Gay marriage rebuttal needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter upbeatjonm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FaithfulServ23 said:
This issue will come in stages. First it is between me and my partner. Then this will become a norm in society such as in education, in entertainment, and in court. Now, we see gay marriage performed in various protestant churches. Once this becomes the norm, then any challenge to the norm will bring sanctions and punishment to all oppose. This issue is big in that it brings disorder and harm to all in the human family. I found that changing a person’s mind on the issue is hard, because of the differing perspectives we may have from either life experiences or education. Catholics have a destination and a relationship, that others may not have, which enables us to feel meaning and hope in our lives. I say pray :gopray2: for the person and all who hold the issue based upon false beliefs. Remember love the sinner but hate the sin. If you want to read a good discourse on this issue read Dr. Kenneth Howell’s email that let to his temporary leave. lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071907.htmlexplaining
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post. You have explained the issue much better than I could have.

Is there any danger of the Catholic Church performing gay marriages?
 
A few people said that heterosexual marriage is the way it has always been, that is entirely wrong. From the first century until the third century, homosexual marriages were sanctioned by the Christian faith. Homosexual marriages were banned because two married homosexual men opposed the Church. The Catechism is based a lot on politics, if you bother to read and study history.
 
MariaTS said:
A few people said that heterosexual marriage is the way it has always been, that is entirely wrong. From the first century until the third century, homosexual marriages were sanctioned by the Christian faith.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this. I do have an open mind though. Where did you hear this?

edit: Wait, you are joking, right?
 
MariaTS said:
A few people said that heterosexual marriage is the way it has always been, that is entirely wrong. From the first century until the third century, homosexual marriages were sanctioned by the Christian faith. Homosexual marriages were banned because two married homosexual men opposed the Church. The Catechism is based a lot on politics, if you bother to read and study history.
Click to expand...
This is completely wrong. Homosexual “marriages” were not sanctioned at all by the Church. I doubt you will find actual evidence of this and if you do, it wasn’t by the Church…maybe it was one of the heretical sects but definitely NOT by the Church. It goes against everything that the Faith teaches. I have “bothered” to read and study history and i know that this is a bunch of lies.
 
Garyjohn2 said:
I don’t believe this. I do have an open mind though. Where did you hear this?
Click to expand...
Where did I hear it? During a sermon at a local church. Where did I read it? From a history book describing the history of marriage, I forget the title of the book because I read it a while ago.
 
MariaTS said:
Where did I hear it? During a sermon at a local church. Where did I read it? From a history book describing the history of marriage, I forget the title of the book because I read it a while ago.
Click to expand...
A history book describing the history of marriage…right…

Well I’m sorry but I do not believe you. I hate it when people ask me to back up my statements with references, so I’m not trying to be offensive or anything. If you can remember the name or author of the book I’d be interested though.

I think you must have mis-read or mis-interpretted what you heard.
 
rapunzel77 said:
This is completely wrong. Homosexual “marriages” were not sanctioned at all by the Church. I doubt you will find actual evidence of this and if you do, it wasn’t by the Church…maybe it was one of the heretical sects but definitely NOT by the Church. It goes against everything that the Faith teaches. I have “bothered” to read and study history and i know that this is a bunch of lies.
Click to expand...
First, there weren’t any heretical sects in the first few centuries.
Second, Church teaching has changed over the years.
 
Garyjohn2 said:
A history book describing the history of marriage…right…

Well I’m sorry but I do not believe you. I hate it when people ask me to back up my statements with references, so I’m not trying to be offensive or anything. If you can remember the name or author of the book I’d be interested though.

I think you must have mis-read or mis-interpretted what you heard.
Click to expand...
Well, you haven’t backed up anything you said about this particular subject at hand. I hate it when people are complete hypocrites. I also hate it when people accuse me of lying.
 
MariaTS said:
Well, you haven’t backed up anything you said about this particular subject at hand. I hate it when people are complete hypocrites. I also hate it people accuse me of lying.
Click to expand...
I didn’t accuse you of lying, I said you might have mis-read or mis-heard, that’s all. We can still be friends.

The church in the first few centuries was fueled intensely by the epistles of Paul, who speaks against homosexuality. Romans 1:27.

I think if you think about what you are claiming, you’ll see it doesn’t make much sense.
 
MariaTS said:
First, there weren’t any heretical sects in the first few centuries.
Second, Church teaching has changed over the years.
Click to expand...
There were heretical sects during the early centuries of the Church. Ever hear about the gnostics, the Montanists, the Donatists, the Manichans, etc? If you look at any book on early Church history, you will find these people.

As for as Church teachings, no, they haven’t changed. They have developed as our understanding as increased but that is all. The Church has NEVER changed the teachings on Marriage. It is a God given sacrament and institution. The Church has always maintained that marriage is between one man and one woman with the primary purpose being procreation and the raising of children and the secondary purpose for the mutual support of one another. This is basic teaching that you can find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is a VERY recent phenomenon to divorce sex from procreation and by doing so has open to floodgates of contraception, abortion, easy divorce, and rise in acceptance of homosexuality and “gay” marriage. This is a fact. Marriage is the essential building block of any society weather it is a tribal group, clan, or civilization. It has always entailed a man/several women, one man/one woman, or in some cases one woman/several men. This is true in every culture, etc. Granted, the means by which marriage has been obtained has changed. In the earliest days men from one tribal group might steal women from another and make them their wives. Other times the chieftain of a clan, father, etc would give his daughters to another man for a price, etc. Then there were political and economic alliances all to ensure the stability of the dynasty, family, etc. Marriage is essentially about procreation and the raising of children. This is fact. This is true in every culture.
 
MariaTS said:
A few people said that heterosexual marriage is the way it has always been, that is entirely wrong. From the first century until the third century, homosexual marriages were sanctioned by the Christian faith. Homosexual marriages were banned because two married homosexual men opposed the Church. The Catechism is based a lot on politics, if you bother to read and study history.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl:

I’m interested in why you’d fall for this claptrap.
MariaTS said:
Where did I hear it? During a sermon at a local church. Where did I read it? From a history book describing the history of marriage, I forget the title of the book because I read it a while ago.
Click to expand...
What denomination of Church?

I read that Elvis is still alive and was abducted by Aliens, and I can give you the source…the Weekly World News. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you believe everything you read?
MariaTS said:
First, there weren’t any heretical sects in the first few centuries.
.
Click to expand...
Really?

No, seriously, do you believe this? If so, you really need to read up on heresies. There were a number of them, especially during the first few centuries.

Do a Google search on Heresy. Check the Catholic Encyclopedia online. You’ll find them.
 
chrysostim83 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think the original point was about claiming discrimination, but I could be wrong…

STILL… I see no issue with your analogy, either one of them.

Stocking large print books should not be a LAW, a legal RIGHT because the same rights are already extended to ALL. All citizens are not barred from checking out books and reading them. PERIOD.
HOWEVER, that doesn’t stop the community from, out of the goodness of their hearts, stocking them anyways. But the blind can not claim they are being discriminated against.
However, it is not something that the disabled can force the library to spend community funds on, in my opinion.
The community can buy some large print books…but they don’t have to.

SSM advocates are trying to force the extension of marriage to homosexuals as a RIGHT, as law that we MUST pass.

I think, like your analogy… it should be put to a vote and that the community has a right to say… “NO, you have the same rights as everyone else and if you don’t want to excercise them… so be it”

So I think the logic still stands even when you change the situation around.

Unfortunately, I think the Courts are saying it IS a right and a matter of discrimination.

One of my fears is that empowered with that right… SSM couples will and have begun to go around and SUE people who deny them whatever they feel entitled to.

Such as the Wedding Photographer sued because she told a SS couple that she wouldn’t photograph their wedding. What was once a personal choice to deny customers… is now a Civil Rights discrimination lawsuit. – And that HARMS people.
 
chrysostim83 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I don’t like chocolate ice cream, and I missed the part where you made a rational objection to the anti-homosexual-marriage position. Did you actually say that homosexuality is a physical disability?! God have mercy!
 
scottm said:
I don’t like chocolate ice cream, and I missed the part where you made a rational objection to the anti-homosexual-marriage position.
Click to expand...
When they aren’t nitpicking, most people would realize that saying “I don’t like that point” means “that point doesn’t convince me.”

Let me clarify that my objection is not the anti-SSM position but merely to one of the arguments that supports it. Obviously, if someone were to argue that the moon’s being made of green cheese implied the resurrection, you could take issue with the argument without attacking the conclusion. In the same way, I think the argument you gave was bad, but I choose to remain silent on the conclusion.

Now, what I wrote comes to this: discrimination is compatible with the equal application of equal laws. I tried to illustrate how this would work out in an analogy, but here are a few more.

  • *] A law that prohibited everyone who was lactating from going out in public.
    *] A law that required everyone to drive at least 50 miles every Saturday or face a hefty fine.
    *] A law that required everyone to use the separate-but-equal facilities designated for his race.

    It is not possible for you to claim these laws are discriminatory (against women, Jews, and racial minorities), since they are phrased neutrally and guarantee that everybody has the same rights and duties. So, and let me put it in italics so it can’t be missed, my objection to your point is that if equality of rights and equality under the law were enough to rule out discrimination, then the South would still have Jim Crow laws.
    Did you actually say that homosexuality is a physical disability?! God have mercy!
    Click to expand...
    No. I simply used an analogy with one minority to reason about another.
 
chrysostim83 said:
Now, what I wrote comes to this: discrimination is compatible with the equal application of equal laws. I tried to illustrate how this would work out in an analogy, but here are a few more.

  1. *]A law that prohibited everyone who was lactating from going out in public.
    *]A law that required everyone to drive at least 50 miles every Saturday or face a hefty fine.
    *]A law that required everyone to use the separate-but-equal facilities designated for his race.

    It is not possible for you to claim these laws are discriminatory (against women, Jews, and racial minorities), since they are phrased neutrally and guarantee that everybody has the same rights and duties. So, and let me put it in italics so it can’t be missed, my objection to your point is that if equality of rights and equality under the law were enough to rule out discrimination, then the South would still have Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...

  1. I missed the part where saying that a man cannot marry another man (or a woman cannot marray another woman) is either discrimination, or a denial of a civil right.

    That’s probably because it’s not, whereas your three examples above are. Therein is an important difference.
 
Let’s take another look at the post I was responding to. You wrote:
scottm said:
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.
Click to expand...
This part is arguing (is it not?) that it is not discriminatory to keep gay men and lesbian women from “marrying” the persons they love because gay men and lesbian women already have exactly the same civil right to marry persons of the opposite sex. If that is not what you were arguing, I’ll let it go. Otherwise, the three examples I provided show that it is possible to be discriminated against while having exactly the same civil rights as everyone else. What that means is that it is illegitimate to infer “X is not discriminated against” from “X has exactly the same rights as everyone else.” In other words, in the argument above, “because” needs to be replaced by “and.”

In your latest response you wrote:
I missed the part where saying that a man cannot marry another man (or a woman cannot marray another woman) is either discrimination, or a denial of a civil right.
Click to expand...
I did not say gays and lesbians are discriminated against with respect to the laws on marriage. All I assert is that you cannot argue that because they have the same rights as everyone else, they are therefore not discriminated against. If that is not the argument you were making, then I apologize for wasting your time; but I can’t help thinking it was the argument you were making, and consequently it’s only fair to warn you that it will never convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
 
chrysostim83 said:
This part is arguing (is it not?) that it is not discriminatory to keep gay men and lesbian women from “marrying” the persons they love because gay men and lesbian women already have exactly the same civil right to marry persons of the opposite sex. If that is not what you were arguing, I’ll let it go. Otherwise, the three examples I provided show that it is possible to be discriminated against while having exactly the same civil rights as everyone else.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I said, and yes, in theory you might be right, but your examples haven’t gotten there. The 1940’s racial inequality doesn’t fit because in point of fact Blacks did not have the same civil rights as Whites. Lactating mothers? Come on. By your own example they don’t have the same civil rights as other mothers. Et cetera.

I would not be surprised if we eventually constructed a proper example, but I sincerely do NOT believe it will be analagous to homosexual marriage. It would be a fun yet irrelevant exercise.
 
If society were built on homosexual marriage, then buildings would be built with all bolts, or all nuts. This is impossible, for the complimentary of a nut is a bolt and the bolt, the nut, and so goes it with nature and mankind. Nothing can be built nor procreated by two of the same sex and it is impossible to make any type of “union” from two of the same, for the two do not become a union in any way naturally nor scientifically speaking and are not complimentary in the area of science or nature. There is no need to even mention religion or scipture on this topic, it is as plain as day to the person who knows anything of science and natural law that is self evident to anyone who bother to look at nature and science in any depth. Two of the same sex merely feed off of each other to feel good and nothing natural is ever derived from the acts. The natural and complimentary result of the union of male and female is a child, normatively. laws are based on norms, not exceptions, so it does not matter if a small percentage of heterosexuals cannot reproduce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top