Arguments against traditional marriage

[LotusCarsLtd]

I decided to post this topic in both the Moral Theology and Family forums as I feel it is relevant in both places. Now I must first and foremost state that I am a practicing Catholic who is faithful to Church teaching, so the following objections are not disagreements with Church teaching. Rather, I find that one of the most effective means for understanding anything—including Church teaching—is to play the role of the Devil’s advocate and to pose objections to those teachings so as to better understand and thus defend them.

The following objections I will post in series rather than posting them all at once since I want each objection fully and extensively rebutted before moving onto the rest. Each of these objections is based on what I found being used online to defend gay “marriage”. Please note that some objections have subsections with arguments that relate to the main objection but are similar enough to be listed as a subsection rather than an entirely new objection.

And I must also stress that everyone MUST stay on topic. If not I’ll flag, delete, remove, etc. anything that deviates from the topic at hand (or whatever…I haven’t done this before so I don’t know how and if I can). I just want answers, not side debate.

Pax Tecum.

---

Objections 1 and 2:

1. To deny gays the right to marry amounts to an attack on their human dignity
2. a. Marriage is a human right and efforts to ban gay marriage deny gays this right
3. Being against gay marriage is hateful, intolerant, and discriminatory

---

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

while catholics may object to gay “marriage” on religious reasons, it’s not the ONLY reason people like the idea of keeping that institution as it has always been defined. I’ve been on other message boards and the gays pushing this always try and turn it into a religious bigotry issue, it’s a slick strategy, it makes you feel like you’re on the side of Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps just for wanting to keep marriage as it’s always been defined. I’ve always pointed out to them that’s it’s not merely a religious issue, it’s a human tradition that goes back 5000 years in every corner of the world, that marriage is still defined as between a man and a woman in 99% of the world population, including atheist China, Japan, and Russia, Hindu India, secular Germany, France, and Britain, basically the whole non-christian world with a couple of small exceptions. Polls consistantly show that Germany, France, and Britain are about 50% atheist/agnostic, yet they haven’t embraced changing the definition of marriage. Yet over here in America, the “marketing” guys behind gay marriage made a calculated decision to paint anyone who doesn’t want gay marriage as a knuckle-dragging religious bigot, they figure they can guilt people into going along, who wants to be labled a bigot? It’s dishonest and I personally have grown tired of it, at least 50% of the Amazon.com “Religion” forum are gays whining about religious bigots denying them their “rights”. It’s become beyond tedious

 

[Julian0404]

1. The “Human Dignity” point is an attempt to get an empathetic-emotional “yes” before reason sets in. Humanity does not achieve dignity in marriage, but rather in the very essence of our existence as “humans”. And marriage does not guarantee or grant dignity, it grants union. And union does not grant dignity, as it is just an acknowledgement of common interest.
   Therefore, the “human dignity” point is a smoke screen designed to get more than the synergy of the “gay marriage act” would actually provide. Marriage + Dignity, nope doesn’t compute.
2. Marriage is not a right, it is a sacrament, which after the French Revelution was forced to become a “civil union” as well. The civil union did not declare it a right, it just removed the sacramental grace and allowed couples to be married by local governmental authorities.
   The very “history of marriage” clearly demonstrates that with the spouses selected by “parents” and the marriage “agreed upon” by families apart from the couple being married, that the concept of “right” was never part or parcel to the procedure. They were getting married whether they liked it - or their spouse - period. That is not a right, that is coercion. A right is a legitamate choice by all parties.
   Again, the gay community is attempting to secure more in their marriage than the synergy of society has allowed, or than the history of marriage has permitted.
   Gay Marriage is not “special” or “unique” as an act of marriage. It is common and simple and basic and standard. It affords the same guarantee’s as a hetrosexual marriage - not more. And that precludes “dignity” and “right” as neither is afforded to the hetrosexual marriage.