Gay marriage rebuttal needed

[chrysostim83]

Homosexual men ALREADY have EXACTLY the same civil right that I have: they can marry a woman. Likewise homosexual women have the same civil right that my wife has: they can marry a man. Also, every legal right that pops into existence automatically upon marriage, can be obtained through other means. I honestly can’t think of anything that I get by virtue of my marriage, that a homosexual couple cannot get in other ways.

I don’t like these points. Let’s change the example to see if these points hold water. Suppose we were living in the bad old days when the rights of the disabled were not taken seriously. There is a debate about whether the public library should start stocking large print books: one faction is in favor, but another faction, who consider poor eyesight to be a sign of inferiority, argue that everyone already has the same right to check out normal books. They argue further that reading is still possible for the blind because books can be read to them by others. So all the benefits that pop into existence when someone cracks open a book for himself can be obtained through other means. A member of the faction against the blind would honestly not be able to think of anything he gets by virtue of his library that a blind person cannot get in other ways. Is this absurd argument perfectly in order?

Anyway, coming back to the OP, when a gay activist asks how same-sex marriage would harm your marriage, the only honest answer is it wouldn’t. If he or she presses you to explain how same-sex marriage will harm marriage, the best answer is that nobody knows. There’s virtually no science on this issue to guide us yet, and though Holy Mother Church teaches us the correct answer, there is still so far as I can tell no reasonable way to justify it. (NB: A correct teaching lacking a solid theoretical rationale is pretty common when the Church comes to speak of new things. A similar situation existed when the pill was first developed.)

 

[JimG]

Here is an article written by Orson Scott Card addressing the matter in 2004.

 

[andyandely1997]

Does gay marriage harm anyone?

Yes, just as no-fault divorce has drastically damaged our society, so will gay marriage. Was not no-fault divorce supposed to be better for the parents & kids? After 40 years of no-fault divorce, can anyone say this has not harmed our society? And with the eroding of marriage over these years, has come the dramatic increase of babies born out of wedlock. Has not this also brought more chaos to our society? And who gets hurts the most in both of these situations? The kids! So much selfishness from the adults in our culture. It is all about what make me happy.

The secularists wants us to accept their “religion” without a word from any opposition. So we are supposed to stand by idly, while God is kicked out & the secular agenda moves in to fill the void. We should stop worrying, as Christians, about how the other side feels. Our feelings will not stop anything. Is the other side worried about our feelings? I don’t think so! But they are united & are determined to push forward with their agenda. All tradtional Americans who believe in God should do the same. There are too many silent Christians, who are afraid to speak up for the truth of God. This is why we have the culture of death. And it will not change, until more people speak up for Christ unabashedly.

 

[bingbang]

Yes, just as no-fault divorce has drastically damaged our society, so will gay marriage. Was not no-fault divorce supposed to be better for the parents & kids? After 40 years of no-fault divorce, can anyone say this has not harmed our society? And with the eroding of marriage over these years, has come the dramatic increase of babies born out of wedlock. Has not this also brought more chaos to our society? And who gets hurts the most in both of these situations? The kids! So much selfishness from the adults in our culture. It is all about what make me happy.

The secularists wants us to accept their “religion” without a word from any opposition. So we are supposed to stand by idly, while God is kicked out & the secular agenda moves in to fill the void. We should stop worrying, as Christians, about how the other side feels. Our feelings will not stop anything. Is the other side worried about our feelings? I don’t think so! But they are united & are determined to push forward with their agenda. All tradtional Americans who believe in God should do the same. There are too many silent Christians, who are afraid to speak up for the truth of God. This is why we have the culture of death. And it will not change, until more people speak up for Christ unabashedly.

First of all how has “no fault divorce” damaged society? Can you prove that or is it just an opinion? And I don’t see how that has anything to do with gay marriage. In fact it has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. So your whole argument is basically a straw man and makes no sense.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Gay Marriage will bring God’s judgement upon a nation and that would “hurt” non-gays too.

 

[kenofken]

There is no good rebuttal against gay marriage to be had because there simply are none that don’t rely on either: A) One’s personal distaste for gays and/or B) one’s own religious dogma. There is no reputable body of science which shows that gay marriage harms kids or hetero unions or anything of the sort. One of the top expert witnesses in the anti-gay marriage camp has been revealed to be homosexual himself.

You certainly have the freedom to dislike gays. Under the law, you can hate the sin AND the sinner, if you want. There’s nothing wrong with holding to your religious beliefs either, but you don’t get to force the whole nation to live under them. If we did not have that protection in law and custom in this country, Catholics would have faced Cromwell-type persecution from the earliest days of our nation.

The momentum in courts, and eventually in legislatures, will result in gay marriage within a few years. If nothing else, simple demographics will settle the matter. Active opponents of gay marriage include the bishops, a minority of Catholics, evangelical…and virtually all are 50 and over. Fighting a holding action is an ultimate act of futility if there are no reinforcements to be had. The focus now should be on making sure everyone’s rights are respected, including the right of the church to not perform such marriages.

 

[PassingThru]

There is no good rebuttal against gay marriage to be had because there simply are none that don’t rely on either: A) One’s personal distaste for gays and/or B) one’s own religious dogma. There is no reputable body of science which shows that gay marriage harms kids or hetero unions or anything of the sort. One of the top expert witnesses in the anti-gay marriage camp has been revealed to be homosexual himself.

You certainly have the freedom to dislike gays. Under the law, you can hate the sin AND the sinner, if you want. There’s nothing wrong with holding to your religious beliefs either, but you don’t get to force the whole nation to live under them. If we did not have that protection in law and custom in this country, Catholics would have faced Cromwell-type persecution from the earliest days of our nation.

The momentum in courts, and eventually in legislatures, will result in gay marriage within a few years. If nothing else, simple demographics will settle the matter. Active opponents of gay marriage include the bishops, a minority of Catholics, evangelical…and virtually all are 50 and over. Fighting a holding action is an ultimate act of futility if there are no reinforcements to be had. The focus now should be on making sure everyone’s rights are respected, including the right of the church to not perform such marriages.

+1

3 paragraphs of accuracy. And none of it has to do with what is Right or Truth, only what is law and reality.

 

[Garyjohn2]

+1

3 paragraphs of accuracy. And none of it has to do with what is Right or Truth, only what is law and reality.

The first paragraph is not entirely accurate.

 

[andyandely1997]

Again, there is no point worrying anymore about convincing the other side. Traditional Christians need to unite & confront the attack on marriage. Being a Christian, is not a call to passivity. Did not Christ confront evil? The other side will throw out the word “bigot” or “homophobe” when anyone dares to oppose their agenda. Christ did not call us to be cowards. We have to stop worrying about what people may think of us, and start worrying about the truth of Christ which is timeless.

A good article by Father Thomas Euteneur, President, Human Life International.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081312.html

 

[Apollos]

Again, there is no point worrying anymore about convincing the other side. Traditional Christians need to unite & confront the attack on marriage. Being a Christian, is not a call to passivity. Did not Christ confront evil? The other side will throw out the word “bigot” or “homophobe” when anyone dares to oppose their agenda. Christ did not call us to be cowards. We have to stop worrying about what people may think of us, and start worrying about the truth of Christ which is timeless.

A good article by Father Thomas Euteneur, President, Human Life International.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081312.html

What is it with you conservatives? Always complaining after the fact. “Traditional Christians need to unite” - yeah, right - if Traditional Christians had been awake they would have noticed that the higher levels of the judiciary were being filled with liberals, and guess what? Gay marriage is coming about through the judicial branch. The battle is lost.

 

[Garyjohn2]

What is it with you conservatives? Always complaining after the fact. “Traditional Christians need to unite” - yeah, right - if Traditional Christians had been awake they would have noticed that the higher levels of the judiciary were being filled with liberals, and guess what? Gay marriage is coming about through the judicial branch. The battle is lost.

Out of faith, hope, and love, the greatest is love. But don’t forget about faith and hope!

Keep faith and hope, and keep praying. Laws change both ways.
To quote John Rambo, “Nothing is over!”

 

[Julia1996]

How does a law allowing gay marriages affect my marriage?

Every action results in something else happening. This is called the domino effect. Gay marriage itself might not destroy my marriage, but by a chain reaction it might.

I know this example is a bit far fetched but I am just using it to illustrate my idea.

Supposing me and my husband (supposing I had one), had some kids. We are Catholic, and we are raising our kids to be Catholic. Then because of the gay marriage laws, our son goes out and marries another guy. Then I would blame my husband for not raising our son properly, because it is a father’s job to raise a son. And my husband would blame me for no raising our son properly, because as a stay at home mother I had more opportunity to teach him proper values. This way, our relationship would be damaged because we are blaming each other.

This is all I can think of in response to “how does the gay marriage law affect my marriage?”

 

[bingbang]

How does a law allowing gay marriages affect my marriage?

Every action results in something else happening. This is called the domino effect. Gay marriage itself might not destroy my marriage, but by a chain reaction it might.

I know this example is a bit far fetched but I am just using it to illustrate my idea.

Supposing me and my husband (supposing I had one), had some kids. We are Catholic, and we are raising our kids to be Catholic. Then because of the gay marriage laws, our son goes out and marries another guy. Then I would blame my husband for not raising our son properly, because it is a father’s job to raise a son. And my husband would blame me for no raising our son properly, because as a stay at home mother I had more opportunity to teach him proper values. This way, our relationship would be damaged because we are blaming each other.

This is all I can think of in response to “how does the gay marriage law affect my marriage?”

That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. First of all, if your son is going to be gay, gay marriage being legal is not going to change it. So if your son was gay and married or just had a boyfriend likely wouldn’t change a thing about your opinion of it.

Secondly anyone who blames the parents of a gay individual is ignorant.

This whole argument is so biased and bigoted it is astonishing.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What is it with you conservatives? Always complaining after the fact. “Traditional Christians need to unite” - yeah, right - if Traditional Christians had been awake they would have noticed that the higher levels of the judiciary were being filled with liberals, and guess what? Gay marriage is coming about through the judicial branch. The battle is lost.

Wait a minute here-doesn’t the supreme court have a 5-4 Conservative majority right now?

As for my position on the subject, I’m leaning toward eliminating marriage in the secular sense

The secular government issues EVERYBODY, gay and straight, with secular unions.

The religious institutions issue marriages.

 

[Garyjohn2]

As for my position on the subject, I’m leaning toward eliminating marriage in the secular sense

The secular government issues EVERYBODY, gay and straight, with secular unions.

The religious institutions issue marriages.

THAT is an interesting compromise! I wonder if it has been thought of. I’d vote for it. It sounds ok to me.

 

[Joe_5859]

Wait a minute here-doesn’t the supreme court have a 5-4 Conservative majority right now?

As for my position on the subject, I’m leaning toward eliminating marriage in the secular sense

The secular government issues EVERYBODY, gay and straight, with secular unions.

The religious institutions issue marriages.

THAT is an interesting compromise! I wonder if it has been thought of. I’d vote for it. It sounds ok to me.

It has been thought of, but it is not an acceptable compromise! It is simply a ploy to get homosexual marriage in through the back door.

Note the CDF statement: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons

It does not say that homosexual marriage is unacceptable but that civil unions would be just fine.

Think about what Marriage is. Marriage is the oldest institution in the world. It predates every single government, nation, and religion. It is the foundational building block of every society. The State has a vested interest in seeing that institution protected.

Whether you call it a “marriage” or a “civil union”, the reality is the same: a man and a woman make a public commitment to each other. Remember, the Church recognizes as valid those marriages of non-Catholics that are conducted even by a Justice of the Peace. If two non-Catholics go before a Justice of the Peace and say the same vows and make the same promises, but that little piece of paper simply says “Civil Union” instead of “Marriage”, will the Catholic Church still recognize that as a marriage? Yes! You think people are confused about what marriage is now. Imagine a non-Catholic coming to RCIA and discovering that she needs to obtain a declaration of nullity for her previous “civil union”! Every person in every diocesan Tribunal Office in the country would be pulling their hair out!

I’m not sure where that idea originated, but it is a bad idea. Sorry, Marc. I think that if we really think about the long term consequences of such a compromise, the problems become more evident.

 

[Garyjohn2]

It has been thought of, but it is not an acceptable compromise! It is simply a ploy to get homosexual marriage in through the back door.
…
I’m not sure where that idea originated, but it is a bad idea. Sorry, Marc. I think that if we really think about the long term consequences of such a compromise, the problems become more evident.

In this context, gay marriage is already in through the back door. My work offers benefites to “domestic partners” as long as they can prove they share a bill or bank account. Sharing a bill or a bank account can be a domestic partnership, but its not a marriage.

What is a marriage? A marriage is a sacrament between two people, with the church acting as a witness. As a sacrament, it leaves a mark on our souls, does it not? Two men who go to work or to court to get recognition as a domestic partnership do not participate in a sacrament, and do not get the effects of a marriage on their souls. It’s impossible. Gay marriage cannot exist. Gay partnerships can and already do exist.

In this light I don’t really see a difference between giving gay people some kind of “domestic union” and what is already going on now. It seems ok as long as we don’t pretend its marriage or call it marriage. I still don’t nessecarily think it’s good though. But, we are doing it already (my place of employment is just one example).

edit: I guess I’m coming from the perspective that the state doesn’t really have any power to marry somebody or not. (my fiancee suggested having a judge preside at our wedding, and I was like “but I thought you wanted to get married!”).

What do you think of that? I really appreciate all the perspectives and people participating in this discussion. My mind is open.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

In this context, gay marriage is already in through the back door. My work offers benefites to “domestic partners” as long as they can prove they share a bill or bank account. Sharing a bill or a bank account can be a domestic partnership, but its not a marriage.

What is a marriage? A marriage is a sacrament between two people, with the church acting as a witness. As a sacrament, it leaves a mark on our souls, does it not? Two men who go to work or to court to get recognition as a domestic partnership do not participate in a sacrament, and do not get the effects of a marriage on their souls. It’s impossible. Gay marriage cannot exist. Gay partnerships can and already do exist.

In this light I don’t really see a difference between giving gay people some kind of “domestic union” and what is already going on now. It seems ok as long as we don’t pretend its marriage or call it marriage. I still don’t nessecarily think it’s good though. But, we are doing it already (my place of employment is just one example).

What do you think of that? I really appreciate all the perspectives and people participating in this discussion.

I agree with your point of view.

I mean, in light of this isn’t overturning Prop 8 in CA pointless? Gay people already had civil unions. IF you recognize them as marriages, then why do we care that Prop 8 was overturned.

But we do care, because as Garyjohn2 pointed out, there are many partnerships that the Church does not consider a marriage. Whay can’t civil unions be one of them?

 

[kenofken]

To some extent, the terms “marriage” or “domestic union” are semantics, but the license issued by the state should recognize gay and straight marriages equally. There are domestic unions and all sorts of legal arragements gay couples have used for years to try to approximate civil marriage, but they are all lacking for one reason or another.

Now, what the Catholic church or any other church decided to call a valid religious marriage, is of course up to their discretion and always should be, but the state has no business whatsoever enforcing those views on the rest of us. If you believe otherwise, remember that history has its pendulum. If we allow the state to apply a favored religion to civil law, one day the Muslims or Chris Hitches crowd may well be in control of our country and Catholic marriages will have no standing before the law.

 

[Garyjohn2]

To some extent, the terms “marriage” or “domestic union” are semantics, but the license issued by the state should recognize gay and straight marriages equally.

To some people they might be semantics, but I think the wording is important. Gay unions are not marriages. Neither do I think they are just gay versions of a normal marriage.

If homosexuals want a piece of paper that says “hey we’re partnered…give me a discount on dental insurance” I am ok with it.

However, if they want to be the exact same thing as married and just call it something else, I’m against it. Children are a touchy subject. There could be others as well.

I have homosexual friends. I like them, and I wish them the best always. Still, marriage itself, even from a secular viewpoint, should be held sacred. Sacred like the constitution is sacred. A previous poster was right…it predates all nations and religions. It’s the building block not just of our society, but our species. We shouldn’t muck with it now, marriage is special!