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

[Kal2012]

I find it kind of ironic that it’s the French who are protesting the legalization of gay marriage by marching in the streets.

I’m Gen-X and I’ve noticed that either people are really “for” gay marriage or they just don’t talk about it because of the stigma associated w/being anti-gay marriage.

I wish that civil unions was an option, but most states have already rejected that idea w/their Marriage amendments.

It’s taken me a long time to accept the idea of civil unions, but I realize the practicality of it. However, the dividing line on the issue has been moved to marriage and I just can’t cross the line into calling same-sex unions “marriage”.

I’ve lost several gay “friends” because apparently, if you don’t support their issues 100% than you are anti-gay - which equals that you are anti-them (as individuals) - which isn’t true. I just happen to be more traditional in my viewpoints and I’m not going to change just because someone I know is gay. My positions end up being very nuanced because I don’t want to offend people, but I also want to make clear about my position.

For example. it really makes no sense that one person elected to the Presidency of the US can automatically turn the US into a theocracy, just because he happens to be a conservative Roman Catholic. I simply can’t make the leap because of my knowledge of how the system works and current political trends. I wasn’t even Rick Santorum supporter, but that’s not good enough…apparently. The standard is rejecting everything that Santorum supports 100% and I don’t. I just don’t think he’d be a good president, but I don’t think that he’ll turn America into some RCC theocracy either. And somehow - that makes me anti-gay in someone’s mind. I still don’t get it - two years later!

I think that a lot of young people see this for what it is - an attempt to change the traditional norms of society. An attempt to drive another nail in the coffin of the “church” which is supposedly antiquated and serves no purpose in this “wonderful utopia” of post-modernism. (I’m being sarcastic, btw).

I think that people want to be fair and they don’t care about the moral/social issues that will come as a result. Fairness is more of a virtue than Godliness.

 

[Sheeniac]

I have yet to hear anyone who argues for same-sex marriage actually answer the question “Then, why not incestuous marriage?”

All I ever hear in response is “Oh, that’s just silly. That won’t happen.”

Why? Why, why, why? Can you actually offer a reason as to why a father shouldn’t be able to marry his own daughter? It can’t possibly be evolutionary or scientific, because you’re not at all worried about two gay folks not being able to breed together.

I heard the same argument from a weekly Church attending Catholic friend of mine when I said that marriages with more than 2 people are next. ‘Oh don’t be silly - marriage is between 2 people’.

10 years ago, it was:

1. 2 people
2. Opposite sex

If one clause can be redefined, so can the other, logically speaking. Why is one sacred, and the other not?

No answer, since there is none.

 

[Crescentinus]

The Catholic Church has the uncanny ability to unite the right types of enemies.
This issue demonstrates that fact quite well.
For instance, the militant anti-theist homosexualist agrees with the liberal-progressive Protestant that the Catholic position is “hateful”, “bigoted” and “homophobic”.

 

[Sheeniac]

Sure:

1. It has a much higher likelihood of resulting in birth defects, should the girl conceive.

.

Birth control and abortion. Your argument against such marriages doesn’t stand, secularly speaking.

 

[Sheeniac]

I don’t think we’ll see a push for incestuous marriage or pedophilia any time soon…but that isn’t to say it’s not a slippery slope.

There are attempts to lower the age of consent for males, coming mainly from the homosexual groups. However, this is framed as equalizing it to the age for females. Not sure if I buy that since everything is state by state.

There is also an attempt to get attraction to older teens out the psychiatric manuals.

Slippery slopes are slippery indeed.

 

[buffalo]

Good question.

No I am not a practising Catholic. Although I like to think I have some education so not ‘uneducated’, if you please.

I say raised catholic as for the purposes of this forum that is what I am, and is where i am coming from. My dad would say I am catholic as ‘I have no choice’ a view I have found on this thread. A lot of my close friends are Catholic. I was indoctrinated as a child and was confirmed a Catholic at about 10. A practice I disagree with as I feel children should not be exposed to religion until they are at least 18 and can make a choice for themselves about whether to follow a religion.

Indoctrinated? How so?

 

[akela135]

I thought I would add that the other day on Facebook I came across a picture of several cartoon couples with a caption that read “don’t judge” it had boy-girl, girl-girl, boy-boy (the normal set) but then it added a little short girl and a tall boy and specified that the boy was 21 and the girl 15. I thought, well if that is okay why not 21-14 or 22-15? Why not 22-14 or 23-15? Just keep stretching it a year back at a time, afterall what is one more year difference going to do?

A while back another friend had written a post about how pedophilia was normal and natural and should be accepted. They had argued that we should have some restrictions but anyone over 13 should have the right to make their own decision on whether they date an adult or not. A lot of other people had commented on it in argeement saying this would help a lot of people who have to suffer for no good reason!

The SSM lobby is not in favor of any of these arguments but are they really opposed? Or will they become “allies” and supporters of these people who are in need of “help and recognition” as soon as their own interests are legally protected? Afterall I know many people who are against SSM but believe that it should be legal for people to make their own choice.

 

[buffalo]

With all due respect we have ‘tossed out’ thousands of gods over the years.

Surely your legal system prevents incestuous marriages? Why is there a requirement for a God to do this?

More people ‘live’ without the Catholic God than live with him. There is no reason why one can’t live a moral a law-abiding live without the need for a specific God.

Humans alive today including you were not born in a vacuum. The society you live in was greatly influenced by Christianity. You, despite your best attmpts cannot escape this reality. You are influenced by osmosis.

Too many though want to cherry pick what they like.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo! Are you trying to suggest that somehow we can draw a link between incest and homosexuality? Tut Tut!

Do you object - yes or no. Simple question.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I have yet to hear anyone who argues for same-sex marriage actually answer the question “Then, why not incestuous marriage?”

All I ever hear in response is “Oh, that’s just silly. That won’t happen.”

Why? Why, why, why? Can you actually offer a reason as to why a father shouldn’t be able to marry his own daughter? It can’t possibly be evolutionary or scientific, because you’re not at all worried about two gay folks not being able to breed together.

Lochias, will all due respect, I think you are a little muddled here.

Why would someone in favour of same sex marriage want to get involved in promoting incestuous marriage any more than say someone who promotes heterosexual marriage.

I think they are not replying to your question out of decent and not wanting to offend you as you seem to suggest that that a homosexual wanting to get married, will lead to incest being made legal. That is quite an awful thing to suggest.

I think it is a settled argument (if it ever was an argument) that homosexuals do not ‘breed’. Why is that a cause for worry?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Do you object - yes or no. Simple question.

Do I object to what?

 

[buffalo]

Right, the big distinction (IMO) there would be the issue of consent. We generally agree (and I believe you do too) that neither animals nor children can offer consent to romantic relationships.

Homosexuality, on the other hand…

To be honest I’m not even opposed to your classification of homosexuality as a “wrong” type of love, I just don’t see any evidence that it rises to that level.

It doesn’t make it not in your own best interest, either. However, you say it definitively ISN’T, I just want to know why…

There are certain legal protections that heterosexual couples can get that homosexual ones can’t.

Generally speaking, I would say they should increase the common good, though that’s not the whole story either. Maybe you could argue that the common good would be served by dispossessing certain wealthy individuals. That may be true, but it’s not the only issue the law has to worry about.

Anyway, still looking for reasons why legally-recognized homosexual relationships are contrary to the common good. Trickiest thing about Catholicism: trying to believe a whole bunch of things that you don’t actually believe or find morally detestable.

There are activists as we speak trying to lower the age of consent. They claim adults having sex with children is good for children and they can indeed consent to it.

Love between individuals is what we are called to do. Love your brother. Ever read CS Lewis’ - The Four Loves. It breaks down the types of love. I do believe we miscategorize love.

The legal protections real marriage gets is because society realizes its benefits and wishes to support and promote it. One option would be to demote civil marriage and strip away legal protections for everyone. No marriage license needed either.

Legally recognized homosexual relationships? How about legally recognized relationships period. Go see a lawyer and have him draw up the documents. Anyone can do it. Right now some people are leaving their estate to their pet. Presumably because they love their pet.

 

[buffalo]

With all due respect we have ‘tossed out’ thousands of gods over the years.

.

It was good of the pagans to do so.

 

[buffalo]

I know Catholics believe in Souls and I don’t have an issue with it. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is their business - not mine. Live and let live. I know you are heavily influenced by your religion, but there are other views too.

Who is calling you. I have a predisposition to heterosexuality, but don’t feel the need to overcome it. I also have a predisposition to cupcakes and I probably would like to overcome that.

Do you feel heterosexuality is a behavioural issue? Or a test? to be overcome.

Heterosexuality is our design. Homosexual is not part of our design. It has no ability to procreate. Who would design something that has no ability to generate?

The other views have to stand up to the tests.

Do you know who else came up with the concept of a soul? You may be surprised. The soul is the animating principle of all life. Man, however, has a rational and immortal soul.

Why do you want to give up cupcakes?

Yes, research is converging on it being developed during early childhood with several contributing factors. If we threw some money at real research perhaps we could help heighten the masculine expression of individuals that feel this. We spend much money fighting other desires.

 

[Sheeniac]

Why would someone in favour of same sex marriage want to get involved in promoting incestuous marriage any more than say someone who promotes heterosexual marriage.

That matters not.

The arguments being employed by the SSM supporters will be used by supporters of other deviant acts. **That **is the point we are making.

 

[buffalo]

I didn’t mean ‘uneducated’ as an insult. I have friends who are cradle Catholics, went to Catholic schools, yet I would consider them uneducated in the faith. My generation (Gen X) suffered mightily in not getting a thorough understanding in the tenets of the faith.

From your father’s statements, it would seem that you are a teen. I became an atheist at the age of 15, but no one in my family really practiced the faith, so I didn’t have that problem. Do you consider yourself an agnostic? A basic Christian, but not a Catholic?

Basically, this topic truly falls under faith and morals for orthodox (as opposed to dissenting) Catholics, one that we believe is therefore true and not subject to the Church being incorrect in her judgment.

So we take this belief and vote it. Are there Catholics who see ‘gay marriage’ as something unimportant? Probably, but I think they should remain quiet so as not to cause scandal. There are times when I am not 100% in agreement with the Church, but I will keep that to myself and not criticize my 2,000 year old Church. In the event of disagreement, it is more likely that the Church is right and I am wrong. It’s a very difficult thing to get one’s mind around, but it is possible.

If you look at European countries that have legalized gay marriage, you will see that the rate of traditional marriage has dropped. So there is an impact. In addition, there are now attempts on the horizon to bring about marriages of more than 2 people about, which was predicted. While these attempts are still small and few, they exist, and will only grow.

In my mind, if marriage is to be redefined, why stop there? Why is it wrong to marry someone related to you? Once God (or at least Natural Law) is tossed out, there is no reason to prohibit incestuous marriages.

May your search for the Truth be fruitful.

The Church has accumulated much wisdom and knows the human condition more than any one institution.

 

[buffalo]

Well I admire your sale technique. “Wrong!!”

Of course there is life apart from God. I understand that as a Catholic religionist you have an enthusiasm for your religion, but there are many other religions who make/made similar claims. You will have to do a little better, if you are hoping for converts.

No - there is no life without God. He sustains it, including yours. He can revoke your gift of life at any time.

There are many religions that have common truths, it is true. Rational man can find many of these truths to be evident. There is only one that has “the fullness of truth”.

We can go through these on another thread if you wish.

 

[buffalo]

Is there a lot of people in your country, pushing for incestuous marriage? Do you think it will become law ?

Yes it will - there will be no reason to stop it. It is a power play, same as homosexual so called mariage.

 

[buffalo]

Surely equal rights for homosexuals has been around for as long as homosexuals.

Every human, who are all made in the image of God, have inherent dignity. It is this love for them that Catholics help each other get to heaven. If we truly love, then we must also love everyone. It is uncharitable to ignore homosexuals who want to destroy their chances for eternal life. That is why this issue is so important. We have to practice what we preach (or at least try to).

Now, what is popular today is asking for license, to do whatever one wants. That is not true freedom.

 

[The_Bucket]

If same-sex marriage should be legal on the basis of equality, then so should polygamy and incestual marriage.

In states where same-sex marriages are legal, such unions between family members are illegal. That’s just ridiculous. The whole notion of consanguinity being a barrier to marriage is that the children resulting have a much higher risk of being disabled. Why should states bar marriages between same-sex couples regardless of familial distance? And then, after that’s settled, why bar heterosexual marriages on the basis consanguinity? After all, equal is equal, right? It’s wrong to discriminated against heterosexuals just because they can have kids!

There are three options.

1. You agree civil marriage can and should be, under the Constitution, restricted to just heterosexuals.
2. You think civil marriage should be equal for all and any restrictions are unconstitutional.
3. You agree civil marriage can and should be, under the Constitution, restricted as a general rule but you think homosexual unions should be allowed.

I don’t see much of the third option being expressed because, if one did so, one would be conceding that those supporting traditional marriage are not bigoted. That kind of undermines the whole attack. Arguing that civil marriage is a matter of equality but incest and polygamy cannot be allowed is intellectually inconsistent.