Debating with the GSA

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe 5859

Excellent post!

God bless

Sorry it didn’t work out for you as well as you’d hoped.

In regards to #1, all sin, no matter how private, has a negative impact on the human family. There are personal and corporate consequences simply because we are all connected as one human family. Just because we cannot readily identify that sinful act X directly and immediately causes negative consequence Y doesn’t mean the connection is not there. No man is an island. What effects one part effects the whole.

Frankly, I never go the route of pointing out things like AIDS or STDs. First, I have never seen that argument used convincingly. And second, that’s ultimately not the reason why the act is sinful. If it was, then all they would have to do is say that a gay couple who practices monogamy and/or safe sex would then be morally just fine. And you would have no answer except to back pedal and say what you should have said in the first place: that’s not the reason why the act is sinful.

Many people say that, when something is a private act, no one is getting hurt, so it’s not a sin. But that’s simply not true. These sins change a person for the worse. And when that happens, that effects everyone that person comes into contact with. Perhaps this example may not work with them, but look at a sin like masturbation and pornography. When a man becomes enslaved to this vice, it changes the way he looks at women. Every woman starts to become a mere object to be used rather than a person to be loved. It has an extremely corrosive effect on marriage as he starts to expect his wife to be an instrument for his personal gratification.

Perhaps a better example for this crowd might be to take the environmentalist angle. If I use a styrofoam plate or throw out an aluminum can instead of recycling or leave the water running while I brush my teeth in the privacy of my own home, who does it harm? Yet environmentalists are quick to shine the light on this interconnectedness of the human family in these circumstances. If it happens once, maybe it’s not a big deal to them (or maybe it is ), but when it becomes a lifestyle that gets perpetuated, then there is a discernible cummulative impact. If there wasn’t, then the whole Green movement would have no traction whatsoever.

In regards to #2, do not fall for the line that “civil unions” are okay so long as they don’t call it “marriage”. This is the foot-in-the-door compromise that homosexual activists are actively seeking because it serves their agenda just the same. Again, I would point you to the CDF’s document Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. Notice, the Vatican does not say that it’s okay to have legally recognized “unions” so long as they don’t call it marriage. Quite the opposite. The whole civil unions thing is just a semantic bait-and-switch. The Church recognizes this. But many well-meaning Christians seem to have fallen for it as they think it is okay to support “civil unions” so long as it’s not called “marriage”.

Activists like to emotionally charge the debate with such language as “illegal”, “discrimination”, “violation of equal rights”, “bigotry”, etc. The simple fact is, we are all equal under the law. Every single person has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no discrimination. Everyone (and this also applies equally) does not have the right to marry someone of the same gender, a parent, a sibling, a child, more than one person, their favorite pet, an imaginary friend, etc. Again, there is no discrimination.