Natural functions and marriage
Over at MarriageDebate.com Maggie Gallagher has been dealing with one of the standard arguments for "gay marriage", that there can't be an essential connection between marriage and procreation because after all 70-year-old women are allowed to marry even though they can't have babies. Miss Gallagher handles the question very well, but there's a lurking point worth bringing out.
This was a hot topic in a previous debate in my comments. Jim Kalb at Turnabout answers this common argument.
Funky Dung
Comments 2
Is there any other argument that doesn't say "because we feel like it?"
I honestly have difficulty hearing all the arguments against monogamous homosexual relationships when they seem to be so filled with the rhetoric of "well, we've always done it this way."
That's the same reason slavery and the same reason "mixed" marriages between people of different races were so shunned. It was supposed to uphold the Bible and the word of God.
As to the argument of man and beasts, there is little to no cross-species breeding, yet a lot of homosexual activity among animals. I'm not saying because animals do it, we should. I'm just saying the counter-argument is weak.
As a Catholic, I try to figure out reasons why the Church decides things so I can be at peace with its reasoning. I hope you can, because you are very well-versed with the media on the internet, and I would very much like to know a good reason. It is a moral dilemma I feel in my heart everyday, and I do not know how to resolve it.
+0
Posted 30 Dec 2004 at 8:33 pm ¶Pope John Paul II said it so much better than I ever could. I recommend "Theology of the Body". Christopher West's "Theology of the Body Explained" is an excellent companion volume.
+0
Posted 05 Jan 2005 at 3:17 am ¶Post a Comment