Bombarded with pro same-sex marriage arguments, more the younger generations?

[aprilfloyd]

Heterosexual marriage is natural and beneficial to society and children. The other is not and lowers the bar.

The Church is not wrong on this at all.

Are you saying that homosexual marriage is unnatural and non-beneficial to children and society.

My opinion is that the Church has got this wrong, similar to other positions it holds. But it has to fight tooth and nail to hold its position or it will be seen to be, just like all of us, fallible.

 

[SaintFrancis333]

I am sure if you were on any social media today, you saw much support for same-sex marriage today due to the Supreme Court hearings that were held. I was just sadden so many Christian friends and family essentially arguing people who support traditional marriage were the bad guys. I know this is the new societal norm and it’s not going to change anytime soon, but it saddens me.

Do you think it’s more the younger generations supporting same-sex marriage, which is the cohort I belong to? Just curious…

I am going to be 25 next month and I can definitely say my generation and younger generations are taking such childish approaches to life. Instead of actually thinking for themselves they simply align their beliefs and thought processes with whatever is “trendy”. And gay “marriage” is VERY trendy right now.

 

[buffalo]

I am going to be 25 next month and I can definitely say my generation and younger generations are taking such childish approaches to life. Instead of actually thinking for themselves they simply align their beliefs and thought processes with whatever is “trendy”. And gay “marriage” is VERY trendy right now.

Most young people have not been trained in philosophy. That makes them easy prey for propaganda.

 

[buffalo]

Are you saying that homosexual marriage is unnatural and non-beneficial to children and society.

.

I thought that would be clear by now.

It is deviant and has no merit. The ultimate costs will be high.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I thought that would be clear by now.

It is deviant and has no merit. The ultimate costs will be high.

I know that’s your view. Shame. I am more optimistic. Homosexuals and lesbians will simply get married. Heterosexuals marriages will not be affected in the slightest and only the religions who oppose it will have issues, but they need something to rail against to maintain their self imposed ‘importance’ - so everyone wins!

 

[Crescentinus]

I am going to be 25 next month and I can definitely say my generation and younger generations are taking such childish approaches to life. Instead of actually thinking for themselves they simply align their beliefs and thought processes with whatever is “trendy”. And gay “marriage” is VERY trendy right now.

Too bad for them, I’m rebelling against that trend.

 

[skigirl1689]

I found this article from a couple years ago and thought it was excellent:

the-american-catholic.com/2010/09/07/a-secular-argument-against-gay-marriage/

An excerpt:

Let us first be clear that the case for traditional marriage between one man and one woman is already more than amply made. As Kyle points out, gay marriage advocates such as Andrew Sullivan are willing to acknowledge all of the great and useful aspects of traditional marriage. What they maintain is that opponents of gay marriage have not demonstrated how its legal recognition will harm traditional marriage.

I have never been the greatest adherent of the notion that “the law instructs.” Oftentimes I believe laws merely reflect shifting economic and cultural trends, often playing catch-up after the fact. In the case of homosexual unions, however, any act that places them on the same level as traditional unions will necessarily send a message to everyone in society, including children, that it is a matter of indifference whether one marries a person of the same sex or of the opposite sex. And it must be mentioned here that in the face of declining Western birth rates, the case for traditional marriage is stronger than it has ever been. Contrary to overpopulation hysteria, which I suppose some will want to debate over, developed countries need more children, and they need them now. It is hard to see how the problem of declining birth rates will be addressed by a society that is indifferent to sexual behavior.

With that said, let us now make the easiest case against gay marriage.

1. Traditional, heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for the survival of society through procreation.

1. Traditional marriages survive and thrive when spouses are faithful to one another.

1. Faithfulness is undermined by social indifference to the nature and purpose of sexual unions.

1. Homosexual “marriage” is/would be both a product of, and a contributor to, such indifference.

1. Ergo, homosexual marriage harms traditional marriage.

At this point, I will add the obvious as well: heterosexual fornication, divorce and adultery also harm traditional marriage in the same way. And I don’t see any gay marriage opponents arguing for those things. The bad old Christians are still making bad old religious arguments against them too. Sullivan’s strongest argument is merely that the Christians have lowered the bar quite a bit for heterosexuals; so low, that the next notch down is acceptance of homosexual couples. He’ll get no argument from me on the relative weakness of modern Christianity, Protestant and, sadly, Catholic as well.

In my view only procreative unions should be recognized as valid and worthy of benefits, incentives, and the word “marriage.” For he is correct; to recognize non-procreative heterosexual unions and not homosexual unions has the following effect:

It creates one class of people, regardless of their actions, and renders them superior to another.

Procreative unions (including polygamy, though it is not superior heterosexual monogamy) ought to be superior to all other unions. But as for people, which are not identical to the relations they enter into, there of course ought to be no such distinctions. Heterosexual individuals ought not be rendered “superior” to homosexual individuals, nor would they be. Not all heterosexuals can procreate. Moreover, not all heterosexuals are parents, and it is to parents in particular that the bulk of social benefits ought to go. Therefore plenty of heterosexuals would be placed in the same “class”, if one likes, as homosexuals. This doesn’t even include pedophiles, zoophiles, incestuous relatives, and others that would fall outside of this category. To place them all outside of this category, finally, is not tantamount to saying they are equivalents; no, I do not believe monogamous gays are as morally depraved as pedophiles.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Too bad for them, I’m rebelling against that trend.

Who knows if a lot of gays get married it may spark a rise in heterosexual marriage.

 

[JackieMom]

Do you have any homosexual and heterosexual friends who want to get married? Would you welcome one marriage and not the other?

As an open question, Why do Catholics have such an issue with homosexual marriage. Is it because their doctrine forces them and they cannot look at it objectively. Maybe the Church on this issue is just wrong.

I have homosexual friends (not my closest friends, but friends) that want to marry or think they are married. I disapprove of their choices and feel they are damaging. I do not disapprove of the individuals, though. It is possible to care for someone and get along with them even if there are disagreements about lifestyle. It’s called maturity.

 

[Crescentinus]

Who knows if a lot of gays get married it may spark a rise in heterosexual marriage.

Obvious non sequitur is obvious.

 

[28562]

Who knows if a lot of gays get married it may spark a rise in heterosexual marriage.

Or maybe we’ll find out that Darwin was really on to something as we watch themselves marry themselves (without breeding ability) to extinction.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Or maybe we’ll find out that Darwin was really on to something as we watch themselves marry themselves (without breeding ability) to extinction.

The human species has managed to keep the trait for homosexuality as an inherent part for 1,000s and 1,000s of years. Homosexuality has evolved to avoid extinction and flourish.

 

[28562]

The human species has managed to keep the trait for homosexuality as an inherent part for 1,000s and 1,000s of years. Homosexuality has evolved to avoid extinction and flourish.

Darn it. Now I have nothing to hope for.

 

[Brendan]

We have legal systems to prevent employer discrimination against people. And rightly so.

It would not be discrimation if gay ‘marriage’ does not exist as a legal contract. Therefore we can spare such an employer legal repercussions by opposing gay ‘marriage’

I asked how is a heterosexual marriage harmed.

Does a Catholic have to be married to be harmed by this?

The second part of your comment is a religious viewpoint, and not really applicable to the real world. If you believe in God or Evil, that is a concern for you, but not applicable to the discrimination against the LGBT community.

It isn’t discrimination, it’s showing love to the LGBT community by helping to save their souls.

 

[buffalo]

The human species has managed to keep the trait for homosexuality as an inherent part for 1,000s and 1,000s of years. Homosexuality has evolved to avoid extinction and flourish.

What? It is a defect not an evolved trait. Cite your sources.

An empirical test. Put two homosexuals on an island, go back in a few years and see how good they “evolved”.

 

[18trouble]

Biology and Philosophy and Religion and Logic among others support heterosexual unions. Liberal ideologies force-fed by public “education” and the mainstream media go against these classical studies.

Praying “for those who are so open-minded that their brains are falling out”. (I didn’t make that up, saw it on a novelty pillow.)

 

[aprilfloyd]

It would not be discrimation if gay ‘marriage’ does not exist as a legal contract. Therefore we can spare such an employer legal repercussions by opposing gay ‘marriage’

Does a Catholic have to be married to be harmed by this?

It isn’t discrimination, it’s showing love to the LGBT community by helping to save their souls.

The employer would escape legal repercussions if he kept his homophobia to himself and does not discriminate against homosexuals or heterosexuals for that matter

I don’t see how it affects people who are not involved with the heterosexual couple who may get married - it is non of our business.

Brendan, I appreciate that Catholics believe in the idea of ‘Souls’ and I respect your right to believe that - but it’s just a religious view - that’s all. It does not have any bearing on those who do not believe the Catholic faith

 

[Soren_Itenu]

Aprilfloyd, you’re on a Catholic forum. People on this forum who are Catholic believe in souls. It is one of the basic tenets of the faith. Issues are argued from a Catholic perspective here. The Catholic perspective is, for Catholics, relevant to everything, to every part of reality, because we see it as ultimate reality. Therefore the belief in souls is relevant to the debate over same-sex marriage, as well.

 

[Sheeniac]

The employer would escape legal repercussions if he kept his homophobia to himself and does not discriminate against homosexuals or heterosexuals for that matter

I don’t see how it affects people who are not involved with the heterosexual couple who may get married - it is non of our business.

Brendan, I appreciate that Catholics believe in the idea of ‘Souls’ and I respect your right to believe that - but it’s just a religious view - that’s all. It does not have any bearing on those who do not believe the Catholic faith

Your Religion is ‘Raised Catholic’. What is it now?

 

[aprilfloyd]

What? It is a defect not an evolved trait. Cite your sources.

An empirical test. Put two homosexuals on an island, go back in a few years and see how good they “evolved”.

It’s not a defect. With all due respect Buffalo, evolution is accepted science, that ship has sailed whether you are on it or not.

Put two men on the island and see how they evolve.

Put two women and see how they evolve.

I know, you know evolution does not work like that and wonder why you say these things. I think the issue here is why people look for any and every reason to maintain their position against it. Homosexuality evolved in the group known as humans.