Defending Heterosexual Marriage: Did you hear Melissa Ethridge's comments?

[phil8888]

Well then why allow so many immoral things, but not this one thing you claim to be immoral? And why is it immoral anyways?

But some societies adopted polygamy as their main form of marriage…and some of these marriages were homosexual ones. So polygamy must be fine in your eyes if you’re looking at the logic of history.

These studies look at single parents more so than gay ones. And just because a child has two moms or two dads doesn’t mean that the other gender isn’t significantly involved in their life.

I never said marriage was a sexual relationship. I said it was a loving one. And in leviticus, a man lying with a man is an abomination, but you must look at the historical context of this. At the time, one of the main goals of society was population growth. At this point, we don’t need the population to grow exponentially. And regardless of whether or not gay couples are married, they will still have the same loving and important relationships as straight couples, but will get none of the rights or legal benefits that the straight people are somehow entitled.

I dont’ remember it saying a man lying with another man is an abomination because we need population growth, but when the population is larger, then it won’t matter, go do whatever you like.

obviously a man and a man or a woman and a woman are not meant to be married because it is fruitless. lots of guys have guy friends, but they dont marry, even if they’re best friends, because marriage is not just about institionalizing love or something, it has a specific purpose.

 

[siamesecat]

Gay “marriage” is trying to usurp a valid word and take it to mean something it doesn’t. Every society on Earth established marriage as a man and a woman to create a strong bond that enables the nurturing and growth of children. It’s a natural institution, not one people just made up. Find one ancient culture (over 500 years ago) that institutionalized gay marriage. They don’t exist. Nowhere. And there’s a reason.

The state is unable to really determine a couple’s state of mind and their intentions. However, couples who are not open to children cannot be married in the Catholic Church. This is because we do not believe that marriage is simply a recognition of a sexual relationship, but rather a loving unit where children are a natural possibility.

Historically girls almost always got married as young-mid teens. This is now considered sick and highly illegal. Intterracial/religious marriage was completely unacceptable in most societies for most of history. Now they’re considered normal. Things change depending on the needs of society. Girls used to have to get married young because people were poor with lots of kids and needed to get girls (who werent as useful as boys) out of the house and make them somebody else’s business. They were considered mature enough to handle the responsibilties of marriage and kids. Now that teenage girls are treated more as children, adn assumed emotionally unready for such responsibility, this is considered very wrong. It’s the culture we brought them up in - they are not ready or able to make these decisions, and they have other options, lke schooling. Families don’t need to get rid of them.

I know that’s moral relativism, btu that’s tthe point - going by what most societies did for most of history is not a good argument. When I point out that most societies had slavery and denigrated women, I am told here that that was wrong, and to say it was justfiied by being so widespread is relativistic. Same argument applies here.

 

[Lee_M]

So they have the right to be miserable because their country or state doesn’t recognize their love?

If a man or woman decides that they want to marry an animal that they love, should the government allow it? Do they have the right to be miserable because their country or state doesn’t recognize their love? You have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[danih37]

The references are to Natural Moral Law not laws of nature. It is important to understand many animals simply relieve themselves which is not equal to the human condition. Under Natural [Moral] Law there are no courts to test “rights”. Within Natural [Moral] Law men will seek woman, and vice-versa they will bond, mate, produce children. Gay actions simply do not produce children and it is very questionable if it produces bonding. This difference is the heart of the issue.

How is it determined that natural law constitutes only a man and a woman?
Questionable if it produces bonding? Where do you get that reasoning?

“gay male couples” do not produce children to raise, they may of course contribute to society by assisting children, however that is far from denying children the designed male/female parenting pair.

What about infertile couples? They don’t produce children on their own either and they are a minority, does that mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry either?

The problem governments have is people will conform to Natural [Moral] Law thus they will marry and refuse to treat the married people as singles. They will also refuse to treat the children as “legal people” instead treating the children as dependents upon the natural male/female parents. The government cannot change this.

So because certain groups of people say that this is “right” and “moral” means that everyone should conform to it?
Homosexuals are attracted to and fall in love with people of the same gender, so how do they not fit in with this natural law? Why wouldn’t they also want to get married and have children just like heterosexual couples?

Marriage brings minimal “rights” marriage brings in tons of responsibility

And gay couples accept that it brings responsibility. But is affords many rights that committed couples who love each other should have.

Everyone is eligible many chose not to participate.

I have a question then. If you were gay, would you marry someone of the opposite gender? There is no love there. And even being straight, would you marry someone who you do not love?
It is absurd that committed loving relationships between two consenting adults aren’t eligible for marriage.

I think this is where we lose you, gay couples get to sleep, are not financially drained, the woman does not have to damage her body, etc., etc. it is about responsibility not some small privileges

But gay couples still do deal with this, but without the protection of the government. So they get all the responsibility and none of the rights or protection.

A few gay people want to share property as a married couple, and have automatic legal power of an incapacitated partner. These are legal issues and not related to marriage. The SSA group are wrong to assume marriage is the method to achieve those legal issues.

These are related to marriage. They are rights afforded to married couples by the government. If marriage is a religious institution, then it shouldn’t give legal benefits.

 

[danih37]

If a man or woman decides that they want to marry an animal that they love, should the government allow it? Do they have the right to be miserable because their country or state doesn’t recognize their love? You have to draw the line somewhere.

As I said before, two consenting adults.

 

[Lee_M]

Historically girls almost always got married as young-mid teens. This is now considered sick and highly illegal. Intterracial/religious marriage was completely unacceptable in most societies for most of history. Now they’re considered normal. Things change depending on the needs of society. Girls used to have to get married young because people were poor with lots of kids and needed to get girls (who werent as useful as boys) out of the house and make them somebody else’s business. They were considered mature enough to handle the responsibilties of marriage and kids. Now that teenage girls are treated more as children, adn assumed emotionally unready for such responsibility, this is considered very wrong. It’s the culture we brought them up in - they are not ready or able to make these decisions, and they have other options, lke schooling. Families don’t need to get rid of them.

I know that’s moral relativism, btu that’s tthe point - going by what most societies did for most of history is not a good argument. When I point out that most societies had slavery and denigrated women, I am told here that that was wrong, and to say it was justfiied by being so widespread is relativistic. Same argument applies here.

So one day, if beastiality is considered socially acceptable, should people be allowed to marry the animals they love? Homosexual acts are perverse. Whatever society accepts or tolerates, it doesn’t make it right.

 

[siamesecat]

If a man or woman decides that they want to marry an animal that they love, should the government allow it? Do they have the right to be miserable because their country or state doesn’t recognize their love? You have to draw the line somewhere.

As civil marriage is a legal contract two people enter into, an official relationship, this argument does not work. For two people to enter into such a legal agreement there must be full consent. So the argument “what if someone wants to marry their child, dog, chair, what have you” just doesn’t work. Marriage clearly require consent in a legal sense. Now the polygamy/incest argument is a good one - and to be honest, I don’t really know how we could justify banning those - except maybe for polygamy defending marriage as between two people, because a multi-way contract would be way too complicated.

 

[siamesecat]

So one day, if beastiality is considered socially acceptable, should people be allowed to marry the animals they love? Homosexual acts are perverse. Whatever society accepts or tolerates, it doesn’t make it right.

My point is that because Catholic teaching is that morality is NOT relativistic, what any society does does not make it right. So I’m not saying bestiality is right, or that because some people practice it that makes it so. I’m saying that because the argument “most people do it , it must be right” is wrong, then it should not be used to justify banning gay marriage. Its hypocritical to use the redefining marriage argument, since what most cultures do is not the right thing. You should protest it on other grounds.

 

[danih37]

I dont’ remember it saying a man lying with another man is an abomination because we need population growth, but when the population is larger, then it won’t matter, go do whatever you like.

obviously a man and a man or a woman and a woman are not meant to be married because it is fruitless. lots of guys have guy friends, but they dont marry, even if they’re best friends, because marriage is not just about institionalizing love or something, it has a specific purpose.

Gay couples still achieve the specific purpose of procreation if they want to. Just by different means. The same as infertile couples.

And romantic love is different than friendship love. There is the kind of love that makes you want to spend the rest of your lives together and create a family and the love that is platonic.

 

[danih37]

My point is that because Catholic teaching is that morality is NOT relativistic, what any society does does not make it right. So I’m not saying bestiality is right, or that because some people practice it that makes it so. I’m saying that because the argument “most people do it , it must be right” is wrong, then it should not be used to justify banning gay marriage. Its hypocritical to use the redefining marriage argument, since what most cultures do is not the right thing. You should protest it on other grounds.

I love how people ignore the statement “consent between two adults”
Wanted to say thank you. Your points are well worded and thoughtful.

 

[Lee_M]

As civil marriage is a legal contract two people enter into, an official relationship, this argument does not work. For two people to enter into such a legal agreement there must be full consent. So the argument “what if someone wants to marry their child, dog, chair, what have you” just doesn’t work. Marriage clearly require consent in a legal sense. Now the polygamy/incest argument is a good one - and to be honest, I don’t really know how we could justify banning those - except maybe for polygamy defending marriage as between two people, because a multi-way contract would be way too complicated.

The point I’m trying to make is that there are people who want to marry their animals. Again you have to draw the line somewhere. Marriage is between a man and a woman. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

[danih37]

The point I’m trying to make is that there are people who want to marry their animals. Again you have to draw the line somewhere. Marriage is between a man and a woman. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

So there is only one way for relationships to be natural and accepted by God? They must be between man and woman? Then why did God create homosexuality among other animals?

 

[Lee_M]

Gay couples still achieve the specific purpose of procreation if they want to.

Not possible.

 

[Lee_M]

So there is only one way for relationships to be natural and accepted by God? They must be between man and woman? Then why did God create homosexuality among other animals?

God put us above animals. We are better than them. Dogs will mate with any other dog that is in heat. God did not want us to act like the other animals. We have dominion over them.

 

[danih37]

Not possible.

They do it all the time. It’s the same as a couple where one person is infertile. They are still bringing new life. And bringing a child into a loving situation…arguably more loving than many babies brought into heterosexual relationships because gay couples have to be positive that they want a kid.

 

[Lee_M]

Also some animals eat their young. Should we do this simply because other animals do?

 

[danih37]

God put us above animals. We are better than them. Dogs will mate with any other dog that is in heat. God did not want us to act like the other animals. We have dominion over them.

But God created each of us, right? If this is the case, why would he create homosexuals if he didn’t want them?

 

[danih37]

Also some animals eat their young. Should we do this simply because other animals do?

There is a difference between killing a baby and eating it and being in a loving, committed gay relationship. You are comparing love to cannibalism. And I can still use the same argument I have been…two consenting adults. Not an adult and a child for marriage or otherwise.

 

[Father_of_9]

What gay rights activists won’t admit is that their behavior is abusive to themselves and others. Some recent news reports have described various studies that show the medical and emotional dangers of homosexual behavior. The natural law and the teachings of the Catholic Church are based upon these facts. So it’s really not about love when it comes to same-sex partners as it is about using one’s self and partner for satisfying sexual and emotional desires at any cost. So it is the duty of the Church and all faithful members to continue telling the world the truth about the dangers of homosexual behavior.

 

[danih37]

What gay rights activists won’t admit is that their behavior is abusive to themselves and others. Some recent news reports have described various studies that show the medical and emotional dangers of homosexual behavior. The natural law and the teachings of the Catholic Church are based upon these facts. So it’s really not about love when it comes to same-sex partners as it is about using one’s self and partner for satisfying sexual and emotional desires at any cost. So it is the duty of the Church and all faithful members to continue telling the world the truth about the dangers of homosexual behavior.

It’s actually more dangerous for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual behavior. It really comes down to love.
And wherever you got your information from is skewed.