"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[Regular_Atheist]

Yes, but here’s the rub: changing marriage to mean anything people want it to mean is not good.

People who support gay marriage generally do not support polygamy or marriage to children or animals.

But they cannot provide good reasons why.

I can provide good reasons to oppose marriage to children, on the basis that it’s extremely damaging to the children who are being molested (depending on their age, of course). There are both physical and psychological issues with a young child having sex. I could also provide some arguments against bestiality, such as cruelty to animals, but this doesn’t apply to every single animal in existence. I’d also say you’re wrong about most people who support same-sex marriage opposing polygamy. Whenever the subject is brought up, most of them claim they don’t have an issue with it. Neither do I. I can think of no valid reason to oppose polygamy.

These people are lucky, because there is currently no big cultural push from people who wish to do so.

But if there was, what would they say? How could they argue not to change marriage again?

I understand that gay marriage is not bestiality or pedophilia. But if people want to legalize one and not the other, they have to realize it is pretty arbitrary.

Gay marriage, paedophilia and bestiality are not even similar. There’s no reason to compare them, there is no link between them, and there is certainly nothing to suggest that acceptance of consenting homosexuality would suddenly lead to acceptance of child molestation.

I can provide an answer to most statements made on this page, but I really can’t be bothered. The only one that really gets me is when Christians claim that many homosexuals seem to want marriage, even if they have partnerships under a different name. That does seem odd to me, and even slightly unfair, considering how they don’t value marriage like religious folk do. It’s a very fair point for Christians to make.

 

[Farien]

It is not what WE think society should be but what GOD ordained as society where human beings live in a state that is good.

What you think “God ordained”. There is no evidence that God “ordained” anything at all. God gives no sign of disapproval. As soon as God gives a first hand, unmistakable order by declaring that he does not approve of same sex unions, the situation will change. But it takes more than your word to accept that you (“you” in the general meaning, not personally “you”) speak for God. Most people (in other words: society) do not care one way or another when it comes public acceptance of homosexual relationships. As time goes on, the acceptance will grow, and society will survive just fine.

And the thread is not about God, or his assumed preferences. It is whether homosexual relationships hurt society, or not. There is no sign of any harm, except to the hypothetical state of affairs, what you consider society should be, but it is not.

I even feel somewhat sorry for you, but don’t be a sore loser.

 

[edwest2]

And I can’t understand why irreligious people care what Catholics think. Those pushing for gay marriage are individuals? There’s no evidence of that. In fact, the constant, regular postings in threads like this are further evidence to the contrary.

Go to the marriage equality web site, or the PFLAG web site or listen to Ellen Degeneres. Their point is, anything less than calling it marriage turns gays who are in such relationships into “second-class citizens.” Look up “Diversity Day” in public schools. Look up the gay marriage-themed books that our kids are forced to read. Look at the law that forces students to be further indoctrinated by something called Gay History Month. What value is anyone’s sexual orientation at making them better than someone with a different orientation? Is Bisexual History Month next? Will that be mandated by law? What other types of History Month should be mandated by law? Hispanic History Month? Chinese History Month?

Who wants to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act? A group of disorganized individuals?

To be blunt: this is modern mythology.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LisaA]

What you think “God ordained”. There is no evidence that God “ordained” anything at all. God gives no sign of disapproval. As soon as God gives a first hand, unmistakable order by declaring that he does not approve of same sex unions, the situation will change. But it takes more than your word to accept that you (“you” in the general meaning, not personally “you”) speak for God. Most people (in other words: society) do not care one way or another when it comes public acceptance of homosexual relationships. As time goes on, the acceptance will grow, and society will survive just fine.

And the thread is not about God, or his assumed preferences. It is whether homosexual relationships hurt society, or not. There is no sign of any harm, except to the hypothetical state of affairs, what you consider society should be, but it is not.

I even feel somewhat sorry for you, but don’t be a sore loser.

Silly me, I didn’t realize that I made up the entire Word of God…wow I’m impressed! No it’s not about what I think, it’s about what is written, it’s about Natural Law, it’s about basic biology. I didn’t make up any of those things. I do not THINK it takes a male and female to reproduce. It’s the truth.

In general the public accepts homosexual relationships. It’s been a long time since the days of Christopher Street. Be happy that most people are perfectly happy to live and let live and let you do what you want in the bedroom.

OTOH given the ramifications of any deconstruction of marriage, whether by easy divorce, by out of wedlock births, or by redefining marriage to whatever the current society wants at that time as if it were pop music instead of a centuries old societal norm, I do not believe that alternative lifestyles should have the same societal support and status as traditional one man/one woman marriage.

Lsia

 

[edwest2]

What you think “God ordained”. There is no evidence that God “ordained” anything at all. God gives no sign of disapproval. As soon as God gives a first hand, unmistakable order by declaring that he does not approve of same sex unions, the situation will change. But it takes more than your word to accept that you (“you” in the general meaning, not personally “you”) speak for God. Most people (in other words: society) do not care one way or another when it comes public acceptance of homosexual relationships. As time goes on, the acceptance will grow, and society will survive just fine.

And the thread is not about God, or his assumed preferences. It is whether homosexual relationships hurt society, or not. There is no sign of any harm, except to the hypothetical state of affairs, what you consider society should be, but it is not.

I even feel somewhat sorry for you, but don’t be a sore loser.

What? You were expecting to get a different answer on a Catholic message board?

No one has the ability to predict the future. Please post your propaganda elsewhere.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CrimsonThorn]

What you think “God ordained”. There is no evidence that God “ordained” anything at all. God gives no sign of disapproval. As soon as God gives a first hand, unmistakable order by declaring that he does not approve of same sex unions, the situation will change. But it takes more than your word to accept that you (“you” in the general meaning, not personally “you”) speak for God. Most people (in other words: society) do not care one way or another when it comes public acceptance of homosexual relationships. As time goes on, the acceptance will grow, and society will survive just fine.

And the thread is not about God, or his assumed preferences. It is whether homosexual relationships hurt society, or not. There is no sign of any harm, except to the hypothetical state of affairs, what you consider society should be, but it is not.

I even feel somewhat sorry for you, but don’t be a sore loser.

Youre forgetting that sex and reproduction is Biology. Dont non believers believe in that? We know that it takes a penis and a vagina for sexual intercourse to occur. What homosexuals have is sodomy or masturbation, NOT sexual intercourse. To say otherwise speaks against common sense and biology.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Actually, the issue does not hurt society at all. However, it hurts what you think society should be. And that is a world of difference. Naturally, you will have to keep the issue alive, to fight for what you think is “right”. The truth is that even a sizable percenatge of catholics disagrees with you. You should be aware that the fight is already lost, (just remember the fight against divorce) and all you will achieve is to further marginalize your position. Just think about it.

I think a vast majority of reasonable people would agree that public sex and pedophilia are objectively harmful to a society (such as in the Netherlands).

 

[Farien]

Silly me, I didn’t realize that I made up the entire Word of God…wow I’m impressed!

Don’t be. I took pains to point out that I am not speaking about you, personally.

No it’s not about what I think, it’s about what is written, it’s about Natural Law, it’s about basic biology.

There is no “natural law”.

I do not THINK it takes a male and female to reproduce. It’s the truth.

So what? Marriage is not necessary for procreation, nor is procreation necessary for marriage. If some people do not wish to procreate, it is not a problem. If other people are unable to procreate, it is no problem either. What is this obsession with the ability or desire to procreate? Those who are sworn to celibacy and chastity do not procreate either, and there is trouble coming from their behavior.

In general the public accepts homosexual relationships. It’s been a long time since the days of Christopher Street. Be happy that most people are perfectly happy to live and let live and let you do what you want in the bedroom.

Indeed, we made several steps in the right direction… who made the first step?

OTOH given the ramifications of any deconstruction of marriage, whether by easy divorce, by out of wedlock births, or by redefining marriage to whatever the current society wants at that time as if it were pop music instead of a centuries old societal norm, I do not believe that alternative lifestyles should have the same societal support and status as traditional one man/one woman marriage.

Well, you said it. I did not put the words into your mouth. I wonder if you know about the “sanctity” of marriage in the Victorian era? It was rampant with infidelity (carefully hidden and denied). Many children were born out of wedlock (in poor section of society), child labor was the “norm”… etc. The current society is way better in morals.

 

[Farien]

Youre forgetting that sex and reproduction is Biology. Dont non believers believe in that? We know that it takes a penis and a vagina for sexual intercourse to occur. What homosexuals have is sodomy or masturbation, NOT sexual intercourse. To say otherwise speaks against common sense and biology.

Read the post directly above.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Well, you said it. I did not put the words into your mouth. I wonder if you know about the “sanctity” of marriage in the Victorian era? It was rampant with infidelity (carefully hidden and denied). Many children were born out of wedlock (in poor section of society), child labor was the “norm”… etc. The current society is way better in morals.

The irony is that you recognize all those things as wrong and immoral. As they say, those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it and we are indeed repeating it. Welcome back to the past, so much for progression.

 

[Farien]

I think a vast majority of reasonable people would agree that public sex and pedophilia are objectively harmful to a society (such as in the Netherlands).

You mix two different things. Public sex is totally harmless in itself. Many societies had no problem with it. Pedophilia has nothing to do with the question.

 

[Farien]

The irony is that you recognize all those things as wrong and immoral. As they say, those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it and we are indeed repeating it. Welcome back to the past, so much for progression.

None of them has anything to do with the topic at hand. We could have a separate conversation in a different thread.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

None of them has anything to do with the topic at hand. We could have a separate conversation in a different thread.

Um you brought them up…

 

[CrimsonThorn]

You mix two different things. Public sex is totally harmless in itself. Many societies had no problem with it. Pedophilia has nothing to do with the question.

Well then, youre not exactly what Id consider a reasonable person.

As another poster mentioned in regards to the societies that tolerated that kind of behavior…Where are they now?

 

[LisaA]

Don’t be. I took pains to point out that I am not speaking about you, personally.

There is no “natural law”.

So what? Marriage is not necessary for procreation, nor is procreation necessary for marriage. If some people do not wish to procreate, it is not a problem. If other people are unable to procreate, it is no problem either. What is this obsession with the ability or desire to procreate? Those who are sworn to celibacy and chastity do not procreate either, and there is trouble coming from their behavior.

Indeed, we made several steps in the right direction… who made the first step?

Well, you said it. I did not put the words into your mouth. I wonder if you know about the “sanctity” of marriage in the Victorian era? It was rampant with infidelity (carefully hidden and denied). Many children were born out of wedlock (in poor section of society), child labor was the “norm”… etc. The current society is way better in morals.

Well you have proven you are the world’s greatest expert on your own opinion but your post is short on facts, full of strawmen and lacking in logic.

There is no “Natural Law?” Really? Oh please anyone who’s taken a middle school biology course has an understanding of the way things are ordered. Now look down and tell me what you see! Do you have the proper biological elements to conceive and gestate and bear a child? I didn’t think so! So the idea that you are not ordered as female is quite obvious.

As to marriage not being necessary for procreation, that too is a very obvious biological truth. Sperm and egg can meet in a petri dish and a child can be created without the two adult humans ever meeting, much less engaging in sex. However the thread is not about procreation but the benefit to society of certain institutions. Traditional one man/one woman marriage has thousands of years of practice and evidence that stability and prosperity in society, protection of the next generation, is maximized with the traditional marital structure. There is little doubt that children are best raised in a two parent married to each other for life home. Many if not most of the ills of our society (that you laughingly claim is more moral than Victorians…oh PUH-LEASE) are caused by unstable, non traditional relationships that drag innocent children through chaos and poverty. Reason enough for society to support and promote traditoinal marriage.

Further we’ve seen as marriage has been deconstructed through contraception, abortion, and easy divorce, there is societal breakdown. Those unfortunately born and raised in non-traditional enviornments are more likely to dop out of school, engage in drugs/crime/promiscuity. They are less likely to have jobs, have homes, participate in society through paying taxes, charitable works, or community involvement.

Again the only “reason” for SSM is because “I want what I want” like a spoiled child who sees a toy his neighbor received for Chrstmas and thus throws a tantrum. There is no benefit to society to pretend two men or two women have the equivalent of marriage. It is simply a selfish and self absorbed desire to have what is not possible and lacking that pretend.

Lisa

 

[edwest2]

Very good post, Lisa.

“As individual responsibility and morality declines, pressure increases on government to grow.” “Likewise, if people ruin their lives with drugs or alcohol, doom themselves to poverty by dropping out of school or get tossed in jail for committing crimes, it creates both the environment and the excuse for government to expand.” “You could also say that individuals should be left to suffer the consequences of their own poor choices, and I don’t disagree. But it’s not realistic when those who need help are children victimized by stupid adults.”

Excerpts from article titled “Founders assumed a moral people,” published in the October 24, 2010 issue of The Detroit News, page 31A, and written by Nolan Finley.

First, it was the fight for Gay Marriage.
Now, it’s the fight for Gay Divorce.
Next, it will be the fight for Children adopted by Married Gay Parents. What happens to them?

So, at this stage, it appears to be: “We’ve fought long and hard for the right to marry, but I’ll marry you only if I can have the right to divorce you?” And “But what about the kids?”
“Yeah, what about them?”

How can any gay marriage advocate ignore the fact that gay ‘married’ couples are divorcing and that gay adoption, which has been painted as either the same or better than straight adoption, will destabilize the children involved?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farien]

There is no “Natural Law?” Really?

You like to play “hide and seek”? The phrase “natural law” is used as an abbreviated form for “natural MORAL law”, which has nothing to do with biology.

There is little doubt that children are best raised in a two parent married to each other for life home.

There are other arrangements, equally good, maybe even better.

Further we’ve seen as marriage has been deconstructed through contraception, abortion, and easy divorce, there is societal breakdown. Those unfortunately born and raised in non-traditional enviornments are more likely to dop out of school, engage in drugs/crime/promiscuity. They are less likely to have jobs, have homes, participate in society through paying taxes, charitable works, or community involvement.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is STILL a fallacy.

There is no benefit to society to pretend two men or two women have the equivalent of marriage.

The gender of the partners is not relevant. You advocate a lifelog commitment, and now you argue against it. Why do you change your stance so quickly?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business

baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic-20121225,0,7100399,full.story

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . You should be aware that the fight is already lost . . .

ROFL

Precisely what Goliath tried to keep telling David , um , just before he kissed the turf.

 

[LisaA]

You like to play “hide and seek”? The phrase “natural law” is used as an abbreviated form for “natural MORAL law”, which has nothing to do with biology.

There are other arrangements, equally good, maybe even better.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is STILL a fallacy.

The gender of the partners is not relevant. You advocate a lifelog commitment, and now you argue against it. Why do you change your stance so quickly?

You simply express your opinion which supports your self induced conclusions. “Other arrangements” for raising children have been demonstrably inferior to the traditional form of man/woman marriage. Various movements to redefine marriage have been detrimental to our society…the canage of easy divorce, out of wedlock births, even the effect of contraception and abortion have weakened the family and thereby weakened society.

I don’t know how much experience you have in volunteering or working with social services organizations, charities, government agencies etc but try spending a little time face to face with the very people you think would be great subjects for your experiment. The vast majority of those needing social services are the product of “other arrangements.” Why those who promote SSM think THEIR plan is superior to what has served various societies for thousands of years is simply a display of arrogance.

The gender of the partners is not relevant? Really? So there is no difference between men and women? This is one of those ridiculous assumptions of the Left that is truly laughable whether from a biologicial, theological or sociological point of view. Take a biology class Ferian and if you are so blind as not to SEE the differences, a view of hormones and blood chemistry will help you along the way.

Again, please respond, is there ANY reason other than the selfish desire of homosexuals to pretend that two men and two women are the equivalent of a man and a woman joined in marriage?

Using Latin doesn’t make your opinions valid when you have zero evidence, but hey nice try

Lisa