77 reasons in favor of traditional marriage/against gay marriage

[Rau]

To reiterate, what he is saying is that in the past the exact SAME arguments were used to say God was against interracial marriage, the exact same ones by the exact same people.

It wasn’t just a “nice try” it was a complete owning and dismantling or your arguments, which happens a lot.

Did the Catechism have a problem with interracial marriage?

 

[Rau]

Homosexuality…
It is not a sin, nor is gay marriage.

I assume you refer to homosexual sexual acts, since you mention marriage in the same breath.

How do you come to know that these things are not sinful?

 

[DrTaffy]

I assume you refer to homosexual sexual acts, since you mention marriage in the same breath. The

How do you come to know that these things are not sinful?

Why ask questions of a banned user?

 

[Sarcelle]

To reiterate, what he is saying is that in the past the exact SAME arguments were used to say God was against interracial marriage, the exact same ones by the exact same people.

It wasn’t just a “nice try” it was a complete owning and dismantling or your arguments, which happens a lot.

Nobody was owned.

One has to only take a look at the traditional Catholic countries to see that intermarriages have been taking place long before the US allowed interracial marriage. The decision to forbid interracial marriage in the US was not due to the Catholic church. Can you quote where in the teachings of the Catholic church does God disallow interracial marriage?

 

[clem456]

Be sure to read this one, in order to put the list into historic perspective:

law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm

It’s difficult to find the specific arguments folks are referring to in this link. It vaguely refers to people using religious arguments.
A couple of paragraphs stand out from this article.

In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. Others argued against it on the grounds that it violated natural order and would lead to unhealthy children — perhaps mentally retarded or a mongrel breed.

This was never, ever, a Catholic belief so the attempt to equate the validity of the argument for defending marriage with the ignorant denial of civil rights holds no water and is silly. The two just don’t follow, no one ever said they did, the only thing they have in common is they are beliefs held by people. The question has to be asked, “are they valid and true beliefs?” It’s very simple.

Ok, so some people used personal religious beliefs making this argument. They were wrong, obviously, based on revealed nature. I know that arguments from revealed nature are a no-no for gay marriage proponents, so… that’s an odd juxtaposition here, using revealed nature to protect interracial marriage, but not marriage period. Not exactly intellectual consistent here.

Forde-Mazrui acknowledged that the relation to procreation is different in gay relationships; now the concern is more the lack of procreation because many consider marriage a foundation for having children.

Many consider. Many consider? What’s wrong with this picture. Even the gay marriage advocate lawyer can admit “the relation to procreation is different in gay relationships”, yet “many consider marriage a foundation for having children”. :whacky: And the rest don’t? For the rest, revealed nature is subject to personal “considering”? That’s the reason we had people against interracial marriage right there…personal opinion trumping reality. Yet gay marriage advocates have gone down the same path. Ouch!

Really, if this kind of thinking didn’t have such pathetically tragic consequences for real human beings, it would be something to have a good laugh about.