Gay Marriage

[Faith1960]

My daughter and I were talking about gay “marriage” but I cut the convo short because she’s liberal about that. She’s not a Christian and I couldn’t come up with a good reason from non- Christian perspective. Any ideas for the next time this topic comes up?

Her point of view is that gay marriage has nothing to do with me.

 

[delmo]

I’ve seen a lot of people use ancient Greece as an example. Homosexual relationships were pretty common then, but marriage was always between a man and a woman.

The whole “any two people who love each other can get married and either can leave whenever they so choose” is a relatively modern definition. It’s traditionally been for the purpose of having kids and raising a family which is just flat out impossible for a gay marriage.

One thing I would be sure to do though is point out that you don’t hate gay people. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to think that if you don’t support gay marriage then you hate all gay people (which unfortunately cost Brendan Eich his job) and if your daughter starts to think that she will probably be dismissive and not actually listen to anything you say.

 

[Falco]

If gays would invent a new legal union which gave them the same legal rights as married couples, but was specifically for gays only, I would not mind. They cannot make it any worse than it already is by having a union. It is the insistence of calling it marriage, and making moves to be married in church that nauseates me.

I have gay friends, always have, always will. There is no way I could attend their ‘marriage’, but I could attend a legal civil union ceremony that would make them - partner and partner. Just leave husband, wife and marriage out of the terminology.

It is a new idea, it should be a completely new legal terminology, legal state, and one that heterosexuals cannot partake in.

 

[Faith1960]

If gays would invent a new legal union which gave them the same legal rights as married couples, but was specifically for gays only, I would not mind. They cannot make it any worse than it already is by having a union. It is the insistence of calling it marriage, and making moves to be married in church that nauseates me.

I have gay friends, always have, always will. There is no way I could attend their ‘marriage’, but I could attend a legal civil union ceremony that would make them - partner and partner. Just leave husband, wife and marriage out of the terminology.

It is a new idea, it should be a completely new legal terminology, legal state, and one that heterosexuals cannot partake in.

I agree, but couldn’t come up with a good reason without bringing religion into it, so I dropped the subject. I knew if I brought religion into it she’d argue that not everybody believes I do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My daughter and I were talking about gay “marriage” but I cut the convo short because she’s liberal about that. She’s not a Christian and I couldn’t come up with a good reason from non- Christian perspective. Any ideas for the next time this topic comes up?

Her point of view is that gay marriage has nothing to do with me.

Sharif Gergis has written an excellent defense of the conjugal view of marriage (in contrast with what he calls the revisionist view.)

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf

An extended book based on the paper, called What is Marriage? has been published by Gergis and two other collaborators.

amazon.ca/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

This is the best case against a redefinition of marriage and one which every serious thinker on the subject must read BEFORE attempting to argue for a “gay” redefinition.

The only shortcoming is that a reader must be a rational and thoughtful moral being (as opposed to an irrational and amoral relativist) to be completely convinced by the well laid out logical argument in the book and less well-developed paper.

Sherif and Trent Horn were on back to back Catholic Answers radio programs on April 9th.
You may want to listen to those shows.
catholic.com/radio/calendar

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

My daughter and I were talking about gay “marriage” but I cut the convo short because she’s liberal about that. She’s not a Christian and I couldn’t come up with a good reason from non- Christian perspective. Any ideas for the next time this topic comes up?

Her point of view is that gay marriage has nothing to do with me.

Did you actually just use “convo”?

I’ve seen a lot of people use ancient Greece as an example. Homosexual relationships were pretty common then, but marriage was always between a man and a woman.

The whole “any two people who love each other can get married and either can leave whenever they so choose” is a relatively modern definition. It’s traditionally been for the purpose of having kids and raising a family which is just flat out impossible for a gay marriage.

One thing I would be sure to do though is point out that you don’t hate gay people. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to think that if you don’t support gay marriage then you hate all gay people (which unfortunately cost Brendan Eich his job) and if your daughter starts to think that she will probably be dismissive and not actually listen to anything you say.

Indeed then those damn pernicious heterosexuals ruined marriage by making it about love, what folly! :banghead:

 

[1ke]

Here are some excellent explanations underlining that matrimony is about children. Even the word Matrimony means the making of a mother.

englishmanif.blogspot.com/2013/01/interview-with-xavier-bongibault-head.html

c-fam.org/en/issues/human-rights-system/2050-french-homosexuals-join-demonstration-against-gay-marriage

 

[delmo]

Indeed then those damn pernicious heterosexuals ruined marriage by making it about love, what folly! :banghead:

Haha I probably could have phrased that better. I meant to make the point that the belief that marriage is a union between any two people who love each other is not entirely accurate and having kids and raising a family is a huge aspect of it. Obviously you should love whoever you marry.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Haha I probably could have phrased that better. I meant to make the point that the belief that marriage is a union between any two people who love each other is not entirely accurate and having kids and raising a family is a huge aspect of it. Obviously you should love whoever you marry.

If you tried to explaining the concept of marrying someone you love to people three centuries ago you’d be looked at as if you were an idiot, naïve or crazy.

 

[edwest2]

Haha I probably could have phrased that better. I meant to make the point that the belief that marriage is a union between any two people who love each other is not entirely accurate and having kids and raising a family is a huge aspect of it. Obviously you should love whoever you marry.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

Peace,
Ed

 

[TK421]

I 2nd the recommendation to read What is Marriage? to have a good explanation of why revisionist views of marriage are harmful to society.

Of course, even after having closely read the book or any book, it’s difficult and takes talent to enunciate thoughts into defenses in spontaneous conversation. Don’t try to bite off more than what you can chew, or give a dialogue that would go over her head. Make your points short and clear and digestible, and hopefully it may get through to her on some level. Rational arguments are incapable of dispelling obstinacy, but they can remove confusion and misunderstandings. The contemporary Western world has a very limited understanding of purity being a virtue and anything relating to sexual ethics is going to be an uphill campaign.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

Peace,
Ed

The greatest indicator of nonmonogamy is maleness not sexuality.

That study showing 50% openness is entirely male and far more promiscuous than the background population.

 

[Sochi]

I agree, but couldn’t come up with a good reason without bringing religion into it, so I dropped the subject. I knew if I brought religion into it she’d argue that not everybody believes I do.

This is the entire situation in a nutshell: It seems that many have no capacity for understanding the difference between faith and knowledge. Religion, any religion, is a belief system, whatever the claims of the institution embodying it. Even the claim to succession and infallibility remain as an attribute of the institution, certainly not of its members, except as something learned, passed on, or accepted as an off-the-rack happenstance modified by each one’s emotional charging of it and the accompanying rationalizations, logical or not. One’s personal beliefs are exactly that. They aren’t, and cannot be, GOD’S, or even, save in the most extraordinarily broad terms, the same as anyone else’s, even of the same faith. Simple observation will bear that out, along with the discovery that beliefs change over time.

Gay marriage, or “marriage” as it ought rightfully be called, is a civil matter ONLY and none of anyone else’s bee’s wax. If you don’t like it, don’t do it, or don’t go to the wedding, but keep your mouth closed unless someone asks you. Or are you into usurping God’s prerogative, or pulling up wheat and chaff together?

For my part, I have heard no argument from a religious standpoint that holds any water, and the “studies” quoted by such are often bogus, or debunked. Moreover, in an overarching way, they have NO component of compassion, only of emotionalized egoistic self righteousness not fit for presentation as reflecting anything to do with God’s Love.

I recommend Is Marriage Necessary? by Lawrence Casler

 

[SecretCatholic]

Natural Law.

It’s pretty obvious that males and females were made for each other. Like genders cannot physically complement and complete each other. The same goes spiritually. Ask your daughter if it would be okay for the both of you to have a sexual relationship- after all, you do love each other, right? Why is that repulsive?

Obviously, sexuality and love are not the same thing. You can love someone without being sexual. Love is always good and appropriate, but sometimes a sexual relationship with someone is NOT appropriate.

Marriage is not just about love. That’s a dangerous over-simplification. Marriage NEEDS love, but it also needs commitment, stability and the sexual union of man and woman, who are made for each other sexually and spiritually.

This generation’s moral compass (the one that finds incest, murder and cheating repulsive) has been twisted and conditioned into accepting homosexuality as natural, just as past generations accepted slavery as natural.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Natural Law.

It’s pretty obvious that males and females were made for each other. Like genders cannot physically complement and complete each other. The same goes spiritually. Ask your daughter if it would be okay for the both of you to have a sexual relationship- after all, you do love each other, right? Why is that repulsive?

Obviously, sexuality and love are not the same thing. You can love someone without being sexual. Love is always good and appropriate, but sometimes a sexual relationship with someone is NOT appropriate.

Marriage is not just about love. That’s a dangerous over-simplification. Marriage NEEDS love, but it also needs commitment, stability and the sexual union of man and woman, who are made for each other sexually and spiritually.

This generation’s moral compass (the one that finds incest, murder and cheating repulsive) has been twisted and conditioned into accepting homosexuality as natural, just as past generations accepted slavery as natural.

There’s more than one kind of love.

 

[Nacho45]

Every time I hear the term “Homosexual Marriage” I think another popular mythical, phrase…“Living Dead.”

 

[mitchell_s]

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-make-the-case-for-marriage

 

[Sochi]

Natural Law.

…is pretty much in the “I” [sic] of the beholder.

It’s pretty obvious that males and females were made for each other

If you mean for breeding, yes. Hermaphrodites seem to do OK too.

Like genders cannot physically complement and complete each other.

Speak for yourself. That isn’t the experience of those who engage in homosexual love, if you ask them. That is your prejudice from your social conditioning.

The same goes spiritually.

That is silly. Have you no exposure to literature, American or world, modern or ancient?

Ask your daughter if it would be okay for the both of you to have a sexual relationship- after all, you do love each other, right? Why is that repulsive

That is an uncalled for and specious suggestion and so unnecessary and uncalled for that I’m tempted to test the limits of what sort of language the proctors on here will tolerate.

Obviously, sexuality and love are not the same thing.

OK, you got something nearly right, but they are not so cleanly divisible save for abstract considerations.

You can love someone without being sexual.

Yep, to some degree.

Love is always good and appropriate, but sometimes a sexual relationship with someone is NOT appropriate.

OK

Marriage is not just about love. That’s a dangerous over-simplification. Marriage NEEDS love, but it also needs commitment, stability and the

So far so good

sexual union of man and woman, who are made for each other sexually and spiritually.

Or for anyone else who feel they are a fit that way. And, btw, marriages aren’t dissolved when one or both partners are incapable of union, or just grow apart and don’t want to.

This generation’s moral compass (the one that finds incest, murder and cheating repulsive)

Cheating, not so much. The “sanctity” of marriage is upheld by many who are on their second and third, like my Catholic/Mormon sister or my Catholic ex wife.

has been twisted and conditioned into accepting homosexuality as natural, just as past generations accepted slavery as natural.

Perhaps you don’t read the news, but sexual and economic slavery are rampant, even in the US. That is why I don’t have anything to do with the Super Bowl, the largest annual sex trafficking event in the US. There is no huge pubic outcry even of the scale that got a petition to the White House to deport Justin Beeber. And also, since it seems you aren’t aware of that news, you might also be surprised that homosexuality is, has been, and always will be, quite natural.Natural law, you know. The stats are there. All ten or twelve human subsets of it included.

 

[SecretCatholic]

This is the entire situation in a nutshell: It seems that many have no capacity for understanding the difference between faith and knowledge. Religion, any religion, is a belief system, whatever the claims of the institution embodying it.

That’s correct. Your belief in “gay marriage” is part of your “belief system” as well.

Gay marriage, or “marriage” as it ought rightfully be called, is a civil matter ONLY and none of anyone else’s bee’s wax. If you don’t like it, don’t do it, or don’t go to the wedding, but keep your mouth closed unless someone asks you. Or are you into usurping God’s prerogative, or pulling up wheat and chaff together?

That’s an interesting belief system. Yet marriage is obviously a public, legal act, that has legal, economic and social consequences, as bakers and wedding photographers have found out. And if one word, concerning an important social institution with an important function has one meaning, why should we acquiesce to its meaning being changed or broadened on the insistence of a historically and theologically incorrect minority (or even majority)?

Marriage used to mean much more than “a long-term sexual, economic and cohabiting relationship between a man and woman”. It is the bedrock of humanity. And it was respected as such. When it degraded to being seen as temporary and economical, without necessity for children the slippery slope led us to think that two men or two women could easily meet that criteria, if we changed it just a little and why not? It won’t be the last change either. Polygamy is coming, maybe with various women AND men. Some places are even accepting bestiality as okay.

Personally, I have no problems with others living in sin. Just don’t tell me its sacramental marriage and don’t involve the state.

For my part, I have heard no argument from a religious standpoint that holds any water, and the “studies” quoted by such are often bogus, or debunked.

The “religious standpoint” intersects with some very well thought out philosophical reasonings, such as Natural Law. No belief in God or dogma required!

Moreover, in an overarching way, they have NO component of compassion, only of emotionalized egoistic self righteousness not fit for presentation as reflecting anything to do with God’s Love.

That sounds like gay marriage and it defenders all right!

 

[McCartney]

I do not hate gay people but I do think that their activities are extremely weird.