Gay Marriage: case against!

[terillmorris]

Question: If you are arguing with a person in society. Let’s say this person doesnt believe in any religion and says, “Hey I am not gay, but if they want to get married I dont care. Let them. Why do you have a problem with two men or two women getting married?”

Please respond. Thank you.

 

[AndyF]

Why do you have a problem with two men or two women getting married?"

Because sin impacts every person. Sin is not satisfied with the initial slight, it has an agenda. Sin is an opportunist, and seeks to compound itself until there are no more opportunities remaining.

What the couple will look forward to is what they call
a marriage. Marriage is a Sacred rite created by God reserved to couples of the opposite sex. These two have already blasphemed by their initial act, and now instead of seeking forgiveness, they now progress to the compounding stage of making a mockery of God’s institution of marriage. So now there are two slights to sin’s credit.

The marriage, as they see it is actually a cult ritual now, because a minister of God will not preside over it. In his place, ever the opportunist, is a representative of the ‘god’ they chose to follow, or even Satan himself. By the rule, compounding is not finished.

They settle into a house, and now they decide to adopt. To facilitate this, Satan provides people in the adoption business to provide a child, really a victim to sacrifice. He grows up learning there is no God, and certainly never that his caretaker’s union is wrong. He lives a life defending he believes two people who he thinks are righteous but are in a state of mortal sin. This becomes the third sin.

He grows up making choices of partners more likely prone to making bad choices because to him he learned HS is an option. He chooses a same sex partner, and yes some won’t.
This is the fourth sin.

And so it goes. At life’s end this sequence will be played back to them like a bad movie, and every consequence of the first choice will be revealed, but each stage will realize in them an opportunity missed to correct the error.

Andy

 

[Exalt]

Because sin impacts every person. Sin is not satisfied with the initial slight, it has an agenda. Sin is an opportunist, and seeks to compound itself until there are no more opportunities remaining.

What the couple will look forward to is what they call
a marriage. Marriage is a Sacred rite created by God reserved to couples of the opposite sex. These two have already blasphemed by their initial act, and now instead of seeking forgiveness, they now progress to the compounding stage of making a mockery of God’s institution of marriage. So now there are two slights to sin’s credit.

The marriage, as they see it is actually a cult ritual now, because a minister of God will not preside over it. In his place, ever the opportunist, is a representative of the ‘god’ they chose to follow, or even Satan himself. By the rule, compounding is not finished.

They settle into a house, and now they decide to adopt. To facilitate this, Satan provides people in the adoption business to provide a child, really a victim to sacrifice. He grows up learning there is no God, and certainly never that his caretaker’s union is wrong. He lives a life defending he believes two people who he thinks are righteous but are in a state of mortal sin. This becomes the third sin.

He grows up making choices of partners more likely prone to making bad choices because to him he learned HS is an option. He chooses a same sex partner, and yes some won’t.
This is the fourth sin.

And so it goes. At life’s end this sequence will be played back to them like a bad movie, and every consequence of the first choice will be revealed, but each stage will realize in them an opportunity missed to correct the error.

Andy

I have an idea.

If this is really you’re complete justification for making gay marriage illegal - let’s apply it to all other types of sins, too.

Oh, wait, that’s right.

We have an ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE of the constitution that PROTECTS me and *my *future gay household from religious laws.

 

[Janet_S]

Question: If you are arguing with a person in society. Let’s say this person doesnt believe in any religion and says, “Hey I am not gay, but if they want to get married I dont care. Let them. Why do you have a problem with two men or two women getting married?”

Please respond. Thank you.

I would approach it from a natural law perspective–that there are real differences between men and women; that children do better in a stable home with both a female mother and a male father. Then build your argument from there. It’s common sense, the problem is that many people have lost their common sense.

Marriage is the natural foundation for the family–put two together, then you get three. And the family, in turn, is the natural foundation for society.

If they come back with the argument that not all heterosexual marriages are fertile (because of contraception) or stable (because of the 50%+ divorce rate) all you can do is agree, lament, and point out that divorce and contraception have created a lot of problems for the institution of marriage which in turn have created a lot of problems for society in general.

I would also point out to them that while gay marriage won’t pose any problem for them, it probably will pose a problem for their children and the generations to follow.

Dr Jennifer Roback Morse has written some articles about gay marriage and the implications for raising children:
jennifer-roback-morse.com/pages/articles.html

Also, this is from the Vatican. The Church argues from both a theological and natural law perspective:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Holly3278]

I have an idea.

If this is really you’re complete justification for making gay marriage illegal - let’s apply it to all other types of sins, too.

Oh, wait, that’s right.

We have an ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE of the constitution that PROTECTS me and *my *future gay household from religious laws.

Yeah and well, it is our job as Catholics to vote against gay marriage and to do everything in our power to make sure that you and your future “gay household” doesn’t participate in marriage. OH and even if you do get “married”, your “marriage” will never be a true one. Marriage amongst gays simply cannot exist. It is impossible. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, not two men and not two women.

 

[Dale_M]

If they come back with the argument that not all heterosexual marriages are fertile (because of contraception) or stable (because of the 50%+ divorce rate) all you can do is agree, lament, and point out that divorce and contraception have created a lot of problems for the institution of marriage which in turn have created a lot of problems for society in general.

Janet, thank you for sharing these thoughts. Would you care to discuss them?

If the purpose of marriage is the raising of children, shouldn’t marriages be invalid if no children are possible. Following this reasoning infertility and post-menopause should dissolve a marriage, if children can’t be raised.

I think a good case can be made for having male and female parental role models. But if single parents are allowed, why not allow gay couples to marry and raise children? After all, two people doing the work of child-raising is better than one.

I would also point out to them that while gay marriage won’t pose any problem for them, it probably will pose a problem for their children and the generations to follow.

Would you be willing to explain this a bit more?

Also, this is from the Vatican. The Church argues from both a theological and natural law perspective:

I may be wrong, but I think Terrill’s question centers around convincing an atheist or agnostic of the wrongness of gay marriage. An atheist or agnostic probably won’t be impressed by theological arguments, and will likely reject natural law arguments as well.

But yes, the Church is firmly against non-sacramental gay marriages.

 

[ilovekittens]

. Marriage is a Sacred rite created by God reserved to couples of the opposite sex.

I don’t think God created civil marriage. Civil marriage is just a legal procedure, basically, not a Sacrament. I don’t think it is a big deal if gays are allowed civil marriage or civil unions.

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think God created civil marriage. Civil marriage is just a legal procedure, basically, not a Sacrament. I don’t think it is a big deal if gays are allowed civil marriage or civil unions.

Civil marriage is also a societal norm. Relating to the OP’s set of circumstances in which to formulate an argument, any religious basis for an argument will be rejected, so to best “win” any such argument, it must be based on a societal argument.

Thousands of years of human experience has shown that the nuclear family, mom, dad, kids, is the most stable and condusive to societal peace and prosperity. “Gay marriage”, by default in not being able to procreate nor provide both a male and female parent role model for the children (should they be adopted). Such an arrangement would not be the best possible situation for society.

The counter argument, that we already have broken and single parent families not caused in any way by “Gay marriage”, so how could it get worse is sophomoric, at best. The further we get away from the stable, nuclear family the worse our society gets. And if we as a society accept “Gay marriage”, how far away is polygamy?

No, from a societal position it is best to leave marriage alone.

 

[StCsDavid]

Question: If you are arguing with a person in society. Let’s say this person doesnt believe in any religion and says, “Hey I am not gay, but if they want to get married I dont care. Let them. Why do you have a problem with two men or two women getting married?”

Please respond. Thank you.

The challenge is that marriage means two different things. In civil law it’s a contract. In moral law it’s a covenant. So I would take great umbrage with a gay couple equating their civil contract that the state calls “marriage” with the covenant of sacramental marriage for the simple reason they have no ground to stand upon other than the law of man.

As to the impact upon society…IMHO, it’s simply a reflection of the damage that has already been done within the culture. I didn’t see any mass protest against the California Supreme Court’s decision. It’s not in the will of the culture to do so. That’s very sad, but it doesn’t challenge my faith nor does it change the reality of the injustice that has been done to the culture.

Christ hung upon the cross and prayed, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.” Perhaps we people of faith should pray the same prayer.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Question: If you are arguing with a person in society. Let’s say this person doesnt believe in any religion and says, “Hey I am not gay, but if they want to get married I dont care. Let them. Why do you have a problem with two men or two women getting married?”

Please respond. Thank you.

I don’t especially understand why you make this a person who believes in no religion. Are you saying this “person” is an atheist? I have no problem with gays marrying in civil ceremonies. I has zero impact on my marriage to a man, and the religious implications are not mine to enforce upon those who are not Catholic or a few other protestant sects.

 

[Janet_S]

Would you be willing to explain this a bit more?

Janet: I would also point out to them that while gay marriage won’t pose any problem for them, it probably will pose a problem for their children and the generations to follow.

The problem is that we live in a world that defies common sense and we must pretend that the uncommon is the norm. Gay marriage makes a mockery of something vitally important, something that should be sacred, but unfortunately in our time is not. We have lost our way. But now that we’re already lost, is it wise to venture down a path unknown?

Marriage, as union of a man and a woman (or sometimes a man with more than one woman) has been the universal norm transcending history, religions, and cultures. Gay marriage, as a contrast, is a fad–an infinitesimal blip in the history of mankind. But we are so smart now, aren’t we. Today, we know so much more. . . think again.

Everybody talks about being “gay” like it’s something solid and real, yet there’s no objective way to determine it. And still, in our scientifically enlightened age, we have no proof there is any biological basis to it, though we talk as if there were. In spite of this, the determination is purely subjective. If I say I’m gay, I’m gay–no further questions need be asked. Isn’t anyone concerned that a lot of people who’ve determined they’re gay may be wrong and may be depriving themselves of a natural family and children?

I know a woman who was married to a man for 8 years, divorced, then married (in a commitment ceremony) a woman for 4 years, divorced, and now is dating a man again. Is she gay or not? I’m not sure.

I think gay marriage adds to confusion in society. I feel sorry for kids of the future who will be scolded, labeled a bigot, or locked up in detention for old-fashioned ideas like Mom and apple pie. If it hasn’t already happened, I’m sure there will come a time when children will be required to take classes on how to discern their sexual preference, maybe as early as kindergarten. Are they transgenders, gays, or bi? Is my child a woman in the body of a man, a man in the body of a woman, or a gay woman in the body of a man? Please, let’s stop the madness. It’s become way too ridiculous, and we as a society are suffering from a massive lack of common sense.

Like Chesterton said–tradition is the democracy of the dead. We can’t ignore the countless generations preceding us about the nature of marriage, then chuck it all to chase after a passing fad. We aren’t that smart, trust me. Certainly not smart enough to ignore all those who came before us.

I may be wrong, but I think Terrill’s question centers around convincing an atheist or agnostic of the wrongness of gay marriage. An atheist or agnostic probably won’t be impressed by theological arguments, and will likely reject natural law arguments as well.

But yes, the Church is firmly against non-sacramental gay marriages.

I don’t think you’re wrong, that’s what I thought too. But natural law arguments aren’t just for Catholics. They are based on reason, so anyone with a logical mind should be able to follow and understand them.

 

[Dale_M]

Janet, thank you for explaining your thoughts more fully.

 

[JimG]

Well, general acceptance of gay marriage would do no more to destroy real marriage than would the legalization of counterfeit money affect the validity of real money. They counterfeit money in your billfold does not affect the validity of the real money in my billfold.

Except perhaps, by dilution.

Marriage is already been destroyed by no-fault divorce and contraception. Gay marriage will simply be the final nail in the coffin.

Had real marriage been maintained, it’s doubtful that gays would even want it–or are they really just gung ho for making lifetime till death do we part commitments, in which “for worse” and “for poorer” are distinct and unavoidable possibilities?

 

[Dale_M]

Marriage is already been destroyed by no-fault divorce and contraception.

Jim, I understand about no-fault divorce (although it has done good, too), but I don’t understand what you mean about contraception weakening marriage. Would you be willing to explain this a bit more?

Had real marriage been maintained, it’s doubtful that gays would even want it–or are they really just gung ho for making lifetime till death do we part commitments, in which “for worse” and “for poorer” are distinct and unavoidable possibilities?

Last month, the New York Times Magazine ran a rather lengthy feature article called Young Gay Rites. It looked at the marriages of a couple (or a few, I don’t remember) couples and why they were so eager for marriage. One of the explanations put forward is that younger gays, unlike earlier generations, aren’t necessarily hiding in secrecy during their teen years. This freedom has allowed them to do the same dating/social experimenting that heterosexual teens do. The result is that young gay adults are more ready to settle down than earlier generations.

But, yes, I think most folks in this country see marriage as disposable if it becomes too uncomfortable.

 

[JimG]

But, yes, I think most folks in this country see marriage as disposable if it becomes too uncomfortable.

Yes, and I think that has done the most to destroy the institution of marriage.

Marriage has for thousands of years been related to the stability of any society, because marriages form families, which produce and raise children, who are the future of any society. Marriages form families which educate and pass on the heritage of any particular civilization.

Contraception broke the link between sex and children, and thus the link between sex and marriage, and the link between marriage and society.

Even the ancient Romans, who had no qualms about homosexual relationships, did not treat them as marriages. Marriages were about the next generation.

Now we live a very narcissistic society. Marriage is no longer about children, or about families, or about commitment, or responsibilities. It is about me. My right to sex. My right to relationships. My right to fulfillment in my life. Even about my right to children, no matter what that may require.

Because of no-fault divorce, marriage vows are now just an unenforceable contract, of less legal consequence than signing a 30 year mortgage. No matter how firm the vows, how solemn the ceremony, the law says: you can break this at any time, unilaterally.

That’s inherently unstable for society.

And children have no choice about the circumstance of their conception or upbringing. Mom and Dad may divorce; that destroys a particular child’s family, something about which the child has no choice whatsoever.

 

[buffalo]

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth.
The success of so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don’t hold up under scrutiny. “Gay” sympathizers aren’t necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.
He who defines the terms controls the debate – and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the “gay” movement.

more…

 

[Dale_M]

Now we live a very narcissistic society. Marriage is no longer about children, or about families, or about commitment, or responsibilities. It is about me. My right to sex. My right to relationships. My right to fulfillment in my life. Even about my right to children, no matter what that may require.

Thanks, Jim. What you say makes sense, but I wonder if the much longer life expectancy has a part in it as well. 100 years ago, the average life expectancy was approximately 51 years. You might live to see all, or most, of your children raised. But now the average life expectancy is 78 years, which leaves a lot of time in the marriage after the kids are grown and gone. Perhaps this has also played a role in the disconnect between children and marriage.

 

[JimG]

Thanks, Jim. What you say makes sense, but I wonder if the much longer life expectancy has a part in it as well. 100 years ago, the average life expectancy was approximately 51 years. You might live to see all, or most, of your children raised. But now the average life expectancy is 78 years, which leaves a lot of time in the marriage after the kids are grown and gone. Perhaps this has also played a role in the disconnect between children and marriage.

Well, in many cases the disconnect occurs before marriage!

There also seems to be disconnect between the idea of kids and the idea of those 78 year olds receiving social security. But it is the kids who are and will be paying social security and medicare for the oldsters. And the elders haven’t been producing enough children to support them in their old age! For this reason we’d better not be deporting great numbers of immigrants. We need them for demographic purposes and for economic growth.

 

[Bella3502]

Yeah and well, **it is our job as Catholics to vote against gay marriage **and to do everything in our power to make sure that you and your future “gay household” doesn’t participate in marriage. OH and even if you do get “married”, your “marriage” will never be a true one. Marriage amongst gays simply cannot exist. It is impossible. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, not two men and not two women.

No, it’s not.

 

[Polaris]

I don’t think you’re wrong, that’s what I thought too. But natural law arguments aren’t just for Catholics. They are based on reason, so anyone with a logical mind should be able to follow and understand them.

There is one problem with this Natural law when discussing with an athiest or an agnostic. That is Natural law is a “theory” the church uses based on its faith in a God of order, not objectivity in physical world. Natural law has at its core the belief that God wrote these laws on the human heart and that belief should be seen in all societeis. Many times however not all societes share these views we declare natural and history shows that many times even our most basic premises of natural law are absent, which weakens this view to outsiders even more. If you do not believe in God, Natural law is not going to be be able to persuade you. To convince them you have to work in a philosophy system void of God. I can not find a truly objective philosophy that does this, and that is why Im not sure that it is right, in a country that is not a theocracy, to enforce a law based on a theological construct.