Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage (rituals, virtual, homosexuality, churches)

[Quiddity]

Note: The Catholic Educator's Resource Center recognizes that the persons writing this article are neither Catholic nor in full agreement with the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Nevertheless, the urgency of the issue of gay marriage at this time and the compelling arguments raised against it here, make this paper an important resource. The paper was presented by the authors at Emory University in Atlanta Georgia on May 14, 2003.

Summary


There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. One of us, in fact, is gay. We oppose gay marriage, not gay relationships (which are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples and should be supported by all).

Most people assume that heterosexuality is a given of nature and thus not vulnerable to cultural change, that nothing will ever discourage straight people from getting together and starting families. But we argue — and this is important — that heterosexual bonding must indeed be deliberately fostered by a distinctive and supportive culture.

Because heterosexual bonding is directly related to both reproduction and survival, and because it involves much more than copulation, all human societies have actively fostered it (although some have also allowed or even encouraged homosexuality in specific circumstances). This is done through culture: rules, customs, laws, symbols, rituals, incentives, rewards, and other public mechanisms. So deeply embedded are these, however, that few people are consciously aware of them.

Much of what is accomplished in animals by nature ("biology," "genetics," or "instinct" ) must be accomplished in humans by culture (all other aspects of human existence, including marriage). If culture were removed, the result wouldn't be a functioning organism whether human or non-human. Apart from any other handicap would be the inability to reproduce successfully. Why? Because mating (sexual intercourse), which really is largely governed by a biological drive, isn't synonymous with the complex behaviours required by family life within a larger human society. So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

To be continued...http://catholiceducation.org/article...ty/ho0064.html

[Ardent Listener]

Interesting Victor. Perhaps someone here who advocates gay marriage would be willing to answer (debate) each of the points listed on the site.

[Sunstone]

Young and Nathanson argue that heterosexual bonding is not innate. What, then, do they think of the role of oxytocin in both heterosexual and homosexual bonding? Is it just to be ignored?

Overall, the article was, for me, too much predicated on the outdated notion that humans have very few if any drives or instincts, and that their culture is responsible for determining far more of their behavior than I think is so. Specifically, I disagree with their notion that heterosexual bonding is wholely determined by culture, and has no genetic or innate component. I've already mentioned the role oxytocin, an innate component, plays in that bonding. From reading their article, it seems they are ignorant of advances in neurobiology.

As far as their agrument that culture determines heteosexual bonding goes, even if it were true (and it's only partly true), it would not necessarily follow that allowing homosexual marriages weakens heterosexual bonding. Young and Nathanson provide in their article no mechanism whereby they demonstrate that allowing homosexual marriages would weaken heterosexual bonding. They merely assert that it would, and leave it at that.

[Quoth The Raven]

They lost me after the whole.'Only women can gestate and lactate'. While only women can gestate, the male and female breast are virtually identical. Men have mammary glands, and there are plenty of documented cases of male lactation - not involving hormone treatment - that render that statement in error. There are even cases of men nursing their babies.
And if humans had no drives or instincts, how did we survive before we were organized enough to start declaring that 3 sheep and a chicken meant that that man there is now the proud owner of my daughter?

[robtex]

Victor,

first off who are Young and Nathanson? I google Young and her name was too common. My guess is she is a theologians. Nathanson is listed to work for a law firm. assuming it is the same guy.
http://www.icnl.org/about/Staff/boardpnathan.htm

Don't take this too harshly but if I want opinions on biolgy or genetics I am not going to hit up lawyers theologicans and other laymen for advice. Getting these two's biological input makes as much sense as me going to a loan officer to get my taxes done. You want to post biological arguements on why homosexuality marriage should be disallowed find a biologists next time.

2nd of all if "They oppose gay marriage" than they don't fully support gay relationship either. At least not with the same lack of contraints as hetrosexual ones.

A further note is not only are we not in danger of extinction but, we are overpopulating in many parts of the world. We don't need to worry about the future survivial of our race due to birth rates. In addition we live longer lives than even just 100 years ago due to advances in secular medicine. Even if that option didn't pan out we can artifically manufactor humans at will with our current technology. We don't need sex to make babies.

Marriage is not a complexed institution. To make such a vapid statement as a point against gay marriage shows the "dept" of reseach these two did. Marriage is whatever the couple in question decides what it is and the church nor state has a right to designate the reasons for marriage between two consenting adults. If someone wants to marry for love, money, geography or whatever it is their decison not the states and guessing from the catholic website that posted that definetly not the churches.

There is nothing to redefine in marriage. The arrogant statement of

"when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people."

gives us a hidden agenda of theologican thinkers (the website is catholic) advocating the church defining what marriage should be. The secular state nor the church need to suggest the curbing of hedonism (whatever that means) in a marriage.

In short, we are nowhere near extinction and even if we were could mass produces babies in labs and the church and state have no right or say as to the motives to marry between consenting adults.

[retrorich]

It's amazing the length to which people will go in futile and pathetic attempts to justify their irrational homophobia.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by retrorich

It's amazing the length to which people will go in futile and pathetic attempts to justify their irrational homophobia.

And vice versa.

Solon

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Solon

And vice versa.

Solon

I'm not sure I understand this.

[Solon]

I really soo do not want to enter into any of this, however, what I meant was that all camps have their agenda's, and all camps will go to any lengths necessary to justify their own particular take on this issue.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Solon

I really soo do not want to enter into any of this, however, what I meant was that all camps have their agenda's, and all camps will go to any lengths necessary to justify their own particular take on this issue.

Fair enough. However, arguing for equality doesn't strike me as pathetic reasoning to justify an irrational position.