Gay Marriage as a Social Issue

[Jacob_Fenton]

Please please please please PLEASE don’t let this turn into the Live and Let Live thread where everyone ignored the original question to rant on off topic subjects.

This is not a thread about what people think of gay marriage.
This is not a thread about what people think of homosexual actions.
This is not a thread about the Church’s doctrine concerning the Sacrament of marriage.
This is not a thread about my personal viewpoints either.
This is not even a thread about Catholicism in particular.

Now listen carefully and don’t sully this thread with any of the dead end nonsense listed above which killed the last thread.

What I am asking is why is everyone so concerned with gay marriage in the United States?

To elaborate, the U.S. is a democratic country as well as a melting pot of different cultures. Is it really of major social concern to the religious person if another lives a homosexual lifestyle? Even if it is, yet society chooses a liberal route anyway, why do religious feel the need to be so vocal about it? Lastly, can there be a middle ground for social dialogue on the matter?

I would prefer a non-religious, non-scriptural answer since this topic is on the status of U.S. citizens rather than the beliefs of any religious group/person. PLEASE be reasonable and refrain from anything I have already asked you to refrain from.

 

[RobbyS]

Please please please please PLEASE don’t let this turn into the Live and Let Live thread where everyone ignored the original question to rant on off topic subjects.

This is not a thread about what people think of gay marriage.
This is not a thread about what people think of homosexual actions.
This is not a thread about the Church’s doctrine concerning the Sacrament of marriage.
This is not a thread about my personal viewpoints either.
This is not even a thread about Catholicism in particular.

Now listen carefully and don’t sully this thread with any of the dead end nonsense listed above which killed the last thread.

What I am asking is why is everyone so concerned with gay marriage in the United States?

To elaborate, the U.S. is a democratic country as well as a melting pot of different cultures. Is it really of major social concern to the religious person if another lives a homosexual lifestyle? Even if it is, yet society chooses a liberal route anyway, why do religious feel the need to be so vocal about it? Lastly, can there be a middle ground for social dialogue on the matter?

I would prefer a non-religious, non-scriptural answer since this topic is on the status of U.S. citizens rather than the beliefs of any religious group/person. PLEASE be reasonable and refrain from anything I have already asked you to refrain from.

The gay-lesbian rights movement has move agressively to seize control of public education and to mandate the content of what our children learn in schools. It began after Clinton was elected in 1992. Its propoganda is mendacious:it pushes false ideas such as that
homsexuality is natural, like skin color, even advancing the false idea of a “gay gene.”
More than anything it is this agressive, mean-spirited, untruthful propoganda that initially bothered me as a teacher , especially after the NEA adopted this agenda. As a powerful faction of the Democratic Party, it has joined handed with the pro-choice faction to demonize anyone who dares suggest that there is anything wrong with the homosexual lifestyle, and summons outrage over the revelation of the real health risks attending this life style.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why are you posting a lot of restrictions, as though religion cannot possibly have anything to do with a ‘social’ issue? The two are not mutually exclusive.

Why is a religious perspective not considered to be worth discussing?

But here is a ‘social’ take on this. Since you asked so nicely.

Currently, marriage is defined in most U.S. states (in 38, I believe, specifically in a Defense of Marriage Act) to be the union of one man and one woman.

Now, ‘gay marriage’ is attempting to circumvent the legal action that should be a prerequisite in this matter. If marriage is to be ‘the union of two people’ (no ‘gender’ of each specified), then what of the official, legal definition of those 38 states? What of the right of individuals in those states (or in others) to have their say in whether the legal terminology should be changed?

If advocates wish to change the definition of marriage, then that change should be done in the way it is done for everything else–a legal terminology change that is put to the vote of the constituency.

But this current ‘issue’ is attempting to redefine ‘marriage’ in direct defiance of the legal terminology used in most U.S. states without actually pursuing the legal route, and without putting the issue to the people. Leaving the words in those states as “one man and one woman”, they will attempt to start with one state, ‘legalize’ gay marriage, and then through that force all the other states to accept a totally different definition of marriage as ‘marriage’. Can you imagine this in any other situation? Like insisting that cats are really dogs --I mean, after all, they’re both pets, have four legs, fur, etc. What’s the difference? Why not call both groups dogs and make it easier not having to have to have two ‘separate’ names for pets?

Since when does any state official or group (and it will be a state legislature in Vermont, for example, who will override the Governor’s VETO on this point) have the right to circumvent law? A state legislature which is not representing the actual people of the state in this matter, a state legislature which is going solely by the ‘whim’ of the individuals who happen to be currently in the legislature, who will attempt to pull this ‘sleight of hand’ definition change and impose it onto the people. A handful of people who are, in essence, ‘making up the law’ to suit themselves. Is this democracy? I think not.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why are you posting a lot of restrictions, as though religion cannot possibly have anything to do with a ‘social’ issue? The two are not mutually exclusive.

…

But here is a ‘social’ take on this.

Currently, marriage is defined in most U.S. states (in 38, I believe, specifically in a Defense of Marriage Act) to be the union of one man and one woman.

Now, ‘gay marriage’ is attempting to circumvent the legal action that should be a prerequisite in this matter. If marriage is to be ‘the union of two people’ (no ‘gender’ of each specified), then what of the official, legal definition of those 38 states? What of the right of individuals in those states (or in others) to have their say in whether the legal terminology should be changed?

Amen. Post #2 is also an excellent reply.

Dear OP: If you read thoroughly the many threads on CAF about this issue, you will find many “strictly” social arguments. I have contributed to many of these threads, but am certainly not the only poster bringing up non-religious arguments. I’m just way too exhausted arguing this on CAF to keep repeating myself, or to keep repasting the arguments of others when these are already available for viewing. Perhaps someone else can post the many CAF links for our friend.

 

[AveSantaMaria]

Let’s ask a question. Why are homosexuals pushing for a right to ‘marriage’? Marriage is a religious issue in many ways. I think the government supports marriage because it believes that marriage is a ‘good thing.’ Why is it a good thing if not for morality? What determines morality? Surely, religion determines morality to a large extent.

It was Christianity that ended polygamy, which used to be widespread around the world. I’m not sure how exactly Christianity ended it but I think it had to do with the writings in the New Testament about how a Bishop should have only one wife that made this sort of marriage the ideal and others non-ideal and discouraged among Christians.

Anyways, gay marriage might be argued to be an attack on one of the foundations of society: the natural family. Perhaps upholding gay marriage reduces the significance and value placed on the female-male natural family.

 

[Newbie2]

Please please please please PLEASE don’t let this turn into the Live and Let Live thread where everyone ignored the original question to rant on off topic subjects.

This is not a thread about what people think of gay marriage.
This is not a thread about what people think of homosexual actions.
This is not a thread about the Church’s doctrine concerning the Sacrament of marriage.
This is not a thread about my personal viewpoints either.
This is not even a thread about Catholicism in particular.

Now listen carefully and don’t sully this thread with any of the dead end nonsense listed above which killed the last thread.

What I am asking is why is everyone so concerned with gay marriage in the United States?

To elaborate, the U.S. is a democratic country as well as a melting pot of different cultures. Is it really of major social concern to the religious person if another lives a homosexual lifestyle? Even if it is, yet society chooses a liberal route anyway, why do religious feel the need to be so vocal about it? Lastly, can there be a middle ground for social dialogue on the matter?

I would prefer a non-religious, non-scriptural answer since this topic is on the status of U.S. citizens rather than the beliefs of any religious group/person. PLEASE be reasonable and refrain from anything I have already asked you to refrain from.

First off, methinks it’s interesting to ask a “purely social” question on a Catholic forum, as if one can compartmentalize their lives neatly into their religious beliefs and their social beliefs.

However, I’ll play along.

Years ago, Homosexual advocates only asked to be left alone, which was fine with most people as I see it. Now as people of faith we are being asked to put aside our religious beliefs, by the force of law when they can manage it, and not only tolerate but accept in what our beliefs are unacceptable:

1. Homosexual lifestyle as normal in schools.
2. Gay parents as equivalent to a real Mom and Dad, as taught in schools.
3. Being muzzled in not being able to voice opposition to such a lifestyle (while all along homosexual advocates bashing our deeply-held religious beliefs, and getting face and press time in the media)

So…what’s difficult to understand about why religious of any flavor would object to being forced to accept or at least be silent about what they oppose?

Middle ground? Sure, there’s always a middle ground. What is it? I guess we’ll see.

 

[rpp]

Many studies have shown children raised in environments other than a home, with their actual or adopted married mother and father are less likely to have problems, (emotional, educational and legal) than children raised in any other environment. Unwed parents do not provide the stability that children need and children raised by single mothers have the poorest grades in school, the highest incidence of emotional difficulties and commit more crimes than children raised by any other group. The only group who finding have not been released are children raised by homosexuals. Several studies have been done, however at the end of the study, most recently in Scotland, these running have refused to release the results, which begs the question, what are they afraid of.

Another indisputable fact is that homosexual relations are, biologically, abnormal as they are clearly not ordered for reproduction. Rather it is directed toward self gratification in a manner where the simple knowledge of this sexual expression is damaging to the psyche of children and, therefore, society at large.

Looking at statistics, we see that, as a proportion of society, homosexual men are somewhere between 10 and 100 times more likely to commit sexual offenses than any other group of people

Finally, one cannot divorce morality from the needs of society. A society in moral anarchy will not even last a lifetime. It will self-destruct then go through a process of purgation, probably violent, that will as far to the other extreme as the social moral anarchy the both proceeded and precipitated it. We see this in small ways in Iran after the Shah fell and radical Islam took over. The current situation in Iran is as much the fault as the current leadership as it was the Shah and his social and moral positions he forced upon people. America and Western Europe are not immune form this.

 

[Jacob_Fenton]

First off, methinks it’s interesting to ask a “purely social” question… as if one can compartmentalize their lives neatly into their religious beliefs and their social beliefs.

Now that’s unfair. I have made no implications of anything I might think you believe or do. I think it only right that you act respectful also.

As to the rest of the objections, I agree that there are social threads. I merely felt that they were few and far between or that they were spammed with replies that went off topic. I really honestly meant no offense to anyone, but you may be right. I may have come off strong. I apologize.

As to the rest of the posts, thanks! Keep them coming! I would like to hear more info and arguments like these if you don’t mind.

 

[Newbie2]

Now that’s unfair. I have made no implications of anything I might think you believe or do. I think it only right that you act respectful also.

As to the rest of the objections, I agree that there are social threads. I merely felt that they were few and far between or that they were spammed with replies that went off topic. I really honestly meant no offense to anyone, but you may be right. I may have come off strong. I apologize.

As to the rest of the posts, thanks! Keep them coming! I would like to hear more info and arguments like these if you don’t mind.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know where you read disrespect or unfairness in my post. My point is that people of faith cannot separate their faith lives from their social lives, and that asking such opinions on a CATHOLIC forum isn’t likely to get you the “purely social” answer that you may be seeking.

 

[fix]

Please please please please PLEASE don’t let this turn into the Live and Let Live thread where everyone ignored the original question to rant on off topic subjects.

This is not a thread about what people think of gay marriage.
This is not a thread about what people think of homosexual actions.
This is not a thread about the Church’s doctrine concerning the Sacrament of marriage.
This is not a thread about my personal viewpoints either.
This is not even a thread about Catholicism in particular.

Now listen carefully and don’t sully this thread with any of the dead end nonsense listed above which killed the last thread.

What I am asking is why is everyone so concerned with gay marriage in the United States?

To elaborate, the U.S. is a democratic country as well as a melting pot of different cultures. Is it really of major social concern to the religious person if another lives a homosexual lifestyle? Even if it is, yet society chooses a liberal route anyway, why do religious feel the need to be so vocal about it? Lastly, can there be a middle ground for social dialogue on the matter?

I would prefer a non-religious, non-scriptural answer since this topic is on the status of U.S. citizens rather than the beliefs of any religious group/person. PLEASE be reasonable and refrain from anything I have already asked you to refrain from.

It is a “social” concern for any person who cares about people, right and wrong, and having a stable society. IOW, if you view society in a very narrow way as in anything is allowable as long as no immediate direct physical harm happens then I can see how people can hold such erroneous positions on topics like this.

But, holding such a view is how we ended up heading downward.

 

[Corki]

What I am asking is why is everyone so concerned with gay marriage in the United States?

To elaborate, the U.S. is a democratic country as well as a melting pot of different cultures. Is it really of major social concern **to the religious person **if another lives a homosexual lifestyle? Even if it is, yet society chooses a liberal route anyway, why do religious feel the need to be so vocal about it? Lastly, can there be a middle ground for social dialogue on the matter?

I would prefer a non-religious, non-scriptural answer since this topic is on the status of U.S. citizens rather than the beliefs of any religious group/person. PLEASE be reasonable and refrain from anything I have already asked you to refrain from.

I think you have given us a basically impossible task - to explain, as religious persons, a viewpoint but not use religion in our answer. And I think you have artificially combined objections to those living a homosexual lifestyle and the objections to “gay” marriage.

But I will try.

First of all, from a historical perspective, homosexual unions are a huge shift from what has always been considered normal. You can point to the ancient Greeks all you want but even if homosexual relationships were tolerated then, they were never confused with marriage or family life. So, in all of civilization, there has never been any other redefinition of marriage other than the normalization of monogomy. (I have pointed out in other posts that polygamy is much more defensible from an anthropologic or scientific position than “gay” marriage but I won’t go into that here). I pose the question, is it logical to expect such a huge societal shift without expecting vocal oposition?

Second, as a parent who is raising my children in a religious home, I resent and resist the pressure placed on the education industry to force acceptance of homosexual unions or “gay” marriage. As a general principal, I think schools far overstep their mandate, which is to provide an academic education to our children. Schools have become a tool to enact social change. Any true social change has to come from a movement of hearts and minds by rational adults. To try to force social change by indoctrinating the young is dishonest at best and despotic at worst.

The US is a democracy and the majority of Americans are resistant to the idea of “gay” marriage. So, if “society chooses a liberal route anyway,” it won’t be because of our democracy but in spite of it.

Lastly, as a religious person, the homosexual lifestyle is an issue of morality. If I honestly believe that, why would I not be vocal about it any more than I would be expected to be vocal on other moral issues such as child abuse, pornography, human trafficing, or murder?

 

[Captain_America]

Homosexual activity is wrong; gay marriage is wrong. It was, is and always will be.

 

[catharina]

Jacob Fenton;4945267:

What I am asking is why is everyone so concerned with gay marriage in the United States?

To elaborate, the U.S. is a democratic country as well as a melting pot of different cultures. Is it really of major social concern to the religious person if another lives a homosexual lifestyle? Even if it is, yet society chooses a liberal route anyway, why do religious feel the need to be so vocal about it? Lastly, can there be a middle ground for social dialogue on the matter?

**The normative behaviour throughout the ages has been for male-female partners establishing a home, a life, a basis for the nurture and care of children and all family members. People might choose to pretend there’s no difference when the union is male-male or female-female but such denial is a denial of established human history. **

It’s like saying: "Hey. Let’s try this other way now."

WHY?
To what end?
For what greater good purpose?

---

That’s said without a reference to religious belief/ethics.

 

[rpp]

The normative behaviour throughout the ages has been for male-female partners establishing a home, a life, a basis for the nurture and care of children and all family members. People might choose to pretend there’s no difference when the union is male-male or female-female but such denial is a denial of established human history.

It’s like saying: "Hey. Let’s try this other way now."

WHY?
To what end?
For what greater good purpose?

That’s said without a reference to religious belief/ethics.

Referring to the text I underlined, I would add that it is also a denial of biology and evolutionary theory.

How is that for a statement opposed to gay marriage that does not rely on religious beliefs!

 

[catharina]

Referring to the text I underlined, I would add that it is also a denial of biology and evolutionary theory.

How is that for a statement opposed to gay marriage that does not rely on religious beliefs!

Yes indeed - and so forth!

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Marriage is a Sacrament. By definition it is holy. To discuss Marriage in a non-religious manner or “as if religiion did not exist”, is to dance with The Liar. All The Liar needs is just to sow the seed of doubt in one person. Do not give an inch, do not play mind games with The Liar who is much older and much smarter than any of us.

So-called Gay Marriage is in direct opposition to The Truth.

 

[Jacob_Fenton]

To discuss Marriage in a non-religious manner or “as if religiion did not exist”, is to dance with The Liar.

Alright, I think some of you misunderstand me which is probably my fault but I will give this another shot anyway. As a starter, here goes: SINCE gay marriage among many, if not most gays- in fact most promoters of such a movement, are not concerned with nor do they believe that marriage is of any issue with religion, is that not a problem for those who continue to argue for straight marriage?

Let me rephrase; since religion is not considered by gays, nor by their movement, how can a person who is against this view make a valid, reasonable argument?

Gay Marriage is in direct opposition to The Truth.

You can’t expect to be in the public square and when an argument for gay rights comes up, establish that you have a religious belief and expect the opposite end to not only recognize that, but agree with you. To have such an expectation is absurd.

Now don’t go burning me at the stake here. I am no heretic. I deny no doctrine of the Church. I merely believe that the way we Catholics (or all religious for that matter) handle the issue of legal marriages in America is incorrect.

If a man tells you that the sky is blue due to the ocean’s reflection of light up into the sky, but you tell that man that the sky is brown because you believe that and he should understand that already, how far will you get?

I simply feel that to say “Gay marriage is wrong” and leave it at that is NOT GOOD ENOUGH in the United States. Hey, it isn’t even good enough for our faith. We define why we believe it is wrong and although we have the backing of the Apostles and the Lord, outsiders don’t understand that.

To get anywhere with this issue, we have to communicate it in a way that is understandable to all. It can’t be enough to say that we “believe x or y and that’s final.”

Yes Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, but you have to understand that we are talking about more than our Sacrament. I do not mean to belittle this Sacrament, but I’m sure you would all agree that only the Church can declare to men if a marriage is valid in the eyes of God, but so many marriages in America, although heterosexual, are indeed invalid. This is where I begin to differentiate. This is where i find that only we Catholics see a distinction but everyone else does not. This is why I feel it is important that we find a better way of tackling these issues.

I think we can use a little more reason and patience to find a better way of explaining to people of the gay movement why we as Catholics, we as religious, we as Americans disagree with their views and object to their proposals. I also think that this will go much further if we can explain, as some posters already have, using reason that would be understandable to all.

Why am I so wrong for thinking this?

 

[Squishy]

The biggest issue is. That marriage is no longer a puirly religious thing. We call the legal union of a man and women a marriage. It can be performed without so much as a priest in sight.

Now regardless of your opinions on the matter that is the way things currently stand. What the gay rights movement is after is the same consideration when they create a legal union. They simply want to be called a married couple. Which to be perfectly frank i have no issue with.

In the eyes of god that union means absolutly nothing. But in the eyes of the people involved it gives them a feeling of equality. Makes them feel less like outsiders and more affinity with society.

People often argue that gay couples are more premiscious than hetrosexual couples. This is not really true. Growing up i knew lots of hetrosexual people who have had many many partners. Infact the gay couples i know are a lot less likley to sleep around than the straight ones. Married couples are much less likley to be premiscuous than unmarried couples. So the argument stands that allowing gay couples to get married would reduce the amount who sleep around.

The arguments for the family unit. This is a complete falicy. Their is no reason at all that 2 women or 2 guys cannot bring up a child in a very healthy stable family unit. I have a good friend who is currently studying to be a doctor (MD) who was brought up by his 2 mothers. The scaremongering that goes on about children who are brought up by gay parents is ridiculous. But at the end of the day this is not about where the argument hinges. Gay couples potentialy adopting is not a reason to not allow gay marriage. Its a scare tactic. But at the end of the day its a different debate for a different time.

Gay couples have the same right to be married in the eyes of social law are hetrosexual couples. Religious law doesnt have to recognize either.

 

[c659smith]

The biggest issue is. That marriage is no longer a puirly religious thing. We call the legal union of a man and women a marriage. It can be performed without so much as a priest in sight.

Now regardless of your opinions on the matter that is the way things currently stand. What the gay rights movement is after is the same consideration when they create a legal union. They simply want to be called a married couple. Which to be perfectly frank i have no issue with.

In the eyes of god that union means absolutly nothing. But in the eyes of the people involved it gives them a feeling of equality. Makes them feel less like outsiders and more affinity with society.

People often argue that gay couples are more premiscious than hetrosexual couples. This is not really true. Growing up i knew lots of hetrosexual people who have had many many partners. Infact the gay couples i know are a lot less likley to sleep around than the straight ones. Married couples are much less likley to be premiscuous than unmarried couples. So the argument stands that allowing gay couples to get married would reduce the amount who sleep around.

The arguments for the family unit. This is a complete falicy. Their is no reason at all that 2 women or 2 guys cannot bring up a child in a very healthy stable family unit. I have a good friend who is currently studying to be a doctor (MD) who was brought up by his 2 mothers. The scaremongering that goes on about children who are brought up by gay parents is ridiculous. But at the end of the day this is not about where the argument hinges. Gay couples potentialy adopting is not a reason to not allow gay marriage. Its a scare tactic. But at the end of the day its a different debate for a different time.

Gay couples have the same right to be married in the eyes of social law are hetrosexual couples. Religious law doesnt have to recognize either.

Is there a reason why you did not capitalize the G in God.

 

[Bennie_P]

Alright, I think some of you misunderstand me which is probably my fault but I will give this another shot anyway. As a starter, here goes: SINCE gay marriage among many, if not most gays- in fact most promoters of such a movement, are not concerned with nor do they believe that marriage is of any issue with religion, is that not a problem for those who continue to argue for straight marriage?

Let me rephrase; since religion is not considered by gays, nor by their movement, how can a person who is against this view make a valid, reasonable argument?

You can’t expect to be in the public square and when an argument for gay rights comes up, establish that you have a religious belief and expect the opposite end to not only recognize that, but agree with you. To have such an expectation is absurd.

Now don’t go burning me at the stake here. I am no heretic. I deny no doctrine of the Church. I merely believe that the way we Catholics (or all religious for that matter) handle the issue of legal marriages in America is incorrect.

If a man tells you that the sky is blue due to the ocean’s reflection of light up into the sky, but you tell that man that the sky is brown because you believe that and he should understand that already, how far will you get?

I simply feel that to say “Gay marriage is wrong” and leave it at that is NOT GOOD ENOUGH in the United States. Hey, it isn’t even good enough for our faith. We define why we believe it is wrong and although we have the backing of the Apostles and the Lord, outsiders don’t understand that.

To get anywhere with this issue, we have to communicate it in a way that is understandable to all. It can’t be enough to say that we “believe x or y and that’s final.”

Yes Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, but you have to understand that we are talking about more than our Sacrament. I do not mean to belittle this Sacrament, but I’m sure you would all agree that only the Church can declare to men if a marriage is valid in the eyes of God, but so many marriages in America, although heterosexual, are indeed invalid. This is where I begin to differentiate. This is where i find that only we Catholics see a distinction but everyone else does not. This is why I feel it is important that we find a better way of tackling these issues.

I think we can use a little more reason and patience to find a better way of explaining to people of the gay movement why we as Catholics, we as religious, we as Americans disagree with their views and object to their proposals. I also think that this will go much further if we can explain, as some posters already have, using reason that would be understandable to all.

Why am I so wrong for thinking this?

You are not wrong for thinking.

We do get side track, the issue of marraige is sidetrack in general in the country. and the issue of gay marraige just gets that train all the way off the track.

I don’t now the concern of other people, but for me is how can we deal with issues of proper marriage when we continue to have to try to stop the run away train of immorality under the guise of “gay” marriage. In order to get to have honest discussions of morality vs immorality, proper realtionships between each other, issues of how to make a better society instead of a dsyfunctional society, etc. etc. We must draw a line in the sand and say enough foolishness is enough.

We have come a long away in society in some issues, but in others we completely have destroyed the ability to even recognized logic, for too many in society have totally rejected any sense of right or wrong, and many have declared themselves the total judge of all things, rejecting any responsibilty or submission to any authority or reason. Society as a whole does not recognize the full consequences of their actions, how it affects the lives of others, or even themselves.

I cannot speak for others but I have always been a person that thought it was right to treat others with respect and freedom was allowing others to do whatever they chose, but until I was able to realize that my own actions do have an effect on others and that society has drawn lines to restrict my freedom of committing certain actions was for the good of society as a whole.

How can we have a logical discussion concerning marriage when we have no sense of what a marriage is? When we have allowed it to be defined by those who reject any guage in which to make proper judgement of what is right and wrong?

Our system of justice and laws have been based on Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. Until recently we have been able to adjust our civil laws accordingly to end injustce by reflecting on those same ideas of ethics and morality rooted in Judeo-Christianity. It was by proper reflection of those “rules” in which our soiciety have been able to end injustice such as slavery. But when we as a society began rejecting Judeo-Christian ethics and rules of morality on issue such as birth control, abortion, and the permanance of marriage, we rejected the very foundation in which justice was able to grow.

How can we strengthen and rebuild our foundation, if we continue down the road by allow the full acceptance and normalization of immorality? Which is what we will be doing accepting ‘gay’ marriage, ebstabishing an institution which contradicts and rejects all of Judeo-Christian ideas of morality and ethics. It will be the final block taken from our foundation and their will be nothing left to base any just action or to counter any injust action.

In order to be logical in our discussion, we must first find those that haven’t rejected logic all together or all rules of true justice in which to have a discussion.