Debating Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter nickybr38
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nickybr38

Guest
Whenever I find myself discussing same-sex marriage with non-Christians and/or non-Catholic Christians I find myself completely stumped. I’m not sure how to respond to their objections.

They seem to be speaking mainly from emotion most of the time and I’m not well versed enough on the subject to counter that emotionalism.

Anyone else on here dumbfounded when it comes to defending the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage?

And just as an aside, I completely support the Church’s decision on this issue. I just don’t know how to ‘defend’ it. Especially in the face of so much emotionalism and anger (when you say you do not agree with same-sex marriage the reaction is usually very strongly negative and it’s difficult to speak to someone who is already pissed off with you just for disagreeing with them).
 
Arguments for SSM succeed only because people are attempting to defend a recent, faulty definition of “traditional” marriage. The defenders are attempting to defend a definition like “marriage is the union of a man in woman in a permanent bond of lifelong love and affection.”

But this is a highly watered down definition. You can tell because there is NO internal reason for the government to be involved. Why would the government regulate your FEELINGS??

The REAL traditional definition of marriage went like this: “Marriage is the union of man and woman in a bond of self-sacrificing love so profound that by its very nature it is ordered towards the creation, care and nurturing of new human life.”

Some savvy government official long ago recognized that this entity is where healthy, happy and productive citizens come from and decided to promote it and discourage less inherently productive relationships.

Two gay men simply don’t qualify for this relationship. No matter how they feel, theirs can never be a relationship ordered towards creating new life. Americans today like to assume that the body is incidental to the “real” identity of the person. This is ridiculous fiction. Our bodies are part of who we ARE, inseparable. What the nature of our bodies says is important and is ignored at our own peril.
 
The emotion you fight against is fueled by a misguided perception of discrimination.

To the LGBT crowd, your stance that SSM is wrong is akin to telling a person they are second-class citizens because of their skin color, or because of some other truly natural characteristic. They view their SS attractions as natural, just as natural as skin color. It doesn’t matter to them what the founding father’s take on traditional marriage was. What matters is that they want their attraction to be seen as normal, and one way of doing that in society is to lay claim to marriage rights.

They get emotionally charged up with the position that their attraction is disordered. And further infuriated with implications that their engagement in sexual activity is gravely sinful. To them, you aren’t speaking truth for their benefit, or for the salvation of their soul. You are judging, and homophobic.

Frankly, you will likely get nowhere with these types of people. They first have to acknowledge God, and then acknowledge that homosexual acts are disordered and separate them from Him.

They need prayer, fasting, and whatever penance you can offer up for their sake. Direct challenges to their orientation and actions will likely only fuel animosity and pit them further from God.
 
Be calm and prayerful. It’s simple. Man is made in God’s image. God is a community of persons. One God- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The human family reflects this. One man, one woman, and their love produces the fruit of a child. Sodomy doesn’t procreate. This is part of natural law. Love is meant to be given away and bear abundant fruit. Only a man and woman can procreate.

I hope that helps. By the way, there’s a list of some very important private reveleations I’m trying to spread. Please look at these, pray, and help spread them if you see their value. Praised be Jesus Christ.

Look here:

directionforourtimes.com/

youshallbelieve.com/

holylove.org/

rosaryoftheunborn.com/

focustvonline.com

americaneedsfatima.org/Articles/amazing-video-eucharist-is-our-lord.html
 
The first same sex marriage in Canada lasted exactly one year.
 
The first same sex marriage in Canada lasted exactly one year.
Such statistics aren’t the best debate tool. Heterosexual marriages have been dismal lately. ): This would be a much easier issue to debate if opposite-sex couples took things more seriously.

Thanks for all the advice so far guys.

I have been mostly taking the tactic of keeping silent but sometimes I just want to protect the Church because all sorts of evil things get said about the Church I love. It’s a bit difficult to sit back and let people spew their hatred.
 
The first same sex marriage in Canada lasted exactly one year.
Same sex ‘marriage’ icons in the U.S., Julie and Hillry Goodridge, plaintiffs in the landmark case in Massachusetts, split up in 2006 after 2 years. Not only was the the divorce custody proceedings over their daughter nasty, it was a legal mess across courts in Virginia and Vermont (to where the ex-partners each moved), the case possibly having reached the Supreme Court by now.

As for the subsequent comment by the OP, the CC has always put out and never revised the teaching on unitive and procreative ends of marriage, impossible to achieve in SS"M". Going with the secular and relativist crowd in affirming SS"M" may be easier, but this is the difference that the early Church / Christians lived in the faith – it was easier not to get killed, but they chose death rather than turn their back on truth.
,
 
=nickybr38;8924964]Whenever I find myself discussing same-sex marriage with non-Christians and/or non-Catholic Christians I find myself completely stumped. I’m not sure how to respond to their objections.
They seem to be speaking mainly from emotion most of the time and I’m not well versed enough on the subject to counter that emotionalism.
Anyone else on here dumbfounded when it comes to defending the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage?
And just as an aside, I completely support the Church’s decision on this issue. I just don’t know how to ‘defend’ it. Especially in the face of so much emotionalism and anger (when you say you do not agree with same-sex marriage the reaction is usually very strongly negative and it’s difficult to speak to someone who is already pissed off with you just for disagreeing with them).
Hi Nicky:D

Keep it simple.

Does every sexual unprotected sex act result in a pregnancy? OF COURSE NOT.

WHY?

Because God Himself built is a “fall-back” position. Sex is not a toy. It was designed by God for the express purpose of procreation [and as an incentive to those who do as he say’s] it is also what I term “marriage cement.”

NO life comes into being without God and every death ought also to be God’s EXCLUSIVE domain.

The 5th, 6th and 9th Commandments all affirm and CONFIRM this fact. So the question is: “WHO’S IN CHARGE”? ME OR GOD AND THE RESPOSNIBILITY CAN’T BE SPLIT.

Genesis 1: 26-Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
**So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ** And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

God Bless,

Has your snow gone yet?😃 It was 80 here in Flordia today,

Pat
 
just say this:

“god said it, i believe it, that settles it.”

works every time.
 
just say this:

“god said it, i believe it, that settles it.”

works every time.
Is that a facetious comment, noting your god in lower case and undeclared religious affiliation?
,
 
no, i dont capitalize anything–not usually, anyway. i was going to post something longer (and original), but figured that slogan amounted to more or less the same thing.
 
First, we should all learn what the Church teaches:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Then, I think, we should take a few words from our Jewish neighbors to show that it is not Christians alone that are concerned about this issue:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

The fact that all sexual relationships have become deformed gradually over the last 40 years is no excuse to say same-sex marriages are better. There is evidence to show - respectfully - that many gay marriages do not correspond to heterosexuals marriages on a one to one basis. Or, to put it another way, the question is sometimes asked, “Why can’t two people who are in a loving and committed relationship not be allowed to get married?”

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Peace,
Ed
 
Hi Nicky:D

Keep it simple.

God Bless,

Has your snow gone yet?😃 It was 80 here in Flordia today,

Pat
Thank you Pat. 🙂 It’s still snowy. We had -17C this morning. BRRR.

Ed: Thank you for the articles!

I guess the start is to educate myself more then I have already… still, no matter what logic and proof I have their anger is usually near impossible to break through. For now my approach has simply been to try and get them to just calm down. You can’t talk to someone who is raging.

Lots of great tips on this thread! Thank you everyone.
 
I try and say something to the effect of, “Well I don’t believe it’s right. I believe God intended for people to marry those of the opposite sex.” The argument that homosexual marriages aren’t santified often will not work, because a lot of straight marriages are certainly not santified either. I’m shocked at the fact that a couple will claim they are in love, but they believe it is okay to have an “open” relationship. This is also becoming popular and " accepted" by Christians and non-Christians alike.
I like to help homosexual people realize that God cares about them. Some groups will claim “God hates them.” I believe God hates sin, but does not hate the people doing the sins. So try to tell the person, “I do not agree with your choice or beliefs, but I accept who you are as a person. I believe God does too.” Then maybe mention some of their good qualities. For example, "You are a loving, kind person. That’s what I like about you.
I don’t know. It seems to me that a lot of homosexuals reject the fact that people will say homsoexuality is a sin because they themselves feel rejected. In some cases, the person partly turned to homosexuality because they felt unacceptable or rejected or unimportant.
 
I actually have an abundance of homosexual friends. I tend to make friends with more sinners then saints. 😛

That said. The ones who ARE homosexual are usually easier to debate when it comes to this issue. In my experience supporters of same-sex marriage who aren’t themselves homosexual are usually the most difficult people to deal with.
 
Married for 28 yrs to my beautiful wife.
What does it take away from me if two men or two women get “married”-I would just prefer that they come up with term to name it something other than marriage because it really is a legal construct a- civil union contract- if you will rather than a covenant.
 
Married for 28 yrs to my beautiful wife.
What does it take away from me if two men or two women get “married”-I would just prefer that they come up with term to name it something other than marriage because it really is a legal construct a- civil union contract- if you will rather than a covenant.
I would wager most people these days do not consider a marriage a covenant. Marriage has been redefined already by our society. It isn’t a covenant. It isn’t sacred. It’s just a way to ‘show your love’. That seems to be the majority view of marriage.

I think how our society views marriage is more a problem then anything else but gay marriage doesn’t exist and can’t exist if you approach marriage from the ‘traditional’ mindset. From the modern viewpoint homosexuals should be able to get married and therein lies our problem.

This is a battle that has been going on much longer then we realize. It started when people started trying to redefine marriage and unfortunately it came in so subtly that we missed what was happening. But those subtle changes paved the way for homosexual marriage advocation.
 
You have to dig deep into the meaning of marriage in a Socratic way. Marriage is between one adult man and one adult woman, bound together for life with the understanding that they will raise whatever children come from their union. Supporters of same sex marriage argue that everybody has the right to marry whoever they want to. Ok if that’s the standard, fine. Should we be able to marry more then one person? What about one man and three women? Can there be a situation where 2 women and 3 men have a permanent relationship with each other and have the state define that as marriage? Why or why not? If you should be able to marry whoever you want then you should be able to marry as many people as you want at the same time. Of course, most supporters of same sex marriage don’t want you to think this far. They want you to stop thinking after you are called a hateful homophobic bigot.

Can you marry your brother, sister, father, mother, son, or daughter? Why or why not? Incest should not be a problem in modern America right? This is a free country after all. Who would be so judgmental as to demonize a brother and sister who want to get married? Even if you want to bring up the fact that whatever offspring they have will have a high chance of some kind of retardation, so what. If that’s what they want to do that’s fine and if not there is always a healthy supply of birth control (props to you Mr. President….) and plenty of abortions to go around to ensure that no child will be negatively affected by the marriage. If everyone should be allowed to marry whoever they want, then family is included.

What about age difference? Can a 14 year old boy and a 12 year old girl marry? What about a 12 year old boy and a thirty year old woman? Sure you can say that 14 year old children aren’t completely mentally developed and they can’t be legally responsible for signing contracts. However, the government is quite alright with handing out condoms and teaching “safe sex” to middle and high schoolers so they are obviously condoning certain activities.

Can you marry a tree? At this point the same sex marriage supporter will engage in the exact same kind of emotional gut reaction that they accuse supporters of traditional marriage of by being shocked and appalled that I equated the relationship of 2 consenting adults to marrying a tree. Ask a conservative if two men can get married and they will respond “What??!! Of course not! You think two men can get married??!! That’s crazy! Everybody knows marriage is between a man and a woman”. But for some reason if I ask if you can marry a tree the response is, “ How dare you! You are so hateful! That’s ridiculous! How could you think that the relationship between 2 consenting human beings could be analogous to a person marrying a tree!” However the question is imperative. After all what IS marriage? Is it possible for a person to marry a tree? Since I have the right to pursue happiness would I be able to marry a tree if that’s how I thought I could be happy? What business is it of the government to tell me what I can and can’t do in the privacy of my own home? If I marry a tree how will that negatively affect your life? Of course all of this is rubbish.

We have always had boundaries to define what is and is not marriage. One boundary has always been that it is between a man and a woman. Another is that you can’t marry your relatives. Another is that you can only marry one person. Another is that only two PEOPLE can marry. Once you start knocking down these boundaries, the others fall down. Marriage is not subjective, it’s something real. It’s a metaphysical relationship.
 
I found a post I made a long time ago after reading a book by Carl Zimmerman called “Family and Civilization”. It’s not specifically about same sex marriage. Rather it’s about the decay of the family in general.

Zimmerman compares western civilization to both ancient Greek and ancient Roman civilizations drawing parallels between the family structure and the status of the civilization. Civilizations start off with “trustee families”. Trustee families are clannish, people identify themselves strongly as members of a family, societies are made up of many families living in the same region, If a person owes a debt other family members feel it’s their duty to help pay the debt, if you harm someone from my family there will be serious “blood vengeance” . The west had trustee families from the fall of Rome till about the 11th century . After many centuries the trustee families morph into “domestic families” which isn’t so brutal and is the family values of early church fathers like Jerome and Augustine and later church doctors like Aquinas. Domestic families are conducive to a growing and healthy civilization. Civilizations are at their peak when the domestic family is the trend, for example Pericles’ Funeral Oration demonstrates the domestic family values of Greece when they were the super power around the time of the Peloponnesian War. Just a few centuries later when Greece was in decline and Rome was on the rise, Greece had lost the domestic family while Rome had just turned into domestic families. In Western Europe, from around the end of the dark ages to the enlightenment, the church would intervene between warring families, sometimes compensating one family to stop the violence. In this way the Church helped to bring the domestic family to prominence and helped the state to develop and gain power, no longer being irrelevant among family disputes. This allowed commerce and trade to grow and helped society become more civilized and culminated in the enlightenment.

The domestic family is the mean between 2 extremes. On the one hand there is brutal primitive trustee familism that focuses almost too heavily on the group. On the other hand the Atomistic family comes about as a way to free the individual from the duties of the group, individual freedom is cherished more than family duties. In Rome around the 1st century A.D. and in Greece around the 4th century B.C. the family structures started to become atomistic. In Rome there was the “dignitas” marriage (a more traditional, serious, sacred, lifelong commitment, form of marriage) and the “concubinatus” marriage ( a less stringent, more lax, voidable marriage). The upper class adopted the concubinatus form of marriage, marrying and divorcing as they please whenever they want a new partner. The civilizations were built up and became successful due to the domestic family structure, but when the civilization became healthy enough to support an academic class the academic class, rich, ruling class, and upper class began to attack and dismiss the very values that made their civilization great. After a while it trickled down to the lower class and fewer people had the dignitas marriage when they saw everyone around them having a less strict more convenient form of marriage. During the atomistic times, divorce, adultery, birth control, homosexuality, venereal diseases, and other things become widespread or widely accepted.

In Rome, “ women were known not for the number of their years, but for the number of their husbands” says Zimmerman.
Polybius around 200 B.C. describes the Greek situation, “In our time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth-rate and a general decrease of population….For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence that they do not wish to marry, or if they married do rear the children born to them, or at most rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, the evil rapidly and insensibly grew….”

Theodor Mommsen in History of Rome writes, “Celibacy and childlessness became more and more common, especially among the upper classes…the maxim to which Polybius a century before traced the decay of Hellas, that it is the duty of the citizen to keep great wealth together and therefore not to beget too many children.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top