Gay Marriage

[SecretCatholic]

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.

I am speaking for myself and for all of us who believe in Catholic teaching. I don’t consider homosexual acts to be in line with love- that is, willing the good of the other- though they may be meant as loving.

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

Yes, I have a copy of Leaves of Grass and appreciate much of the poetry, but it doesn’t mean I agree or embrace Whitman’s homoerotic views. Besides, most literature embraces classical ideas of marriage, not modern liberal views.

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.

Mr. “Sochi” it is you who are out of line. The OP asked for intellectual arguments opposing the distorted view of “gay marriage” that express what she knows instinctively and religiously. That is what we are providing.

But if it offends your sensibilities to read that we Catholics object to homosexual acts, as we have for over 2,000 years, in which time empires have risen and fallen and homosexuality has lost and gained favor, then you are in the wrong place and I make no apologies for our beliefs.

The OP did not ask for arguments FOR “gay marriage”. Therefore, it is you who are out of line with your arguments. If the moderators elect to let you carry on, then that’s okay by me- I don’t mind discussions.

But we have no need to conform to your “belief system” or views, nor excuse ourselves, nor even to reply to you. If you don’t believe in the Bible and in our Catholic beliefs, that’s fine, but it is THAT standard which we uphold, not the media’s or “popular opinion” and certainly not YOURS.

Don’t come to a Catholic forum and try to censor Catholic views by claiming political correctness and insult.

 

[vsedriver]

Sochi;11919010]

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?

gay marriage has a direct effect on society. In particular for children.

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.

well is it a secular argument you want or a religious one? As for a secular argument there is no logical reason for the state to support gay marriage. It is of no benefit to the general public and is discriminatory against all other forms of naturally sterile unions.

The state supports straight marriage for one reason only… these unions produce offspring aka future citizens. Supporting straight marriage is the state’s way of saying what’s best for children is to be raised with a mom and a dad. This is why adoption has traditionally been limited to stable married straight married couples. This why the state prefers to hire straight, stable, married couples to foster children.

But with gay marriage made legal to straight marriage you run into a few problems. Gay marriage is naturally sterile. They will never produce offspring so they are basically not a concern for the state. But if the state should decide that yes, they want to give the legal perks of marriages that are usually for straight kid producing couples only to folks who can’t produce kids then they have to be fair and give it to all naturally sterile couples, such as a mother and daughter. Why can’t a mother and daughter get married if they are of legal age, not all ready married, and of sound mind?

So now they have to be treated equally with straights and can enter the adoption markert Yet this deprives the child of a parent. Every child is entitled to a mom and a dad since that is how nature makes kids. 2 gay men can never be a mom and a dad.

 

[Nacho45]

Homosexual unions are wrong (always has been, always will be) no matter what title a person places on them and any Catholic should abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter…period.

There really is nothing else to be said on the matter.

 

[eamonnroma]

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.

It exists in many coutries - it’s known as a Civil Union

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
A gay couple who cannot have their own biological children together can adopt children, just like a heterosexual couple who cannot have their own biological children does…and raise a family.

And if you tried explaining the internet, rockets taking humans to the moon, astroturf, antibiotics, 3D-movies, Scotch Tape, liposuction, female doctors, freeze-dried coffee, and virtual reality to people three centuries ago, you’d be looked at as if you were crazy.

But times, ideas, and people change and move forward.

.

True.

What does not change:

Mating three thousand years ago, three centuries ago, until today, is only possible between opposite sexes. It is the only sexual activity between humans, the only configuration, that produces offspring. Family formation that has always been associated with marriage, and vice-versa. Gay “marriage” although legal in increasing jurisdictions is counterfeit.

Dan Savage unashamedly said on a TV talk show that he will continue to inseminate his husband, his partner of 20 years, as he said, with whom he has a “monogamish” relationship, and who is stay-at-home dad (other) for their now 16 y.o. adopted boy.

Regardless of how much time and people change, this type of activity and partnership will not produce a child.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why do you say “marriage” in quotes, as if it is* alleged?*
Merriam-Webster defines it as marriage, and so does the law.
If you were being cross-examined as a witness in the Supreme Court and the judge asked you whether a married same-sex couple you knew were married or not…and you replied “no”…you’d be lying under oath, committing perjury.

mar·riage
: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
: a similar relationship between people of the same sex
: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

.

Language doesn’t work that way. If the US Court System and Merriam-Webster defined a “shoe” as “the tallest building in Ecuador”, they would not suddenly change the meaning of “shoe”.

We live in a period where there is an “old meaning” of marriage and a “new meaning” of marriage. It is perfectly silly for proponents of either meaning to declare the other meaning false. Language does change, but change doesn’t happen overnight.

Moreover, the real issue is whether there is some real object, in nature, that the old meaning of marriage referred to, just like the term “gravity” refers to some real object in nature. If there is such an object, then when we change the language, we might be making an error, since the new definition doesn’t have the same natural boundaries as the old definition.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There’s more than one kind of love.

And how many of those require government regulation? Why?

 

[Peter_Plato]

And if you tried explaining the internet, rockets taking humans to the moon, astroturf, antibiotics, 3D-movies, Scotch Tape, liposuction, female doctors, freeze-dried coffee, and virtual reality to people three centuries ago, you’d be looked at as if you were crazy.

But times, ideas, and people change and move forward.

.

Change is not ipso facto good merely because it is change. This is a truly awful argument. It is an instance of making not just a hasty, but a reckless and slapdash generalization. Look at all the good things that come from change therefore all change must be good. It completely ignores all the undeniably bad outcomes that have come from innovation.

Furthermore, a basic biological reality is not a technology. Every item (save women doctors) on your list is an example of a human technological “improvement.” Sexual reproduction is not a human innovation nor is it an obsolete technology.

In the case of women doctors, up until three centuries ago the “art” of medicine was more likely to bring about your demise than your health, so women wisely stayed away from practicing the trade. It was, again, improvement in the techniques of medicine that has made it a viable endeavor. It is, in point of fact, the unchangibleness of human biology that has made possible improvements in the techniques of medicine.

Times, people and ideas do change, but history is littered with the victims of changing times, people and ideas going awry. The past century has been exponentially more costly in terms of the toll on human lives than any previous one. The myth of continual improvement brought about by human aspirations is just a myth, one that has no clear relationship to reality.

 

[Nacho45]

And how many of those require government regulation? Why?

The problem with statements like “there’s more than one kind of love” is they have no value, no worth. I love my pets, but I don’t love my pets. Get it? Love has little to do with this and that’s the problem people ignore. Emotions get people into trouble all the time.

 

[shelby_sun]

Sochi;11919010]

gay marriage has a direct effect on society. In particular for children.

well is it a secular argument you want or a religious one? As for a secular argument there is no logical reason for the state to support gay marriage. It is of no benefit to the general public and is discriminatory against all other forms of naturally sterile unions.

The state supports straight marriage for one reason only… these unions produce offspring aka future citizens. Supporting straight marriage is the state’s way of saying what’s best for children is to be raised with a mom and a dad. This is why adoption has traditionally been limited to stable married straight married couples. This why the state prefers to hire straight, stable, married couples to foster children.

But with gay marriage made legal to straight marriage you run into a few problems. Gay marriage is naturally sterile. They will never produce offspring so they are basically not a concern for the state. But if the state should decide that yes, they want to give the legal perks of marriages that are usually for straight kid producing couples only to folks who can’t produce kids then they have to be fair and give it to all naturally sterile couples, such as a mother and daughter. Why can’t a mother and daughter get married if they are of legal age, not all ready married, and of sound mind?

So now they have to be treated equally with straights and can enter the adoption markert Yet this deprives the child of a parent. Every child is entitled to a mom and a dad since that is how nature makes kids. 2 gay men can never be a mom and a dad.

Wow, I have never heard that one; it is really a stretch. Do you know how many gay couples are now adopting children out of the foster system, children that most “kid producing” couples are not adopting. A friend of mine from high school is in a gay marriage and has a beautiful happy daughter who is very loved, has a huge extended family, and is experience things and places she would never have experienced in the foster system.

I to have no problem with the legal union of the same sex, but it goes against Catholic laws and that will not change so I don’t worry about it. These marriages came as a result of so many families rejecting their gay children and their long time spouse, until they were dying of AIDS. Then those families kept those long time partners, the ones who loved and took care of their child when he was dying, from being there to hold their hand when they died. That is why partners want their rights.

I know two gay couples that have been together over 30 years, but neither feel the need to marry because they don’t care about any political issue, so they have nothing to gain being married and both families are fully excepting and would never go against their wish to be there when the other dies. What two people do or do not do in their own home is not for me to judge. I know too many gay people that make some straight Christian people look like monsters.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The problem with statements like “there’s more than one kind of love” is they have no value, no worth. I love my pets, but I don’t love my pets. Get it? Love has little to do with this and that’s the problem people ignore. Emotions get people into trouble all the time.

To base the definition of marriage on such a nebulous concept as “love” is creating a morass for the legal system. The redefinition will be constitutionally challenged until it erodes away to insignificance - and with it will go modern western culture. Hopefully, enough reasonable individuals will see through this malaise of insanity that grips modern culture and suitable leaders will emerge to see us through it. There is always hope, but we cannot allow nonsensical ideas to take hold.

It is important to continue to take apart bad logic and resist being told to “shut up” (as occurred earlier in this thread) and swallow the idiocy pill being dispensed.

Gergis, et al, in the book I cited previously, lay down an exceptionally well-argued case for the traditional view of marriage. They deal with every counter argument brought up in this thread and basically dismantle the case for gay relationships being considered marriages in the properly understood meaning of the word.

 

[JimG]

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.

Try bringing anatomy into it. Marriage is intrinsically about sexual complementarity. It is a conjugal union. Same sex partners can never be conjugal. If it were not for this fact your daughter would not exist. She didn’t come into existence because of religion, but as a result of conjugal union.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

And if you tried explaining the internet, rockets taking humans to the moon, astroturf, antibiotics, 3D-movies, Scotch Tape, liposuction, female doctors, freeze-dried coffee, and virtual reality to people three centuries ago, you’d be looked at as if you were crazy.

But times, ideas, and people change and move forward.

.

Marriage becoming about love has hurt society.

The problem with statements like “there’s more than one kind of love” is they have no value, no worth. I love my pets, but I don’t love my pets. Get it? Love has little to do with this and that’s the problem people ignore. Emotions get people into trouble all the time.

Actually it has theological value see Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) by Pope Benedict XVI.

Wow, I have never heard that one; it is really a stretch. Do you know how many gay couples are now adopting children out of the foster system, children that most “kid producing” couples are not adopting. A friend of mine from high school is in a gay marriage and has a beautiful happy daughter who is very loved, has a huge extended family, and is experience things and places she would never have experienced in the foster system.

I to have no problem with the legal union of the same sex, but it goes against Catholic laws and that will not change so I don’t worry about it. These marriages came as a result of so many families rejecting their gay children and their long time spouse, until they were dying of AIDS. Then those families kept those long time partners, the ones who loved and took care of their child when he was dying, from being there to hold their hand when they died. That is why partners want their rights.

I know two gay couples that have been together over 30 years, but neither feel the need to marry because they don’t care about any political issue, so they have nothing to gain being married and both families are fully excepting and would never go against their wish to be there when the other dies. What two people do or do not do in their own home is not for me to judge. I know too many gay people that make some straight Christian people look like monsters.

There’s actually a shortage of kids to adopt in the US.

To base the definition of marriage on such a nebulous concept as “love” is creating a morass for the legal system. The redefinition will be constitutionally challenged until it erodes away to insignificance - and with it will go modern western culture. Hopefully, enough reasonable individuals will see through this malaise of insanity that grips modern culture and suitable leaders will emerge to see us through it. There is always hope, but we cannot allow nonsensical ideas to take hold.

It is important to continue to take apart bad logic and resist being told to “shut up” (as occurred earlier in this thread) and swallow the idiocy pill being dispensed.

Gergis, et al, in the book I cited previously, lay down an exceptionally well-argued case for the traditional view of marriage. They deal with every counter argument brought up in this thread and basically dismantle the case for gay relationships being considered marriages in the properly understood meaning of the word.

Here is the issue, heterosexuals introduced and made mainstream the concept of marrying for love.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In no previous civilization has there been a serious or successful effort to institute marriage for homosexuals.

That should tell us something.

That only an absurd civilization could descend so low.

There are many other absurd matters that help to define our civilization … not least of which is the defense by certain Catholic politicians and the courts of both same-sex marriage and the widespread slaughter of the unborn.

 

[Sochi]

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

Well, marriage is, in whatever scale of forms it takes. Aslo, in what follows, you make no salient points from any universal standpoint that even hints that yours is better or that mine is wrong.

That’s an interesting belief system.

Mind defining “that” as you use it here? I’m quite sure, from what you’ve said, that you have no clue as to what my “belief” about marriage is, save for a small part of it you think you don’t like.

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)?

A few items:

An exchange on an Amazon.com Christian forum:

~ John D. Wagner says: “I just support the Biblical view of marriage”.
~ Analyst responded: “Really? One man, and as many wives, concubines, and sex slaves (of either sex and any age) as you can afford? You support that do you?”
religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm#

And even God wasn’t partial to “til death do us part:” Eve was Adam’s second

wife. That’s right, Eve was Adam’s trophy wife. His first wife was Lilith. But she was too uppity and wouldn’t do as she was told, i.e., be an obedient slave/wife to Adam, so God got rid of her, and cursed her.

Because you were trained in a patriarchal society and religion, putting laws and dogmas ahead of Love, you have learned to be homophobic and interpret the scriptures from your prejudices. ~Anon

If someone quotes me that tired **** about the old and new covenants, all it means to me is that God changed and we changed. And if even only we

changed, what makes anyone think we are done? The old covenant lasted about 2K years. It’s been about that long again. And you know, as a Christian, as far as I’m concerned, sincere Love trumps some dogmatist’s human interpretation of a Scripture that is constantly being re-worked by humans to begin with. ~AZN

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.

Here are your Biblically dilineated marriges; please note that your “one meaning” also has its subsidiaries:
Polygynous Marriage
Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.
Levirate Marriage
When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
A man, a woman and her property — a female slave
The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).
A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).
A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.
A male rapist and his victim
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker. (This is on the verge of being re-institutionalized in one of our enightened Bible oriented Southern States.)
A male and female slave
A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.
and of course …
Monogamous, heterosexual marriage
What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history. Includes “common law” as well.

Some places are even accepting bestiality as okay.

Porn channels? What are youtalking aobut?

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

Sure, as the many second and third marriages or living arrangements of many practicing Catholics I know. As far as the State? A bit late for that, eh?

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

“Natural Law” is a convenient self verifying construct that we both know just doesn’t hold up. We don’t need to go there again. And OH, but that belief in the thoughts about taken as “truth” God and dogma would be abandoned for something real.

That sounds like gay marriage and it defenders all right!

Natch, that being the point. And you sound like what?

 

[DrTaffy]

In no previous civilization has there been a serious or successful effort to institute marriage for homosexuals.

As discussed in way too many recent threads for me to want to rehash it again here, many non-JudaeoChristian cultures have had same sex marriages. E.g. Many, if not most, Native American tribes.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Sochi, I see that you have brought typical, tired and clearly erroneous anti-Chrisitan arguments to this thread. I will let others with more patience deal with you, as I find little motivation in countering such simplistic and unchallenging arguments, particularly since you have come to this forum simply to ignorantly bash our beliefs, not for real discussion. May God help you!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As discussed in way too many recent threads for me to want to rehash it again here, many non-JudaeoChristian cultures have had same sex marriages. E.g. Many, if not most, Native American tribes.

False. Document it.

And it’s interesting you have to go to native Americans to defend the daffiness of same-sex marriage.

 

[Sochi]

Sochi, I see that you have brought typical, tired and clearly erroneous anti-Chrisitan arguments to this thread. I will let others with more patience deal with you, as I find little motivation in countering such simplistic and unchallenging arguments, particularly since you have come to this forum simply to ignorantly bash our beliefs, not for real discussion. May God help you!

In other words, you can’t answer them. Thanks for your time.

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

I consider it to also be social experimentation on a grand scale. You might also point out that the Marxist attacks on the family set Communist countries back by decades. And what’s more tyrannically Marxist than trying to make everything in society “equal” everything else, despite the obviously inherent (in this case, biological) differences?