Gay Marriage as a Social Issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacob_Fenton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jacob_Fenton said:
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?
Click to expand...
The basic problem is that the truth will only to accepted to the degree one is open to accepting what is true. IOW, there is no one or two or three “right” arguments that anyone can construct that will convince one who refuses to be convinced. That means we keep restating the truth, with love, and keep refuting what needs refutation.

I cannot see how the constant search for the miracle argument will suddenly open the eyes of those who do not want to see.

It is not that we lack logical, truth based arguments. We have plenty of those. The problem is not the argument. The problem is people will not accept what is true.
 
Jacob_Fenton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, interesting. Your logic is somewhat broken in that this is essentially asking people to describe a pig without talking about a pig. You see, “Marriage” is a religious term.

But setting this aside.

The Homosexual community leaders want to take control of a religious term “marriage”

If they were truly willing to get over that then we could affect a solution:

The country could establish a “contractual personal relationship” wherein two persons of the same gender could enter into this contract with then intent of being a couple with several legal rights such as hospital visitation, survivor benefits, even the ability to add the partner to insurance coverage if the insuring company allows it.

This bypasses any attempt at the abuse of a religious term. Also, based upon the fact that this relationship is not a marriage, contractual partners would be barred from adopting children and/or being foster parents. If one of the partners has children prior to the contract then the other partner does not “inherit” the children if the first partner dies. Disposition would be handled by the Will and legally arranged custodial arrangements

In this way we avoid sullying the religious term marriage and grant to homosexuals what most actually want.
 
cthulhubryan said:
Okay, interesting. Your logic is somewhat broken in that this is essentially asking people to describe a pig without talking about a pig. You see, “Marriage” is a religious term.

But setting this aside.

The Homosexual community leaders want to take control of a religious term “marriage”
Click to expand...
This is what seems to be the crux of the argument. Marriage is no longer just a religious term. I can be married in this country without ever seeing a priest or going near a church.

The concept of marriage has already be changed. If you wanted to argue on those terms it should have been done decades ago.
 
Jacob_Fenton said:
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?

:confused: So in a discussion, the opposing party does not consider your viewpoint, so you should automatically abondon it?? Just because the other party does not consider your argument to be valid or reasonable does not mean it is not so.

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.

Perhaps, you may have a point here. However, I would argue that abandoning your position because the opposition won’t accept it is equally as 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.

What would YOU suggest?

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?

Hey, people elected Obama, no? 😃

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.

Yeah, but it’s the TRUTH, right? Do we abandon truth for the sake of winning an argument?

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.”

Suggestion?

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.

That’s fair.
Click to expand...
Squishy said:
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.

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.

So thousands of years of success are negated by the one example of your friend. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Newbie2:
I was using the example of my 1 friend to prove that not everyone raised within a homosexual relationship ends up having social difficulties. I should also point out hes happly married ect ect. Basically he turned out just fine.

Are you trying to insinuate that all children born of a hetrosexual relationship are healthy rounded individuals with no social problems at all? This just is not true. And to use the family unit argument against homosexual marriage is a none starter. First of all they are different argument. Second of all their is simply no proof just bigoted conjecture.
 
Jacob_Fenton said:
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?
Click to expand...
Repeating most of Post # 13: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?
 
Squishy said:
Are you trying to insinuate that all children born of a hetrosexual relationship are healthy rounded individuals with no social problems at all? No. That would be ridiculous. This just is not true. And to use the family unit argument against homosexual marriage is a none starter. Why, because it’s a valid argument?? First of all they are different argument. Second of all their is simply no proof just bigoted conjecture.
Click to expand...
No proof. :rolleyes: Thousands of years of history aren’t sufficient proof? Please don’t throw the “bigoted” word around. It cheapens dialogue.
 
Success of the nuclear family. Role of men and women as different sexes.
 
Ok, well how does that argument pertain to homosexual marriage. As i said allowing gay people to marry have no bearing on them raising children. Mainly because they cannot procreate. So the matter is for allowing gay couples to adopt. Nothing to do with the civil right to get married
 
It pertains to homosexual “marriage” in that in granting equal social rights of marriage, homosexual couples could not be discriminated against in being able to adopt children. The question is, then, is having same-sex adoptive parents in the best interests of the children being adopted, which is a valid societal point to bring up.

You are missing the forest through the trees. These matters are intimately related.
 
Newbie2 said:
It pertains to homosexual “marriage” in that in granting equal social rights of marriage, homosexual couples could not be discriminated against in being able to adopt children. The question is, then, is having same-sex adoptive parents in the best interests of the children being adopted, which is a valid societal point to bring up.

You are missing the forest through the trees. These matters are intimately related.
Click to expand...
Their are couples out there who would never be considered to adopt children. Does this mean that they should not be allowed to ever be married?
 
Squishy said:
Ok, well how does that argument pertain to homosexual marriage. As i said allowing gay people to marry have no bearing on them raising children. Mainly because they cannot procreate. So the matter is for allowing gay couples to adopt. Nothing to do with the civil right to get married
Click to expand...
Using similar logic, I propse that the following be considered. Any employee in any occupation who has a hard time facing work in the morning should be able to report in to the job at 6pm as recognition of his or her personal preference. Also witches should be burned at the stake in midtown every week on Saturday mornings. Everyone knows there are witches in some nations so probably there are witches here too. These changes would reflect the view of certain minorities, so no problem.
 
catharina said:
Using similar logic, I propse that the following be considered. Any employee in any occupation who has a hard time facing work in the morning should be able to report in to the job at 6pm as recognition of his or her personal preference. Also witches should be burned at the stake in midtown every week on Saturday mornings. Everyone knows there are witches in some nations so probably there are witches here too. These changes would reflect the view of certain minorities, so no problem.
Click to expand...
I believe that living the life of a catholic is sinful. I believe that you should not be allowed to marry.

Or

I do not care what you do with your life. If you want to be a catholic and get married in a church then thats fine. Or you can be a homosexual and get married in a civil ceramony. In fact. Its none of my buisness.
 
Squishy said:
Their are couples out there who would never be considered to adopt children. Does this mean that they should not be allowed to ever be married?
Click to expand...
Of course not.

But there are no provisions in the notion of allowing homosexuals to marry to address the question of whether same-sex couples can provide adequate parenting, in terms of providing both a male and female role model.
 
Newbie2 said:
Of course not.

But there are no provisions in the notion of allowing homosexuals to marry to address the question of whether same-sex couples can provide adequate parenting, in terms of providing both a male and female role model.
Click to expand...
To me they are unrelated. Studies would have to be conducted and reserch done regarding children brought up by homosexual parents. A lot of these are actually underway. However marriage does not automatically grant you access to adopt children. They are unrelated. You do not even need to be a married couple to adopt in many places. This is why the argument for them being able to raise children cannot be factored into them being allowed to have a civil ceromony and call it a marriage.
 
Squishy said:
I believe that living the life of a catholic is sinful. I believe that you should not be allowed to marry.

Or

I do not care what you do with your life. If you want to be a catholic and get married in a church then thats fine. Or you can be a homosexual and get married in a civil ceramony. In fact. Its none of my buisness.
Click to expand...
Personal preference does not translate to the public good.
 
Squishy said:
Exactly. Now try succefully arguing that Homosexual CIVIL marriage is detramental to the public good
Click to expand...
I have, and so have others. Many, many times. The problem certain people do not want to accept it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top