Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Sliding Down The Slope

It makes perfect sense that Canada is struggling to come to grips with polygamy. Since they have allowed homosexual persons to marry and this "freedom" is enshrined into their law, they now must let others decide what constitutes the definition of "marriage" also. This includes those that want to have multiple spouses. If we rationally follow the logic, we can also see that someone who wants to marry anyone who can consent to it, should be allowed to. Why put any limits on marriages at all?

Of course, they were warned by many that this would happen, but it is easier to ignore the warning signs than to listen to the truth sometimes - and that goes for all of us. This quote says it all:

“During the debate on same-sex ‘marriage,’ when Liberal Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler adamantly testified that polygamy would not be an issue, everyone knew very well that it would be,” Canadian lawyer Gwen Landolt, national director of REAL Women of Canada, told Lifesite News Service Aug. 2.

“If you can break down the laws guarding heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman, then anything can happen,” said Landolt. “If you can have a partner of the same sex, then logically you can have two or three of the opposite sex.”

5 comments:

Sean said...

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the decision by the secular Canadian government to recognize unions between two individuals who love each other as equals (and just happen to be gay) leads to government-sponsored polygamy. Wouldn't potential polygamist couples need to first prove that this is the unaltered will of all parties involved, without force or coercion, for it to even be considered an acceptable union? I raise this point because, in my experience and research concerning such couples, this simply is not the case. Rather, it is a sad return to misogynistic insistance that the male head of household rules over his spouses rather than treating each as his equal.

Again, I fail to see how a Canadian government, working towards the respect and dignity of all her citizens, would do an about face from treating same-sex couples as equals to treating women as inferiors.

Marcel said...

First of all, homosexual sex, by definition, cannot be a loving relationship. Love is wanting the best for another despite the consequences to yourself. Homosexual sex (and any pre-marital sex for that matter) is using another individual for your selfish desire. It puts the other person in harms way emotionally, relationally, physically, mentally, and spiritually. To risk someone in such a way is not loving someone.

Now, onto why a decision on homosexual marriage naturally leads to polygamy. It is because the historic and natural definition of marriage is a bond made between Man, Wife and God. When the re-definition of marriage starts to make marriage into whatever we desire it to be, then there is no natural way to limit defining it as any individual sees fit.

Sean said...

Millions of long-term gay and lesbian couples worldwide would disagree with your assessment that homosexual love does not exist. Hasn't Catholic teaching recently emphasized the unitive aspect of sex, as an act of loving, caring, and personal sharing? If heterosexual sex were only meant for procreation, why does the church allow sterile heterosexuals to marry, or allow for the rhythm method within marriage?

Secondly, the Catholic Church has its definition of marriage as a sacrament, and I am in no way trying to tell the Church to change its definition of the sacraments; it has as much right to set rules as I have to leave the Church because I disagree with these rules. However, when marriage is defined in different terms by a secular government, such as that of the US or Canada, is this not automatically defined by each nation's insistance to represent people of all faiths, not simply Catholics? It was in this reasoning that the Canadian government defined marriage as it recognizes it as between two individuals who share mutual love for one another. This stance does not logically proceed further to polygamy, as polygamy has yet to be shown to be a union of mutual love.

Marcel said...

You didn't address my definition of love or the problems inherent within homosexual relationships. Sexual attraction does not equal true love. Covenental married love is impossible between two people of the same gender. This is because if you take out one part of the sexual act, intentionally, then the act becomes less than love.

As for long-term - the data shows that homosexual relationships rarely last long, are more likely to lead to addiction, depression, abuse, etc. and are less faithful. By defining identity with sex, there is a misappropriation of personhood inherent in the situation.

As for the unitive aspect, the Catholic Church teaches that a homosexual relationship cannot be unitive because of the nature of the relationship. By nature, there is no true "unity" in acting in a disordered way. The comparison of unintentional sterile couples is an apples to oranges argument and a distraction. If you compare it to contraceptive sex - that is more closely related. Both are intentionally closing the sexual act to life, and one purpose of sex, and therefore cannot be unitive either. Both are an abuse of sexuality.

If you intentionally take out one of the purposes of sex, the other one cannot stand alone as a reason for sex. Unintentional situations (sterility) is another matter. While having a homosexual inclination might be unintentional, the acting on it is not and the desire is always disordered.

By no means is this a repudiation of the persons of homosexual inclination. But, a defense of the way God intended sex to be used.

As for the state defining marriage. They will eventually impose their beliefs, with law, in places such as Canada. This is why several pastors in the Netherlands, Canada and elsewhere are being threatened with jail for speaking against homosexual sex.

I also beg to differ that by redefining marriage you don't open yourself to a relativistic view of marriage. This is the logical end to such thinking. Why does the government define it and not the individuals in the relationship?

Geoff said...

Canada doesn't really have the free speech protections we have here. If they start allowing polygamous "marriages" and keep going on in that manner, pretty soon it will be illegal for the Church to speak in Canada.

I have definitely been sharing your concerns about Canada lately, Marcel.