CatholicVote is a conservative Catholic blog which... I probably don't need to say much more. They're bigots.
Take, for example, this piece which places marriage equality in a "diabolical trinity" along with divorce and abortion.
Matrimony is the first of all the sacraments and was instituted by God Himself from the creation of the universe.
Then why did I hear at the
Values Voter Summit over the weekend that opposite-sex marriage "predates religion"? In fact, this opens up a can of worms. If God created the universe according to the creation story, then it follows from that that nothing predates religion, because religion has existed since the beginning of time. Also, if marriage does indeed predate religion, then it follows from that that there was existence before God, and thus, the creation story is not true, and thus, the creation of marriage between Adam and Eve is not true. In short, the "marriage at creation" argument collapses.
Furthermore, marriage is expressed not only in the sacrament of matrimony, but in the very essence of what it means to be alive down to the core of our being. It is literally in our DNA.
All right. I think that it's fairly obvious why that's a load of crap.
Marriage is a complementary union, because every single one of us exists as the joining of man and woman.
The complementary argument is interesting. Basically, it goes that men and women are fit for each other and complement each other. But if we are arguing that marriage depends on complementarity, then same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. A couple is, by definition, complementary. The two parts to a couple complement each other. Otherwise, they wouldn't be a couple.
As for the latter clause of that sentence, that just isn't true. But the implication seems to be that people should marry the person that they "exist[]" with, that they are "join[ed]" with, to use the language from the article. It says that men should marry women and vice versa, because men and women exist as joined to each other. But what if someone isn't joined to someone of the opposite sex? What if they are joined to someone of the same sex? The logic employed seems to suggest that that same-sex couple should be able to marry.
We are what God hath joined together in the moment of conception–the living, breathing, feeling, and aspiring manifestation of God’s will at the creation itself!
Is that supposed to be an argument against marriage equality? Because I didn't see one.
Marriage is defined as indissoluble, because we are indissoluble. When man and woman consummate their union in the nuptial bed, they become one flesh. Jesus is not using a delicate or poetic euphemism to avoid mention of sexual intercourse. He is speaking quite literally: a child is the complementary, exclusive, and indissoluble union of man and woman...
I do get sick of having to counter the procreation argument over and over again, but I will. If marriage is about having children, then straight couples that can't have children should not be allowed to marry.
... and the three great evils of our society each seek to destroy some aspect of this union:
They're getting into the "diabolical trinity" now.
abortion destroys the child,
I'm pro-choice, but I do understand the opposition to abortion, because it does end a life form. So I don't find the idea that abortion is harmful ridiculous (although I think legal abortion certainly reduces the harm that would exist were abortion not legal).
divorce harms the connections between the parents and with their child,
Once again, I believe divorce should be legal, but you can't deny that divorce is harmful to children and to their relationships with their parents.
The purported harms of abortion and divorce were reasonable. Will the next alleged harm also be reasonable?
and same-sex relations can never conceive a child in the first place.
Wait, what? What's the harm in that? If you're trying to say that same-sex marriage is harmful, then I'll need something much better than that. And how on earth does not being able to have a child, which is certainly not harmful, compare with the harms claimed that divorce and abortion cause? Surely killing a child (if that's the way you describe abortion) and harming them psychologically with divorce is much worse than not being able to have a child.
In the marriage vow, we assent to exercise our life-giving potential as actors in God’s divine plan.
If it's God's divine plan for people to marry someone of the opposite sex, then how do you explain the existence of gay people? If God does exist, and has control over the relationships a person will form as part of his divine plan, then we must reach one of two conclusions:
1. Either he intended some people to be gay, in which case, they should be allowed to get married, as God created marriage for people to enter into according to the relationships that he made them form, or;
2. From time to time, God makes a mistake, in which case, his authority over all other areas, and maybe even his very existence, must be called into question.
In the sacrament of matrimony, we are obeying God’s command to be fruitful, and to multiply.
If God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, then how do you explain the existence of people who can't do that? We must reach the same conclusions.
Marriage is an exclusive union, because a child can only have one mother and one father. The bonds of family go beyond mere living arrangements, legal privileges, and favored tax status. A child belongs to the mother and the father and the mother and father belong to the child. Each has a natural right to the other. Even if a parent must be separated from the child for his or her safety, this reality of this bond can never be erased. A growing body of evidence on children of surrogate mothers shows the same negative trends that are already well observed in children of divorced parents. Biology matters.
As far as I am aware, there are three arrangements for having children that place children with parents other than their biological parents. However, extending the right to these arrangements to same-sex couples in no way increases the number of children who will live without their biological parents. People who claim that it will rely on everyone else using absolutely no scrutiny against it in order for it to be sustained.
The first arrangement is adoption. Adoption is the placement of a child by its biological parents in a care facility until it is taken on (adopted) by other parents. Any child put up for adoption is not raised by its biological parents, regardless of whether or not it is adopted by a gay or straight couple.
The second arrangement is surrogacy. Surrogacy is the development of a fetus inside the womb of one woman, who gives birth to it, and then gives the baby to another couple. When the woman gives the baby away, she gives it away to a couple other than its biological parents. Thus, the baby is not raised by its biological parents, regardless of whether or not it is given to a gay or straight couple.
The third arrangement is a egg/sperm donation, which, as far as same-sex couples go, only works for lesbian couples. In this situation, the couple uses an egg or sperm that has been donated from someone else to conceive, and then give birth to, a baby. When a couple uses the egg/sperm from someone else to have their baby, the baby is not raised by its biological parents, regardless of if the couple is a gay or straight couple.
(I didn't include a definition of each of the three arrangements to insult your intelligence, I promise you. It was just to cover all bases while explaining the argument.)
Marriage then, is not only the union of man and woman, but also the union of one generation to the next. Of the Ten Commandments, the first three regard our obligations to God. The next three are essential components of marriage: the fourth is to honor our parents, the fifth is against murder (including abortion), and the sixth is against adultery. The indissoluble and exclusive union of man and woman which is open to life and sanctified by matrimony is the only way to be obedient to all of these commandments. The institution of marriage is not merely some contract between two consenting adults (or more than two, if that’s what you fancy). Marriage is an inter-generational contract between a man, a woman, and their children yet to be born. When that contract is violated in divorce, same-sex marriage, or abortion, children are deprived of their right to have and to know parents worthy and deserving of their respect.
How the f*cking hell does same-sex marriage harm the relationship between an opposite-sex couple and its children? To use words from the post, how does it "violate the contract"? Like, aren't you embarrassed to be saying such crap that is so blatantly illogical prima facie?
There's then some discussion about about divorce and remarriage outside the Catholic Church, followed by some hate to wrap it all up:
To change the definition of marriage is to disobey the direct commandments of God. Of course, we are fallen creatures. It is in our nature to disobey. Indeed, the Devil and all the forces of evil are defined by their disobedience to God’s commands. However, Jesus also promised the apostles–and us–that the forces of Hell will never prevail against His Church. Although we are all sinners, the Church cannot succumb to evil. On this question, the Church cannot change her teachings. The evils of divorce, of abortion, and of same-sex marriage are the diabolical trinity of this age and worshiped by many, but they shall never prevail.
Our side is "the Devil and all the forces of evil", according to these morons.
Finally, a note about angry rhetoric. I did criticize their angry rhetoric, even though I have used some myself, both in this post and others. The difference between us and them is:
A) As much as I wish that they wouldn't say that, I understand that they can say it, and I do not wish to stop them.
B) We're right to call out their hatred and bigotry as hatred and bigotry, because that's what it is. Its effects are profound. Its effects include LGBT people living every day as second-class citizens, and even include violence, as we've just seen in Pennsylvania. There is no comparison between that description and describing an entire group of people and their basic civil rights as "evil".
C) We're not the ones that constantly complain of being demonized and persecuted by our opponents. That's you guys. You're engaging in the tactics that you're accusing us of. While your comment does not amount to persecution, it does suggest an attitude that you always fault us for having whenever we have it.
As far as biology and complementarity arguments go, that was one of the easiest I've encountered to tear to shreds. Good luck with your comeback, bigots.
5:11 PM PT: A note of clarification: My "load of crap" comment was only referring to the claim that "marriage is literally in our DNA." I called it a "load of crap" because it is a false statement of fact. It was not a statement about religious beliefs. I'd like to thank coffeetalk for bringing that to my attention.