Gay marriage rebuttal needed

[Joe_5859]

I recommend reading two (FREE!) resources on this:

• [Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html) by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
• [Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf) by the TFP Committee on American Issues

The first gives an excellent, brief synopsis of the main underlying principles from the Church herself. The second is a book length (211 pages!) look at the specifics of the debate surrounding this issue in the U.S. today. It is a great resource which I have recently discovered and am only now diving into.

I would recommend these two resources to bingbang, too, to help understand why the Catholic Church teaches what she does.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How is it against natural law? Animals commit homosexual acts all the time. That seems pretty natural…or are these animals sinning too?

No, animals do NOT commit homosexual acts ‘all the time’. If you’re going to argue, you need to phrase your argument with less factual ‘sloppiness’.

After all, ‘many’ animals do not mate for life --are you going to argue that human beings shouldn’t then have marriages which are vowed for life because it is a natural practice for many animals to be what in human terms would be 'promiscuous?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So two people have sex. They both feel good about it, go on their way, and are happy. Neither would consider themselves a victim because it was their choice to do it and they enjoyed it. Now you go up to them and say “well you don’t think you are a victim, but you are.”

Who are YOU to tell someone they are a victim when they themselves do not think so?

Suppose you and your friend go ahead and have great ‘sex’ and you both think it wonderful, but guess what, you’ve both given each other a nasty sexually transmitted disease. You don’t feel it or see it so you don’t know it’s there. But on your checkup, the doctor gives you the diagnosis.’

You going to tell your doctor, “Who are YOU to tell me I’ve now become the victim of an STD when I don’t think I have one?”

 

[Erich]

the one question he had, for which I am seeking the best answer is; “how is having gay marriage passed into law going to hurt your marriage?”

If there were truly no distinction between marriage and “same sex marriage” then would there be any need for the “same sex” modifier? Of course not. Spin a globe and pick virtually any place on earth at any previous time in human history; you will find that they do marriage one way – between men and women. There may be other differences, but marriage has always required a husband and wife. Why? Marriage teaches that men and women need each other and that children need mothers and fathers. A loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless children, but no compassionate society intentionally deprives children of their own mom or dad. But this is what every same-sex home does – and for no other reason but to satisfy adult desire.

In answer to the question, “How is having gay marriage passed into law going to hurt your marriage?” we can expect the following:
a) The law will teach our children and grandchildren that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.
b) Jonathan Yarbrough, part of the first couple to get a “same-sex marriage” in Provincetown, Mass, said, “I think it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case, it is. We have an open marriage.” Once you rip a ship off its mooring who knows where it will drift next?
c) The statement, “Children need a mother and a father” will be deemed hate speech. The Boston Globe already said so: “Governor Romney is denigrating gay families, practicing divisive, mean-spirited politics…by insisting that every child ‘has a right to a mother and a father.’”
d) Consider an NPR story from Boston from several years ago. An eighth-grade teacher there teaches about gay sex “thoroughly and explicitly.” When asked if parents complained about their children learning such explicit material, this teacher said, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.”

 

[Garyjohn2]

So two people have sex. They both feel good about it, go on their way, and are happy. Neither would consider themselves a victim because it was their choice to do it and they enjoyed it. Now you go up to them and say “well you don’t think you are a victim, but you are.”

Who are YOU to tell someone they are a victim when they themselves do not think so?

There are lots of posts already on why pre-marital sex is not good, who the victims are, and why. Yes, there are STD’s and unplanned pregnancies. Also, the two people lose that wonderful gift that was to be given to their spouse on their wedding day, and the rest of their lives. Also, there is all kinds of emotional baggage and possible negative past relationship experiences (of a sexual nature) that can and will be brought into the future marriage. Depending on the circumstance, it can be very straining. The victims are the two people who practice the act, and their future spouses. It’s real! I summed it up like 5 reasons right here, but you can learn more about it yourself, or just give it some thought.

 

[bingbang]

Suppose you and your friend go ahead and have great ‘sex’ and you both think it wonderful, but guess what, you’ve both given each other a nasty sexually transmitted disease. You don’t feel it or see it so you don’t know it’s there. But on your checkup, the doctor gives you the diagnosis.’

You going to tell your doctor, “Who are YOU to tell me I’ve now become the victim of an STD when I don’t think I have one?”

Your analogy doesn’t make any sense. So now it is wrong because you can get an std? You know what does a pretty good job at stopping std’s…condoms.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Your analogy doesn’t make any sense. So now it is wrong because you can get an std? You know what does a pretty good job at stopping std’s…condoms.

Then why do STD’s keep spreading? It’s surely not because people don’t use condoms, don’t use them properly, they break or fail, or because they can’t afford them. Also, it definately can’t be because when people run out of condoms they just “do it” anyways instead of going out to the store and getting more, right?

It’s a mystery…

 

[Spirithound]

Your analogy doesn’t make any sense. So now it is wrong because you can get an std?

I believe Tantum Ergo was using the unseen STD as a metaphor for unseen (but still real) spiritual damage.

 

[Apollos]

How is it against natural law? Animals commit homosexual acts all the time. That seems pretty natural…or are these animals sinning too?

Gay animals don’t self-segregate and establish their own all-gay territories and gay watering holes. They don’t engage in fully completed acts that for us would be notorious violations of natural law. They also don’t exhibit whatever for them would correspond to the usual suite of egodystonic psychoaffective disorders we see in human homosexuals. So the analogy at best is weak.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I believe Tantum Ergo was using the unseen STD as a metaphor for unseen (but still real) spiritual damage.

Exactly, and I have a strong suspicion that bingbang was quite aware of that fact.

That, and the fact that just because two people wander around in blissful ignorance thinking that they ‘know it all’ and that what they did was just ‘right’ and ‘fun’, inside their bodies now have been ‘invisibly’ assaulted and the repercussions of that can affect the rest of their lives.

Many STDs cause permanent sterility because they are untreated and undetected and thus do a lot of damage. A person who once gets genital herpes will, I believe, suffer recurrences frequently and will always put a partner at risk --even ‘with’ the use of the not-so-all-powerful condom. And a child born while the mother is suffering acute genital herpes can be blinded by that (even though they’d be treated immediately). Seems like an awful lot of potential damage.

And the whole idea that sex is just about ‘mutual pleasure’ contributes to the entire culture (male and female) objectifying the other. Women are the main sufferers but men suffer too, not only by being the ones ‘targeted’ to be the ‘consumers’ of as many women as they can ‘get’, but because little by little, even the supposed old-fashioned male idea that women are either ‘whores’ or ‘moms’; either ‘totally bad’ or ‘totally good’ is now turned into all woman are available for USE. . .and no woman is ‘good’ because of that ‘use’. Which further objectifies the women who now compete to see who can be the sluttiest and get the most ‘sex’ herself! Well, motherhood itself has become, for many, something to postpone as long as possible, or to avoid through abortion if necessary, and if accepted, accepted because of what the CHILD WILL DO FOR HER. . .NOT for what SHE can do for the CHILD. It’s a very sad society today for many people. More and more men and women are, if not practicing this kind of craziness, at least not even bothering to speak out against it because the minority is so vocal, so rude, and so incessant and overbearing, that it becomes a weariness to constantly have to keep telling the truth when a few (but a shrill, screaming, vocal and media-glutted few) keep screaming lies and refusing to listen to the truth.

 

[PassingThru]

Wow–you don’t think that sex outside of marriage and homosexual actions have ‘victims?’ You think that fornication is a victimless ‘activity?’ You don’t see that even mutual fornication with both people thinking it was ‘wonderful’ is objectively sinful --that it sins against God first, and that these two people are sinning against their own bodies and against each other? And likewise, two homosexuals (male/male or female/female) are sinning against God, their own bodies, and their partners as well. Yes indeed there are victims.

Seems you really are struggling to separate legal definitions from religious or moral ones. The question relates to holding gay marriage as legal as it has no victims. The judge has expressed how the defense is treading close to having no standing, which relates to this.

And you said sins against God. Well, now you are off in an odd place where your beliefs in God and your Truth are in conflict with someone else’s understanding of God and Truth. This is why the law will pay no respect whatsoever to such arguments. Which is good. For you too!

 

[mark_a]

why should I stand in the way.

Ask if it’s ok to stand in the way of marriages between polygamists, bisexual polygamists, marriages between men or women and animals.

Anyway, I’d be interested to know his response.

 

[bingbang]

Ask if it’s ok to stand in the way of marriages between polygamists, bisexual polygamists, marriages between men or women and animals.

Anyway, I’d be interested to know his response.

I don’t care if someone wants to get married to more than one person. An animal, like a child, does not have the mental capacity to agree to get married so they should be protected.

 

[scottm]

How is it against natural law? Animals commit homosexual acts all the time. That seems pretty natural…or are these animals sinning too?

Puh-leeze. The definition of “Natural Law” is not “that which a particular animal does.”

 

[upbeatjonm]

If there were truly no distinction between marriage and “same sex marriage” then would there be any need for the “same sex” modifier? Of course not. Spin a globe and pick virtually any place on earth at any previous time in human history; you will find that they do marriage one way – between men and women. There may be other differences, but marriage has always required a husband and wife. Why? Marriage teaches that men and women need each other and that children need mothers and fathers. A loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless children, but no compassionate society intentionally deprives children of their own mom or dad. But this is what every same-sex home does – and for no other reason but to satisfy adult desire.

In answer to the question, “How is having gay marriage passed into law going to hurt your marriage?” we can expect the following:
a) The law will teach our children and grandchildren that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.
b) Jonathan Yarbrough, part of the first couple to get a “same-sex marriage” in Provincetown, Mass, said, “I think it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case, it is. We have an open marriage.” Once you rip a ship off its mooring who knows where it will drift next?
c) The statement, “Children need a mother and a father” will be deemed hate speech. The Boston Globe already said so: “Governor Romney is denigrating gay families, practicing divisive, mean-spirited politics…by insisting that every child ‘has a right to a mother and a father.’”
d) Consider an NPR story from Boston from several years ago. An eighth-grade teacher there teaches about gay sex “thoroughly and explicitly.” When asked if parents complained about their children learning such explicit material, this teacher said, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.”

Erich, thanks for the great suggestions. This makes sense to me. I don’t think anything will change some other’s minds. I think it is a world-view difference.

 

[upbeatjonm]

Encouragement of that which violates Natural Law is by definition bad.

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.

So, what homosexuals are really asking for is encouragement of that which violates Natural Law. And that, by definition, is bad.

Great points! That is logical, thanks.

 

[upbeatjonm]

And the whole idea that sex is just about ‘mutual pleasure’ contributes to the entire culture (male and female) objectifying the other. Women are the main sufferers but men suffer too, not only by being the ones ‘targeted’ to be the ‘consumers’ of as many women as they can ‘get’, but because little by little, even the supposed old-fashioned male idea that women are either ‘whores’ or ‘moms’; either ‘totally bad’ or ‘totally good’ is now turned into all woman are available for USE. . .and no woman is ‘good’ because of that ‘use’. Which further objectifies the women who now compete to see who can be the sluttiest and get the most ‘sex’ herself! Well, motherhood itself has become, for many, something to postpone as long as possible, or to avoid through abortion if necessary, .

Bingo!

 

[upbeatjonm]

Ask if it’s ok to stand in the way of marriages between polygamists, bisexual polygamists, marriages between men or women and animals.

Anyway, I’d be interested to know his response.

I went over those arguments ad nauseum, and he responded that those ideas are “sick”. He can’t believe I brought animals into it. I said that once you accept gay marriage, how can you have any grounds to shut the door on the next thing someone wants…each person thinks what they do is okay, but seem to easily draw the line somewhere (just can’t see the log in their own eye, I guess).

 

[mark_a]

I don’t care if someone wants to get married to more than one person. An animal, like a child, does not have the mental capacity to agree to get married so they should be protected.

How do you know that?

 

[JimG]

Does putting cat food in the same cans as human food and labeling as the same, actually make it the same? No, but it renders the label meaningless.