Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The Gay Marriage Debate: Brought to you by Contraception

Posted by   + Show Post

The Gay Marriage Debate: Brought to you by Contraception

Steve Skojec

by Steve Skojec
2 days ago

RSS

ContraceptionI’ve been reflecting on some of the comments on my most recent post. Again and again, gay marriage advocates come to the debate insisting that marriage is a fundamental civil right, which begs the question. This assumption would not be possible if certain logical fallacies did not already commonly exist.

First, there is the false notion that marriage is a right. Marriage is not a right — not for anyone — it is a license. The difference between freedom and license no longer being widely understood, an easy way to distinguish a right from a license is that in the case of a license, you typically have to obtain a license to have permission to perform the action. Driving requires a license. Starting a business requires a license. Being a barber requires a license. And of course, getting married requires a license.

Licenses may be denied on various grounds, at the discretion of the issuing body. Driver’s licenses may be refused if the driver has too many moving violations or a DUI, for example. Marriage licenses will not be issued in most states to people wanting to marry their first cousin. Closer lines of consanguinity are against the law everywhere. Bigamy is illegal. Polygamy is also illegal. (You won’t see anyone getting a marriage license that will allow them to marry their car, for that matter, though there are some who would wish it so.) There are plenty of circumstances in which the state legitimately denies the request of persons wishing to be married.

So if we accept that marriage is not a right, but a license, then there must be some reasoning behind why the state is involved in issuing licenses for marriage at all. In most cultures, marriage is something sacred, far above and beyond a civil contract. But if there is a government imperative to regulate marriage in any degree, then it must mean that marriage has some impact upon the society being governed.

Of course it does. Marriage is the most natural and stable context for the procreation and education of children (always what the Catholic Church has noted as the primary end of marriage) which, in turn, provides citizens for the nation. Families are the building blocks of civilization. It stands to reason that governments have an imperative to protect them, and even to promote them. This isn’t a position based on religion. Consider, for example, “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” written by Adam Kolasinski, a doctoral student in financial economics at MIT:

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

If the propagation of society is “a compelling state interest,” it stands to reason that the state would enact legislation to protect the institution which enables this action. Bigamy and polygamy are widely considered to be bad for the stability of a family unit, which explains why both of these situations are illegal under current marriage regulations. Bigamists and polygamists may believe they are being discriminated against, but I’m not certain that anyone is currently very interested in taking those arguments seriously. From what I’ve seen, most gay marriage advocates seem rather interested in distancing themselves from promoting these unpopular sexual ideologies, despite the fact that they are the logical consequence of promoting any sort of non-traditional marriage that involves consenting adults.

So would gay marriage be beneficial to society? Putting aside the biblical and magisterial proscriptions which I take as a given in a Catholic forum such as this, I don’t see how it would be. Even committed homosexual relationships — including marriages — are more likely to involve promiscuous behavior that is consented to by both partners. There is new evidence that children in gay households experience a negative impact on development. And of course the most obvious problem should be taken into account – by their very nature, homosexual relationships are infertile, meaning that there is no inherent capacity in these relationships toward the procreation and education of children. If the defining characteristic of marriage as a positive good to society is that it provides the best and most stable and natural context for bringing new citizens into the nation, gay marriage fundamentally fails to pass muster.

But this is where the argument for traditional marriage begins to break down. It’s been quite a long time since the defining characteristic of marriage, from a societal standpoint, had anything to do with children. With the advent of modern techniques for contraception in the 20th century, it has become increasingly easy (and common) for marriage and children to be mutually exclusive.

As Catholics, we must understand this: Sterile sex is unnatural sex. When unnatural sex has become commonplace, as it has in a contraceptive culture, it becomes intellectually impossible to make significant distinctions between homosexual sex and contraceptive heterosexual sex. By removing openness to procreation as the fundamental defining characteristic of legitimate marital sexual intimacy, we have embraced any and all sexual relations that express emotional love as the sort of relations which are proper to marriage.

In a 2008 article, Hoover Institution research fellow and author Mary Eberstadt made note of this blurring of the lines from the perspective of the Anglican Church:

By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals.

Thus in a bizarre but real sense did Lambeth’s attempt to show compassion to married heterosexuals inadvertently give rise to the modern gay-rights movement—and consequently, to the issues that have divided their church ever since. It is hard to believe that anyone seeking a similar change in Catholic teaching on the subject would want the Catholic Church to follow suit into the moral and theological confusion at the center of today’s Anglican Church—yet such is the purposeful ignorance of so many who oppose Rome on birth control that they refuse to connect these cautionary historical dots.

We reap what we sow. The contraceptive approach to human sexuality has a domino effect, with more far-reaching implications than many who have championed it ever imagined. When sexual love is no longer inherently life-giving, it quickly becomes permissive, self-centered, hedonistic. This is true in all relationships, including heterosexual ones. God, in His wisdom, balanced the raw power and pleasure of human sexual intimacy against the responsibility of creating and caring for a new human life. It is, perhaps, the only thing that could keep such a primal appetite in check.

If we are unable to regain this understanding of human sexuality as a culture, this is an argument we will never win. Voluntarily sterile heterosexual marriages are simply not sufficiently different from inherently sterile homosexual ones to make a cogent argument that one is superior to the other. And if one kind of sterile marriage is acceptable to society, why shouldn’t all of them be?

Advocacy of contraception undermines the case for traditional marriage. Being open to life in the marital act, as Catholic spouses are obligated to be, is the only philosophy of sexual intimacy that holds moral weight in the debate over marriage. If we cannot define marriage by its openness to children, we cannot really define it at all. Without such a definition, there’s simply no chance we will prevail in preserving the integrity of this institution which can (and has) become whatever people want it to be.

source

Conservative Republicans     

Where Smart Moms Hang Out


by on Aug. 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Replies (111-120):
Jenny-talia
by Bronze Member on Aug. 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Okay...I'm gonna lay it on the line

As a former IV drug user, I know that the VAST majority of IV drug users are aware that dirty needles spread disease, and know how to prevent that.

I don't think the transfusion thing happens much in the US anymore.

But yes, blood is the big transmitter.  It's not uncommon for tearing of tissue to occur during anal sex.  In fact, it's extremely common for the person who was penetrated to experience some light bleeding immediately after, and up to a day or so following.  Vaginal sex, yes, is the most common way it is spread in the US, and I believe that is because most homosexual men understand the risks involved, and react accordingly.  I also think that because so much of the attention surrounding HIV has centered on gay men, hetero couples think they're 'safe', which has led to vaginal penetration surpassing anal penetration as the #1 way HIV is transmitted.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

No, it's much easier to get it through a blood or plasma transfusion, or with a dirty needle.

AIDS spread easily in the 70s and 80s as there was a lot less knowledge about STDs and how to protect yourself, through both homosexual and heterosexual sex.  Both involve the exchange of bodily fluids. 

But blood - blood is the real potent transmitter.  That's why both gay and straight couples might go a long, long time without infected their partner.  And why pregnant women can pass it on so easily, as can hemopheliacs and IV drug users who share needles.

Quoting Jenny-talia:

Um...it's totally WAY easier to contract HIV from male homosexual contact that results in penetration. 


No wait...it's totally WAY easier to contract HIV from anal sex than any other form of sexual contact.  Homosexual men generally have more sexual contact this way than hetero men or women. 



lga1965
by on Aug. 29, 2012 at 9:18 PM

 Yes---there can be a surrogate arrangement . But I have a feeling Candle and the other strict conservative Christians think it is wrong to have children through surrogacy or IVF, Fertility teatments.etc. They insist that it has to be "the natural way", even if that means that some wonderful people aren't going to have children.Even if it is none of their business theChurch and the "followers"  think they have the right to dictate their wishes to everyone else.

Narrow minded ,rigid thinking. Meanness too.

Yes, what about people who marry but don't want to have kids? I'm sure they will say it is  not a legitimate marriage. @@

Quoting SunshneDaydream:

Okay.  But what about people who DONT want kids.  Ever.  Will be on birth control for life because they just don't want to procreate.  No marriage license?

Also, homosexuals can be open to the possibility of life...even actively TRY to have biological children...with surrogates.  Why do you HAVE to procreate with your spouse?

Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

Why would they need to do that?  According to Catholic teaching all they need to do is be open to the possibility of life. 

 

Quoting SunshneDaydream:

They wouldn't have to have sex before marriage, they would need to be forced to undergo testing to make sure they can procreate.  That's fair, no?

Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

LOL, No going by my definition wouldn't require the couple to have sex before marriage to know if they are infertile or not.  

Try again...

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

The pursuit of happiness, the creation of ones family is of fundamental importance of their life

If we went by the definition you are hinting at, infertile men or women should be denied a marriage license as well



Quoting 12hellokitty:

 


Quoting shannonnigans:


Oh, I get it, so if the state denies the license, that is the authority as to whether or not marriage is not a fundamental civil right - not the Supreme Court.  Makes perfect sense. 


I can do this all day.  He said marriage is not a right (let alone a fundamental civil right).  You agree.  I don't.  Nor did/does the Supreme Court doesn't.  They were unanimous.  Even the conservative justices on the bench went with it.  Your guy is spouting mistruths.



This is taken from the SC ruling on Lovingv. Virginia.  Can you explain how SSM would be fundamental to our very existence and survival? 


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

 


 


 

jaxTheMomm
by Platinum Member on Aug. 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I'd agree with you!  Either penetration can cause exposure via blood, anal I think is a little higher.

Thankfully we know a lot more than we did then.  But I remember when nobody knew, and nobody knew why hemopheliacs, drug users, gay men and pregnant women caught it at a higher rate.  Very scary stuff.

(on the topic of gay men, I've read some really interesting things, mostly blogs, about how drug companies are now telling gay men they don't need protection - condoms - as the new drug lines will keep them safe once they'd contracted it.)

Quoting Jenny-talia:

Okay...I'm gonna lay it on the line

As a former IV drug user, I know that the VAST majority of IV drug users are aware that dirty needles spread disease, and know how to prevent that.

I don't think the transfusion thing happens much in the US anymore.

But yes, blood is the big transmitter.  It's not uncommon for tearing of tissue to occur during anal sex.  In fact, it's extremely common for the person who was penetrated to experience some light bleeding immediately after, and up to a day or so following.  Vaginal sex, yes, is the most common way it is spread in the US, and I believe that is because most homosexual men understand the risks involved, and react accordingly.  I also think that because so much of the attention surrounding HIV has centered on gay men, hetero couples think they're 'safe', which has led to vaginal penetration surpassing anal penetration as the #1 way HIV is transmitted.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

No, it's much easier to get it through a blood or plasma transfusion, or with a dirty needle.

AIDS spread easily in the 70s and 80s as there was a lot less knowledge about STDs and how to protect yourself, through both homosexual and heterosexual sex.  Both involve the exchange of bodily fluids. 

But blood - blood is the real potent transmitter.  That's why both gay and straight couples might go a long, long time without infected their partner.  And why pregnant women can pass it on so easily, as can hemopheliacs and IV drug users who share needles.

Quoting Jenny-talia:

Um...it's totally WAY easier to contract HIV from male homosexual contact that results in penetration. 


No wait...it's totally WAY easier to contract HIV from anal sex than any other form of sexual contact.  Homosexual men generally have more sexual contact this way than hetero men or women. 




Jenny-talia
by Bronze Member on Aug. 29, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Wow...that's SUPER fucked if it's going on.  I mean...HIV/AIDS was an epidemic that tore through the homosexual community in the 80's.  I have friends who lost everyone they were close too, and harbor survivor's guilt to this day. (To tie in with another post, I bet this is a chunk of the men who only recently got on psychotropics.)

And these cocktails, sometimes cost people a grand or more a month...of course these drugs aren't available through PPA or anything like that.  These already stigmatized people must resort to not feeding themselves to stay alive...

*shudder* this makes me really, really ill.

ashleyrenee24
by Ashley on Aug. 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM
1 mom liked this

Adoption, sperm/egg donation, surrogacy, previous relationships.

Quoting candlegal:

It does not include them (the gay couple) having their own child.  Men only get pregnant on Oprah.

Quoting futureshock:

Gay marriage increasingly involves children anyway.



Elkamelka
by Silver Member on Aug. 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM
1 mom liked this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/virus/origins.html

Way to stereotype?  Bravo.

Just one of the many articles I found on where AIDS started.  Was it passed throughout the gay community first?  Yes.  Are all gay people whores?  Don't be ridiculous.  And why don't you tell them.  You seem to have all of your "facts" where it started.  And in case you haven't noticed, there are lots of straight people out there who are promiscous, so blaming the gay community is old and tired.  Just like the argument of gay marriage. 

And now that I'm thinking of it, maybe, must maybe, allowing them to marry will keep them more monogamous and not such sluts.  You know, because they are all the same.  Geez.

Quoting candlegal:

tell that to all the people that gave HIV to and let's not forget all of the ones that died from Aids.  Why don't you tell it to them.

Quoting Elkamelka:

Am I the only one sick of this argument?  The gays are part of the people in the Constitution where it states we are all created equal.   are more likely to involve promiscuous behavior that is consented to by both partners.

And are you kidding me?  What. A. Crock. of. Shit.


 

heidimoose134
by Momma Moose on Aug. 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM
3 moms liked this

So much ignorance in one post. 

LucyMom08
by Gold Member on Aug. 29, 2012 at 9:47 PM
1 mom liked this
How exactly would 2 strangers getting married hurt anyone else?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Elkamelka
by Silver Member on Aug. 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM
1 mom liked this

I LOVE YOU!  I wrote out an answer, but it was so nasty I had to erase it.  I honestly have not read anything so hateful, misinformed, or vile in all of the time I have been on CM.   

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

Oh my God you couldn't be more ignorant if you tried.

AIDs came from men eating the meat of infected chimapanzees.  They then spread it through heterosexual sex with prostitutes, and it travelled to Haiti via men who had visited female prostitutes in Africa and brought it back with them.

Then it hit the gay community, the IV drug community and those that needed blood transfusions.  Haiti to Florida and on out through our continent.

PLEASE educate yourself and stop blathering away such drivel.  You can undo that.

Quoting candlegal:

I said blame, not despise.   Typical of you to try to read more into anyone's words  you don't agree with.

Again fact, aids came from homosexual men.   Not despise, just blame.  You can't go back and undo it.   They brought it to us.  How much more plain can I get.     Do you even remember 30 years ago when came to light and what the thinking was about it?

 

 

iamcafemom83
by Bronze Member on Aug. 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Why do the children have to be born of the parents? Gay couples can adopt. This in turn, creates a family....with children. Bam.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)