Arguments against gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobballen_18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobballen_18

Guest
Hey everyone,

So, with the issue of gay marriage, and government allowing it or not, is it possible to explain why gay marriage is wrong without bringing in religious issues? I mean, we as Catholics (or other Christians who are against it) have many reasons why gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed, but when it comes to government prohibiting it, some people just try to say that “church and state should be separated” so we have to allow people to be free to do what they want (within reason of course).

So then, is there any way to convince those type of people that it is NOT “within reason” to allow gay marriage, without giving a “religious” answer?
 
First off what are they being denied? They are able to get married privately anytime they wish. So marriage is not what they are being denied at all. What they are being denied is easy access to a bundled list of legalities that is normally associated with marriage. However many of these legalities can be obtained by any two people of whatever sex or relationship, it just takes a little more effort.

There are a few legalities/benefits that are given to only couples that are actually married by law. In my opinion these benefits are given for one main reason: To promote and protect marriage primarily for the benefit of the children that may be born into the world because of it. The government cares about happy/strong marriages for the sake of the children born into them. This is what these benefits are geared towards.

This leads to why I don’t think homosexual relationships can claim equality. They don’t bring new life into the world. If they don’t have a happy/strong relationship we won’t let them adopt. Thus there is more incentive for the government to promote strong heterosexual relationships since they can’t control whether they bring new life into the world or not. This is not the case with homosexual relationships. I also have yet to see proof that homosexual relationships are as beneficial for children as heterosexual relationships. Common sense would dictate though that if two dads or two moms was the best environment to raise children in, nature would have made it work out that way.

In summary it doesn’t make sense for people that are homosexual to claim discrimination on this issue because not all is equal to begin with. I would support bundling a lot of the benefits that homosexual couples are currently able to already get by talking to a lawyer to make it easier on them, but only if it is offered to any two people regardless of sex or kind of relationship. In my opinion a brother and sister who are living together after a tragedy of some sort should be able to share health benefits, visitation rights, leave their possessions to one another in the event of death, ect… and should have access to a civil union. A civil union in no way speaks towards whether the couple has a sexual relationship and should be available to any two people regardless of the type of relationships they have.
 
What our founding fathers meant by separation of Church and state is that the government could not interfere with the Church not the other way around, our country is founded on Christian morals that is why the Declaration of Independence proclaims as a self-evident truth the First Principle that “all men are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our currency (money, dollars) say “In God We Trust.” Just as many people have misinterpreted scripture to fit their own lifestyles and agendas so too have people misinterpreted our constitution. Just as there are many belief systems that are not what Jesus Christ designed for his church so too are the many controversies surrounding our nations beliefs, when the truth is there is no controversies surrounding what we believe, we are a country founded on Christian beliefs and people have misinterpreted these things to fit their own beliefs lifestyles. Does that make sense? Gay marriage is wrong and should be illegal because that is what this country is founded on Christianity which homosexuality opposes it. Secondly homosexuality is completely unnatural and goes against mother nature, simply put.
 
I think the activists and their media enablers have (purposely) clouded the reasons. They know they don’t have any solid legal reasoning. “Why not?!” Is not a legal argument.
To get back to an honest debate, we should return to the basics. What is sex? Why does it exist? What is a marriage? Why is a marriage?
Sex is to bring children into the world, and for the parents to bond closer to be ready to be parents. Marriage is a construct to provide a stable environment so the child can be raised with the benefit of their mother and father.
You’ll find in the answers to both questions nothing to do with homosexuality. Nothing. The homosexual agenda is trying to jump over the hurdle of rationality, using high emotional arguments. A marriage is not a license to go steady. And sex shouldn’t be treated as a contact sport.
The homosexuals ask why should we care? Because they want government to use arbitrary power to force a minority opinion on the vast majority. A majority that instinctively understands what homosexuality is, and though they don’t persecute these people because of their lifestyles, neither do they applaud and condone their choices.
Just maintaining a rational, natural law argument is more than compatible. The Catholic arguments are icing on the cake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top