual couples - or to cease operations.
- Ordinary Christian business people have been prosecuted for refusing to provide services to homosexual couples.
Wherever legal recognition has been granted to homosexual unions, homosexual activists have seized the opportunity to use the machinery of the state to compel both churches and individual Christians into silence, to separate the Christians' faith from their public and business lives, and to make Christians behave as if homosexuality and homosexual marriages are perfectly legitimate and acceptable.
If society shouldn't recognize marriage between homosexuals, should it recognize civil unions between them?
No. In the homosexual agenda, "civil unions" are merely a stepping stone toward homosexual marriage. They are seen as a temporary solution whose only purpose is to prepare society for homosexual marriage.
"The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage. . . . If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good" (UHP 8 ).
As a kind of quasi-marriage, civil unions between homosexuals only further serve to obscure the truth about marriage.
What about the issue of fairness?
This is not a question of fairness. It is a question of reality. The reality is that marriage is possible only between a man and a woman.
A man and a woman are capable of joining with each other in a permanent union that brings new life into the world. Two men or two women are simply not capable of this, and it is not fair to them, or to society as a whole, to pretend otherwise.
The fair and compassionate thing to do is to be honest concerning the truth about human sexuality and marriage, not to obscure it by treating things that are not marriage as if they were.
How are people with homosexual temptations to be regarded?
Like everyone else, they are human beings for whom Christ died. Like everyone else, they have temptations, and their call is to overcome their temptations and to unite themselves to Christ.
"According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is, however, objectively disordered and homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity" (UHP 4).
What responsibilities do Catholics have concerning civil unions and homosexual marriages?
They must oppose them. "Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. . . . Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. . . . In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection" (UHP 5).
What responsibilities do Catholic politicians have concerning civil unions and homosexual marriages?
Catholic politicians have the same duty to oppose homosexual marriages that ordinary Catholics do. They cannot use their position as public servants to shirk this duty.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth" (UHP 10).
Where can I learn more?
Visit www.caaction.com for more information on this and other topics concerning the Catholic faith.
ABBREVIATIONS
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church
UHP Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
Cindy- Catechumen
- Number of posts : 51
Location : California
Faith : Catholic Convert
Registration date : 2008-02-16
Re: One Man, One Woman
by Mary1973 Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:12 am
I hope you were able to copy and paste that! 
You can also find arguments for traditional marriage that don't use religion which can be very helpful for non-believers.
You can also find arguments for traditional marriage that don't use religion which can be very helpful for non-believers.
Mary1973- Neophyte
-
Number of posts : 68
Location : Fairview, NJ
Faith : Roman Catholic
Registration date : 2008-02-19 -
Re: One Man, One Woman
by Cindy Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:57 am
How to Make the Case for Marriage (using Non-religious Language)
By Mary Jo Anderson
This Rock Magazine, February 2008
Whether we like it or not, secularism is the dominant mode of public discourse today. Even those we encounter who are not "anti-faith" often place a high value on their understanding of "separation of church and state." Catholics must therefore be prepared to support moral positions without recourse to Scripture or religious vocabulary. That is an enormous challenge, however, for Catholics who want to defend and preserve marriage as the only healthy model for an orderly society.
Before we go any further, we should make it clear that using secular terms to make the case for marriage in no way suppresses or denies the faith. While it does omit a higher dimension of marriage, the secular case is effective because all truth -- including the truth about men and women, marriage and family -- is God's truth. As such, it has an internal coherence that is part of the created order. One need not credit God with the physical laws of nature, such as gravity, to know that gravity works. Where the physical laws are violated, breakdown occurs. The same goes for the moral realm: A violation of God's moral order brings chaos in human relationships. The evidence of that chaos is the source of the daily headlines and the nightly news broadcasts. When people of faith make the case for marriage using this kind of evidence, it is less likely to be perceived as "imposing religion."
There is a secular argument for preserving natural marriage as the only legal definition of marriage and the one model of family life deserving of tax relief. The major building blocks are these:
These blocks build on the foundation of the common good: shared commitment to a society ordered to the good of the most members.
No Marriage, No Civilization
The assumption behind the "can't impose religious values" argument is twofold: First, that to propose is to impose if a person of faith makes the proposal, and second, that natural marriage is valid only within a religious framework. Both assumptions are false, but let's look more closely at the second.
The question that Catholics can expect to address is "How does legalizing same-sex unions imperil natural marriage?" The short response is two provocative questions: "Why have governments regulated marriages historically? Why not leave the matter of intimate relationships and family to individuals and remove the state completely?"
After a short pause, most people realize that the state has a vested interest in marriage and family exactly because it is the bedrock of the nation. This is the lesson European politicians are now learning (See "Family Day in Italy"). Same-sex pairs cannot benefit the whole of the nation by bearing the next generation. The population plunges, and all the attendant ills come roaring onto the political and social landscape. Those same ills have begun to reach American shores as well: no families, no citizens, no economy, no national future. The state regulates, and up until the recent past, elevated, marriage as a particular category within the culture to keep this vital institution as healthy as possible for the good of all citizens -- what Catholics term the "common good."
Good for All, Not Just Some
Communities and nations survive where its participants act in accord with what benefits the whole, not the few. Some will argue that the state has no "right" to prevent a same-sex pair from forming a union. Western cultures are too deeply enamored of the concept of "individual rights" to subscribe easily to the idea that individuals ought to moderate their personal choices to benefit the entire community. We have become an atomized culture, in which each person is his own autonomous government, the Self as Supreme Command. To many, the very idea of the common good violates "personal rights." But there is no "right" to a sexual relationship. In truth, it is merely a personal choice -- not a right -- that is circumscribed.
This principle is quickly illustrated by proposing an analogy to traffic laws. Suppose each driver were permitted to set his own rules of the road -- what would happen? Within hours roads would be strewn with crashed cars and injured people. The resulting traffic jams delay others from reaching work, school, or doctor's appointments. Cities would screech to a halt. The grief and loss of loved ones would be enormous, necessitating days off for funerals, grief counselors, and all manner of personal complications.
The point is that such laws are enacted for the safety of both the individual and the public at large and serve the common good of the citizens. The common good means some will drive slower than their preference, stop where they think they should be permitted to proceed if left to their own accord, and park only where designated rather than anywhere they choose. The simple truth is no one objects to elevating the common good over individual preference for the sake of orderly traffic and public safety. We can make a similar analogy based on the care of the environment. In fact, in many categories the state makes laws and public policy based on what best serves the whole.
Protection of heterosexual marriage is simply the state regulating and protecting the unique institution that forms an orderly community and benefits the future of the society. We must stress that there is a difference between laws made for the common good and individual preferences. Laws are not made to serve individuals.
Sex Makes Babies
After establishing the concept of the appropriateness of a communal commitment to what's best for the whole of society, the next step is to show how that principle applies to marriage too. How is it that reserving marriage to one woman and one man is the best for society?
The answer is elemental: Sex is powerful; sex makes babies. Its effect on individuals and communities is such that it is never unregulated in any society. Imagine a culture where marriage and sexual relationships have no regulations, no taboos. No stable families are formed, and thus the work of families goes untended or must be assumed by the state: Children are not properly educated, children and women are abandoned, no one is responsible for sick family members or the elderly, because where all are family, none are family, merely autonomous individuals with whom you have had a temporary liaison. Inheritance laws have no meaning, and the community is marred by jealousies, sexual violence, and pedophilia.
Clearly, this "free love" model does not work, since no such model of a culture has ever survived. In early societies or primitive tribal societies of today, chiefs regulate sexual relationships -- principally via marriages -- so that the whole of their community does not devolve into violent chaos. This example helps people envision the truth about the meaning of sex other than as a personal activity.
In an argument for a secular audience, we must point out that the preservation of marriage is not a negative force against personal choices. Those choices are not made illegal by preserving natural marriage as the only model of marriage legally recognized by the state. In actuality, preserving the definition preserves the truth that men and women make babies; men and women and their babies make families. To acknowledge that observable reality in no manner detracts from the legal freedom to make a "lifestyle choice."
What About Same-Sex Rights?
Advocates of same-sex unions often insist that because 10 percent of the population is homosexual, some legal provision ought to be made for them to establish families. But that is an erroneous figure; reliable statistics put the number at closer to 3-5 percent. The 10 percent figure is a political number that has been largely manufactured by the homosexual lobby. Much as the abortion movement crafted statistics to move public opinion, so too have advocates exaggerated the numbers of persons with homosexual inclination.
Others object that same-sex pairs can be parents and provide for families. To rebut this suggestion, we can remark that they cannot without enormous bending of the natural process, both physical and psychological. The legal woes of surrogate mothers and shared parentage where same-sex pairs have split up is a knotted tangle where the child is the victim, as celebrity cases have demonstrated. The psychological confusion and education failures of children raised in same-sex households is widely documented.
Few moderate-minded people have thought about the actual lives of children exposed to same-sex households. Children raised in same-sex environments are five times as likely to suffer physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. Aids and sexually transmitted diseases reduce the life expectancy of homosexual persons, increasing the likelihood of early loss of a parent or surrogate parent.
With these facts in mind, we must be aware that possibly few other subjects in our nation are as difficult to approach as the status of same-sex unions. All of us know and love persons who struggle to find balance and contentment between their public and private lives. It is crucial for Catholics to understand the anguish this topic can cause among people of good will. Those who promote same-sex unions seek to ease the hurt they see in their loved ones and co-workers. Their intention is to be compassionate. Our goal in a secular discussion is not to show why homosexual acts are wrong. Rather, we must begin with a positive approach. Our goal is to show how preserving and strengthening marriages and families is the best for the whole of society, including those with same-sex attraction. We must take care to avoid a tone or a vocabulary that stigmatizes any person.
Join the Debate
We live in a "post-Christian" era that has turned a deaf ear to Scripture, but that is hungry for truth. This situation shows the urgency of the lay vocation. The state is the regulator of what the common good is, and, in our Western democracies, the state takes its cues from the people. This is why our Catholic participation in reasoned public debate is so critical to the process.
Where will such discussions take place? The most effective exchange arises out of a natural situation. Perhaps your state has marriage amendments under consideration. That is an opportunity to become involved in a political defense of marriage. Other natural opportunities include PTA meetings (where textbooks promoting same-sex unions could be opposed); at the soccer field where other parents gather; in your parish.
By engaging others in discussions about proposed legalization of same-sex unions, Catholics can accomplish much. In many cases you may be known as a practicing Catholic who never once "pushed religion" during the conversation. It will not be lost on your audience that you made persuasive, cogent points that referred only to the civic consequences. Soon enough it will occur to them to wonder, "How is it that what the Bible and Catholic Church teach is also what is best for our communities?" That question is a powerful evangelizing tool.
By Mary Jo Anderson
This Rock Magazine, February 2008
Whether we like it or not, secularism is the dominant mode of public discourse today. Even those we encounter who are not "anti-faith" often place a high value on their understanding of "separation of church and state." Catholics must therefore be prepared to support moral positions without recourse to Scripture or religious vocabulary. That is an enormous challenge, however, for Catholics who want to defend and preserve marriage as the only healthy model for an orderly society.
Before we go any further, we should make it clear that using secular terms to make the case for marriage in no way suppresses or denies the faith. While it does omit a higher dimension of marriage, the secular case is effective because all truth -- including the truth about men and women, marriage and family -- is God's truth. As such, it has an internal coherence that is part of the created order. One need not credit God with the physical laws of nature, such as gravity, to know that gravity works. Where the physical laws are violated, breakdown occurs. The same goes for the moral realm: A violation of God's moral order brings chaos in human relationships. The evidence of that chaos is the source of the daily headlines and the nightly news broadcasts. When people of faith make the case for marriage using this kind of evidence, it is less likely to be perceived as "imposing religion."
There is a secular argument for preserving natural marriage as the only legal definition of marriage and the one model of family life deserving of tax relief. The major building blocks are these:
- Nations that fail to form families suffer grave consequences, including loss of workers, loss of tax base, and decline in human ingenuity and productivity.
- The question is not about denying individual rights but about promoting the good of the whole society.
- Marriage and family provide benefits to society by producing, raising, and educating the next generation.
- A strong family life offers the benefits of mental and emotional health.
These blocks build on the foundation of the common good: shared commitment to a society ordered to the good of the most members.
No Marriage, No Civilization
The assumption behind the "can't impose religious values" argument is twofold: First, that to propose is to impose if a person of faith makes the proposal, and second, that natural marriage is valid only within a religious framework. Both assumptions are false, but let's look more closely at the second.
The question that Catholics can expect to address is "How does legalizing same-sex unions imperil natural marriage?" The short response is two provocative questions: "Why have governments regulated marriages historically? Why not leave the matter of intimate relationships and family to individuals and remove the state completely?"
After a short pause, most people realize that the state has a vested interest in marriage and family exactly because it is the bedrock of the nation. This is the lesson European politicians are now learning (See "Family Day in Italy"). Same-sex pairs cannot benefit the whole of the nation by bearing the next generation. The population plunges, and all the attendant ills come roaring onto the political and social landscape. Those same ills have begun to reach American shores as well: no families, no citizens, no economy, no national future. The state regulates, and up until the recent past, elevated, marriage as a particular category within the culture to keep this vital institution as healthy as possible for the good of all citizens -- what Catholics term the "common good."
Good for All, Not Just Some
Communities and nations survive where its participants act in accord with what benefits the whole, not the few. Some will argue that the state has no "right" to prevent a same-sex pair from forming a union. Western cultures are too deeply enamored of the concept of "individual rights" to subscribe easily to the idea that individuals ought to moderate their personal choices to benefit the entire community. We have become an atomized culture, in which each person is his own autonomous government, the Self as Supreme Command. To many, the very idea of the common good violates "personal rights." But there is no "right" to a sexual relationship. In truth, it is merely a personal choice -- not a right -- that is circumscribed.
This principle is quickly illustrated by proposing an analogy to traffic laws. Suppose each driver were permitted to set his own rules of the road -- what would happen? Within hours roads would be strewn with crashed cars and injured people. The resulting traffic jams delay others from reaching work, school, or doctor's appointments. Cities would screech to a halt. The grief and loss of loved ones would be enormous, necessitating days off for funerals, grief counselors, and all manner of personal complications.
The point is that such laws are enacted for the safety of both the individual and the public at large and serve the common good of the citizens. The common good means some will drive slower than their preference, stop where they think they should be permitted to proceed if left to their own accord, and park only where designated rather than anywhere they choose. The simple truth is no one objects to elevating the common good over individual preference for the sake of orderly traffic and public safety. We can make a similar analogy based on the care of the environment. In fact, in many categories the state makes laws and public policy based on what best serves the whole.
Protection of heterosexual marriage is simply the state regulating and protecting the unique institution that forms an orderly community and benefits the future of the society. We must stress that there is a difference between laws made for the common good and individual preferences. Laws are not made to serve individuals.
Sex Makes Babies
After establishing the concept of the appropriateness of a communal commitment to what's best for the whole of society, the next step is to show how that principle applies to marriage too. How is it that reserving marriage to one woman and one man is the best for society?
The answer is elemental: Sex is powerful; sex makes babies. Its effect on individuals and communities is such that it is never unregulated in any society. Imagine a culture where marriage and sexual relationships have no regulations, no taboos. No stable families are formed, and thus the work of families goes untended or must be assumed by the state: Children are not properly educated, children and women are abandoned, no one is responsible for sick family members or the elderly, because where all are family, none are family, merely autonomous individuals with whom you have had a temporary liaison. Inheritance laws have no meaning, and the community is marred by jealousies, sexual violence, and pedophilia.
Clearly, this "free love" model does not work, since no such model of a culture has ever survived. In early societies or primitive tribal societies of today, chiefs regulate sexual relationships -- principally via marriages -- so that the whole of their community does not devolve into violent chaos. This example helps people envision the truth about the meaning of sex other than as a personal activity.
In an argument for a secular audience, we must point out that the preservation of marriage is not a negative force against personal choices. Those choices are not made illegal by preserving natural marriage as the only model of marriage legally recognized by the state. In actuality, preserving the definition preserves the truth that men and women make babies; men and women and their babies make families. To acknowledge that observable reality in no manner detracts from the legal freedom to make a "lifestyle choice."
What About Same-Sex Rights?
Advocates of same-sex unions often insist that because 10 percent of the population is homosexual, some legal provision ought to be made for them to establish families. But that is an erroneous figure; reliable statistics put the number at closer to 3-5 percent. The 10 percent figure is a political number that has been largely manufactured by the homosexual lobby. Much as the abortion movement crafted statistics to move public opinion, so too have advocates exaggerated the numbers of persons with homosexual inclination.
Others object that same-sex pairs can be parents and provide for families. To rebut this suggestion, we can remark that they cannot without enormous bending of the natural process, both physical and psychological. The legal woes of surrogate mothers and shared parentage where same-sex pairs have split up is a knotted tangle where the child is the victim, as celebrity cases have demonstrated. The psychological confusion and education failures of children raised in same-sex households is widely documented.
Few moderate-minded people have thought about the actual lives of children exposed to same-sex households. Children raised in same-sex environments are five times as likely to suffer physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. Aids and sexually transmitted diseases reduce the life expectancy of homosexual persons, increasing the likelihood of early loss of a parent or surrogate parent.
With these facts in mind, we must be aware that possibly few other subjects in our nation are as difficult to approach as the status of same-sex unions. All of us know and love persons who struggle to find balance and contentment between their public and private lives. It is crucial for Catholics to understand the anguish this topic can cause among people of good will. Those who promote same-sex unions seek to ease the hurt they see in their loved ones and co-workers. Their intention is to be compassionate. Our goal in a secular discussion is not to show why homosexual acts are wrong. Rather, we must begin with a positive approach. Our goal is to show how preserving and strengthening marriages and families is the best for the whole of society, including those with same-sex attraction. We must take care to avoid a tone or a vocabulary that stigmatizes any person.
Join the Debate
We live in a "post-Christian" era that has turned a deaf ear to Scripture, but that is hungry for truth. This situation shows the urgency of the lay vocation. The state is the regulator of what the common good is, and, in our Western democracies, the state takes its cues from the people. This is why our Catholic participation in reasoned public debate is so critical to the process.
Where will such discussions take place? The most effective exchange arises out of a natural situation. Perhaps your state has marriage amendments under consideration. That is an opportunity to become involved in a political defense of marriage. Other natural opportunities include PTA meetings (where textbooks promoting same-sex unions could be opposed); at the soccer field where other parents gather; in your parish.
By engaging others in discussions about proposed legalization of same-sex unions, Catholics can accomplish much. In many cases you may be known as a practicing Catholic who never once "pushed religion" during the conversation. It will not be lost on your audience that you made persuasive, cogent points that referred only to the civic consequences. Soon enough it will occur to them to wonder, "How is it that what the Bible and Catholic Church teach is also what is best for our communities?" That question is a powerful evangelizing tool.
Cindy- Catechumen
- Number of posts : 51
Location : California
Faith : Catholic Convert
Registration date : 2008-02-16
Re: One Man, One Woman
by Cindy Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:05 am
Sidebar Article
Family Day in Italy: A Case Study
More than a million Italians celebrated "Family Day" in Rome on May 12, 2007. Participants hoped to increase public respect for marriage and family life. Homosexual activists denounced the event as an "anti-gay day" engineered by the Catholic Church, but supporting family life is hardly the same thing as expressing negative sentiments toward homosexual persons. Moreover, the truth is that the list of participant groups included everything from trade unions to the Association of Moroccan Women. Organizers pointed out that support for families is a civic matter, not solely of interest to people of faith. The breakdown of family life has led to social and economic distress, scarring contemporary Italy (and the entire West).
Birthrate Crisis
Italy, once a solidly Catholic nation, reports one of the lowest birthrates in the world: 1.2 children per childbearing-age woman. The demographic slide is a dire threat to the economy. One response of the Italian government is the "Bambini Bonus," a 1,000-euro stipend to women who have a second child. In the village of Laviano near Naples, Mayor Falivena frets that the village is dying despite the bonus. So the mayor and city fathers offer an additional 10,000 euros to women for each additional child.
All over Europe, governments are in a scramble to find family-friendly economic policies. But in themselves these are not tempting enough. In Laviano only four babies were born last year, and that included one set of twins. A similar woe threatens hundreds of Italian towns. The familiar image of large Italian families gathered around Mama's pasta is but a memory.
"Where will our next craftsmen, teachers or farmers come from?" ask public officials.
These questions are all the more crucial as the Italian Parliament considers passing a same-sex union bill. Last year such a measure was defeated; it has resurfaced in 2007 as a "stable union" bill that grants marriage benefits to unions (heterosexual or same-sex pairs) that register with the government as intentionally stable. But few imagine that so-called "stable unions" will increase respect for marriage and family within the Italian culture. Already the devaluation of marriage -- from divorce, cohabitation, and abortion -- has dissuaded couples from marrying.
The economic equation is simple: Fewer children today mean fewer workers tomorrow; the nation will be without a sufficient labor force to maintain the economy or national services. Fewer taxpayers will be around to fund the nation's obligation to the pension trusts of the retired citizens.
A Bleak Vision
Socially, as they themselves age, today's young Italians will face a lonely middle age and elder years since they are only children, bereft of siblings and cousins. Loneliness and a sense of alienation are among the primary sources of depression and substance abuse, further eroding productive capabilities and drawing on already strained social services. That bleak vision of the future drove thousands to participate in Family Day.
Not all were Catholics, and many had no religious affiliation. But all were convinced that Italy is in an urgent economic and social crisis. The perilous demographic decline is the direct result of an erosion of family values. Fewer young women perceive marriage and motherhood as a respected "life choice." Far more spend their fertile years focused on a career path, only to discover later that fertility is not a commodity that can be purchased at will. In addition, fewer young couples marry because they can opt for cohabitation and abortion. And now, "stable unions" threaten to devalue actual marriage and deplete part of the tax benefits once earmarked for families, while giving nothing back to the society.
Italian Family Day participants understood that whatever one's views on same-sex unions, the Bible, or the Catholic Church, the natural family makes a unique, irreplaceable contribution to a nation's social and economic health. That is a basic human truth that has been lost in a generation of sexual liberation as an experiment in social policy. In short, it's not just a "religious" issue any longer. Gradually, respect for marriage has declined. No longer does any special pride come with joining the community as a married pair. Where people fail to marry because marriage is devalued, a succession of relationships displaces or eliminates marriage for many men and women altogether. That in turn causes declining fertility.
Family Day in Italy: A Case Study
More than a million Italians celebrated "Family Day" in Rome on May 12, 2007. Participants hoped to increase public respect for marriage and family life. Homosexual activists denounced the event as an "anti-gay day" engineered by the Catholic Church, but supporting family life is hardly the same thing as expressing negative sentiments toward homosexual persons. Moreover, the truth is that the list of participant groups included everything from trade unions to the Association of Moroccan Women. Organizers pointed out that support for families is a civic matter, not solely of interest to people of faith. The breakdown of family life has led to social and economic distress, scarring contemporary Italy (and the entire West).
Birthrate Crisis
Italy, once a solidly Catholic nation, reports one of the lowest birthrates in the world: 1.2 children per childbearing-age woman. The demographic slide is a dire threat to the economy. One response of the Italian government is the "Bambini Bonus," a 1,000-euro stipend to women who have a second child. In the village of Laviano near Naples, Mayor Falivena frets that the village is dying despite the bonus. So the mayor and city fathers offer an additional 10,000 euros to women for each additional child.
All over Europe, governments are in a scramble to find family-friendly economic policies. But in themselves these are not tempting enough. In Laviano only four babies were born last year, and that included one set of twins. A similar woe threatens hundreds of Italian towns. The familiar image of large Italian families gathered around Mama's pasta is but a memory.
"Where will our next craftsmen, teachers or farmers come from?" ask public officials.
These questions are all the more crucial as the Italian Parliament considers passing a same-sex union bill. Last year such a measure was defeated; it has resurfaced in 2007 as a "stable union" bill that grants marriage benefits to unions (heterosexual or same-sex pairs) that register with the government as intentionally stable. But few imagine that so-called "stable unions" will increase respect for marriage and family within the Italian culture. Already the devaluation of marriage -- from divorce, cohabitation, and abortion -- has dissuaded couples from marrying.
The economic equation is simple: Fewer children today mean fewer workers tomorrow; the nation will be without a sufficient labor force to maintain the economy or national services. Fewer taxpayers will be around to fund the nation's obligation to the pension trusts of the retired citizens.
A Bleak Vision
Socially, as they themselves age, today's young Italians will face a lonely middle age and elder years since they are only children, bereft of siblings and cousins. Loneliness and a sense of alienation are among the primary sources of depression and substance abuse, further eroding productive capabilities and drawing on already strained social services. That bleak vision of the future drove thousands to participate in Family Day.
Not all were Catholics, and many had no religious affiliation. But all were convinced that Italy is in an urgent economic and social crisis. The perilous demographic decline is the direct result of an erosion of family values. Fewer young women perceive marriage and motherhood as a respected "life choice." Far more spend their fertile years focused on a career path, only to discover later that fertility is not a commodity that can be purchased at will. In addition, fewer young couples marry because they can opt for cohabitation and abortion. And now, "stable unions" threaten to devalue actual marriage and deplete part of the tax benefits once earmarked for families, while giving nothing back to the society.
Italian Family Day participants understood that whatever one's views on same-sex unions, the Bible, or the Catholic Church, the natural family makes a unique, irreplaceable contribution to a nation's social and economic health. That is a basic human truth that has been lost in a generation of sexual liberation as an experiment in social policy. In short, it's not just a "religious" issue any longer. Gradually, respect for marriage has declined. No longer does any special pride come with joining the community as a married pair. Where people fail to marry because marriage is devalued, a succession of relationships displaces or eliminates marriage for many men and women altogether. That in turn causes declining fertility.
Cindy- Catechumen
- Number of posts : 51
Location : California
Faith : Catholic Convert
Registration date : 2008-02-16
Mary1973- Neophyte
- Number of posts : 68
Location : Fairview, NJ
Faith : Roman Catholic
Registration date : 2008-02-19 -
Re: One Man, One Woman
by Cindy Tue May 06, 2008 7:39 pm
My pleasure.Mary1973 wrote:Thanks for typing all of this!
Cindy- Catechumen
- Number of posts : 51
Location : California
Faith : Catholic Convert
Registration date : 2008-02-16
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum