Thursday, June 27, 2013

How to defend traditional marriage


Tracey Rowland, an Australian philosopher, discusses how the Catholic Church should respond to proponents of same-sex marriage.

2 comments:

JAFHR said...

I've specializedon this particular debate, in Britain one needs a very specialised understanding of the subject to even survive the onslaught of crazed egalitarians and sentimentalists. Here is the argument I've come up with;
1) Marriage is the human attempt at making unions perfect; therefore, every marriage ought to be made as perfect as possible.
2) By definition, when two things are perfectly united, they become one thing. Therefore, a marriage is when the two become perfectly united- they become one person, not two people (quote Mark's Gospel- they must 'become one flesh').
3) For something to be one thing, it must be united materially, efficiently, formally, and finally. The two, to become one, must have these four things in common: a beginning, a shared status, a physical body, and a common goal.
4) A marriage offers these things: shared status=legal/religious status, the two are now a 'couple'; beginning=love leading to marriage, the love is the true efficient cause and the ceremony is a clarification thereof ( the clear beginning of the union as not two people but one person). The physical union is the child, since this is two gene pools, two sets of DNA (the defining feature of a person) becoming one. The common goal must be the best possible goal, since the two must be perfectly united: the best common goal must be to reach infinity. The way to do this physically is to have children, and for them to have children etc.
5) Homosexuals cannot even attempt to be united materially (the kids) or finally (the common goal- physically the kids) to perfection; the best they can attempt is to have some gross imitation, like surrogacy or adoption. They cannot be united physically.
6) Therefore (see premise one) homosexuals can't marry- 'to marry' means to be perfectly united. They can't be. Therefore it is an ontological impossibility, it's like saying 'cripples can walk'.

JAFHR said...

I've specializedon this particular debate, in Britain one needs a very specialised understanding of the subject to even survive the onslaught of crazed egalitarians and sentimentalists. Here is the argument I've come up with;
1) Marriage is the human attempt at making unions perfect; therefore, every marriage ought to be made as perfect as possible.
2) By definition, when two things are perfectly united, they become one thing. Therefore, a marriage is when the two become perfectly united- they become one person, not two people (quote Mark's Gospel- they must 'become one flesh').
3) For something to be one thing, it must be united materially, efficiently, formally, and finally. The two, to become one, must have these four things in common: a beginning, a shared status, a physical body, and a common goal.
4) A marriage offers these things: shared status=legal/religious status, the two are now a 'couple'; beginning=love leading to marriage, the love is the true efficient cause and the ceremony is a clarification thereof ( the clear beginning of the union as not two people but one person). The physical union is the child, since this is two gene pools, two sets of DNA (the defining feature of a person) becoming one. The common goal must be the best possible goal, since the two must be perfectly united: the best common goal must be to reach infinity. The way to do this physically is to have children, and for them to have children etc.
5) Homosexuals cannot even attempt to be united materially (the kids) or finally (the common goal- physically the kids) to perfection; the best they can attempt is to have some gross imitation, like surrogacy or adoption. They cannot be united physically.
6) Therefore (see premise one) homosexuals can't marry- 'to marry' means to be perfectly united. They can't be. Therefore it is an ontological impossibility, it's like saying 'cripples can walk'.