I never heard it put that way before, but it makes perfect sense. What good is a woman and her ability to help conceive and bear a child in a same sex marriage? I love that logic!

I can sort of see where you are going with it, but I don’t think it holds. How can something be anti-male and anti-female but favoring the self at the same time, unless it’s for asexuals? I think same-sex “marriage” isn’t a “right” and isn’t a “right vs. wrong” thing. I think it’s simply impossible.

So here’s the argument that I think works best, and this is coming from somebody whose sister “married” another woman just 8 days ago:

Marriage is not just a legal union between two people, even though that’s how our society thinks of it. Marriage is also a spiritual, emotional, intellectual and physical union. While a homosexual couple might achieve spiritual, emotional, and intellectual union, and while they might be granted a legal union by the government, the physical union is impossible, and this goes beyond the way male and female bodies fit together for the marital act. Ever think about *why* intercourse is called “the marital act?” Because it marries the bloodlines of the man and woman, which is manifest in the conception of children. Two men can never marry their bloodlines. Two women can never marry their bloodlines—Brandi’s point that there are “two wombs for making babies” ignores the fact that these women can’t make a baby TOGETHER. At best, one of them sits out and a man is brought in. Or they take turns sitting out and conceiving a child with a man.

Some say this argument falls apart because there are heterosexual couples who cannot conceive children. Of course it’s true that this burden falls on all too many couples. But the normal outcome for heterosexual relations is conception. The normal outcome for homosexual relations is sterility and always will be because two man can’t make a baby together, lacking ova and womb, and two women can’t make a baby together, lacking sperm. Whatever they have together, it’s not marriage, even if society redefines marriage and takes out the procreative aspect to the definition.

I think it’s absolutely correct, but not likely to be persuasive to SSM proponents who think SSM gives more “equality and dignity” to everyone, not less.  Pointing out the logical consequences of what you say, though, especially as these are already playing out in the real world, could make it more persuasive.  SSM does necessarily say that men and women are superfluous (in the respective opposite pairings), and mother and father are labels empty of content with respect to gender.  If SSM is legal, the government has to take that as its official position and it makes it hard to maintain any legal or societal basis for the ideal or norm being moms and dads raising their own children in one-man, one-woman marriage.  In places where SSM is legal, you already see this with, for instance, attempts to replace parent labels in government documents with “Parent A” and “Parent B,” and forcing Catholic (and likely other religious) charities out of adoption services because one-man, one-woman marriage may not be legally be preferred for adoptive parents.  Among other things, I do agree that is an affront to the dignity of men and women as such.

BTW, I love (not) this comment: “If two lesbians marry, that’s two wombs for making babies!”  So facile.  How are the two wombs going to make babies together?  An essential component would seem to be missing.  If you get it from a turkey baster, that kind of highlights the problem right there.

Thank you for your measured responses.  I hesitated to post initially because I have seen the way in which some people react to others who raise different opinions.  Thank you for recognizing my good intentions and for engaging in this topic so charitably. Peace.

All that being said, I think that the use of contraception and the separation of marriage from having children has led into this attitude that the womb and womanly gifts are unimportant. Same-sex “marriage” is just a natural outcome of this separation and of the reduction of marriage to a relationship upgrade that doesn’t need to produce children. I don’t think we can blame same-sex marriage for this, but the other way around. Does that make sense? How do we even defend the sanctity of marriage, if the majority of Christians find nothing wrong with contraception and separating marriage from FAMILY?

There is human weakness and sin, but humans cannot claim that all such weaknesse are right and permissible. Theft is always wrong , illegal and immoral and a thief cannot claim that thievery is right and and so people should recognise it.  Same way this homosexuality and same sex marriages and all such abnormal ways of life. These are all against the natural laws

Any kind of legal recognition of same sex “marriage”, unions, civil partnerships, or whichever terminology is used are all an effort to equate something that is clearly against natural law with something that was ordained by God in the Garden of Eden with our first parents.  It is anti-woman, anti-man, anti-child, anti-natural law & anti-God. 
This link from the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family & Property (American TFP) gives an excellent outline on this topic:
http://www.tfp.org/current-campaigns/traditional-marriage-crusade/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

I can respect a difference of opinion about what soda is best, what sports team is best, what music you think is best during mass or how many kids you think is too many but this is not any of those types of issues.  The sanctity of marriage is a founding moral principle of the Catholic church and open dissent by other catholics is heresy.  This is not a matter of public opinion.  Catholic politicians get asked not to receive communion for openly supporting issues like this.  Does that not communicate the gravity of the issue at hand?  Or perhaps those who so openly and proudly defend SSM dont understand what it is they are receiving when they get in the communion line.  Every time I here another Catholic support SSM or abortion or contraception all I can think of is my 4 year old telling me she knows better than I do.  Who are we to question 2000 years of church doctrine?  This isnt a matter up for debate just like women priests.  What ever happed to faithfulness to the magesterium?  God in His infinate wisdom did not make the church a democracy or our beliefs would change w/ the ebbing tides of public opinion.

I wish I could be the person who is better at communicating w/ love but sometimes I think people need to here it straight.  I’m not good at sugar coating.

The real question we need to ask is, “What is the purpose of marriage in our society?” and “Throughout history and across most societies, what is marriage intended to do?  The answer to this question can be none other than to provide a mom and dad for children so that they can raise them up to be good citizens.  That being said, why do we need government to sanction marriage at all if it has no purpose?  If a man can “marry” a man in the eyes of the government then why can not a man “marry” a 3 year old?  Why can a woman not “marry” her cat? I know you may think this is far-reaching, but how many people thought “gay marriage” was far reaching and would never happen 200 years ago?  We are not talking about policy change here!  We are talking about redefining what marriage has been since the beginning of time!  If you put religion aside and only rely on the laws of nature you will clearly see that this is ridiculous. 
If you are a Catholic and believe that same sex marriage is ok, you had better start praying for God to show you the error in you because there is no error in HIS Church!

I agree that SSM is anti woman and degrades our role in marriage, family and society. God designed us to be receptive and that isn’t a gift of man but of woman. SSM does force us out and it is wrong.

With that said, I feel that it isn’t up to me to agree or disagree with Church Teaching, it is up to me to obey or not obey.

Well, frankly, either stay in the boat and accept the captain’s orders, or jump out and see how much fun the choppy seas are. What pride when we can’t agree with the Church! Welcome to Eden, everyone! “Well, God says I shouldn’t do something, but I think he’s holding out on me. There really is nothing wrong with it after all!” Thus, the fall. Are we so blind that we still can’t see that God is God and we are not? We are not the authors of what is right and wrong. That exists as immutable and unchanging Truth, no matter what the popular opinion is.

I have a pastor who can’t talk about the tough issues like this because it makes people upset. He doesn’t like to rock the boat. That’s the worst possible stance to take! Sometimes people need to be allowed to jump out so that they can see that the boat really was the best place to be in the first place and that the wisdom of one’s superiors is the best course.

Not to mention the fact that it is a lack of charity to try to defend a gay lifestyle as a legimimate “choice.” Yes, let’s tell gay people that there is nothing wrong with the same-sex act, and then when they can’t understand why this lifestyle (which the world tells them is not a sin) is making them depressed and filling them with self-loathing, we have no answers. Does anyone realize the statistics on homosexual couples’ infidelity, suicide, and depression. It’s not because the world persecutes them. More people defend gay relationships than those who defend actual marriage. It’s because sin is sin, no matter what your orientation. And sin separates us from God. Do you who believe in same-sex marriage and claim to be Catholic really care for and love these brethren? If so, so not confirm them in their sin!

Good to see some of you ladies sticking by the Truth.
Congratulations to the author of the blog.
In my view it is wrong to disobey the teaching of the Church on faith and MORALS.
May God bless you all and enlighten the respondents who are not with the Church’s teaching
Daniel

To PP:
Your choice to love your sister inspite of her sin is couragous. I just caution you to be careful not to give tacit approval of her sin. It is a very fine line to walk and we all must be aware of our own culpability. I know in my own situation that it is so incredibly sorrowful to have a relationship with a family member in the PPH lifestyle that it is difficult to have a close relationship with this person. You are welcome to join our EnCourage group that you can find out more about at couragerc.com.