J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
That is because marriage for love was never widespread in agrarian societies for the vast majority of history. Those darn hedonistic heterosexuals ruining marriage.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
That might be a valid conclusion if you hadn’t seriously mentioned Lilith as if it were Catholic dogma. Such an error does not speak to your competence as a debater.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Ok, I doubt anything I’ve read thus far would change my daughters opinion. (And she’s straight, BTW). It looks to me that apart from religion, there is no other good reason to be against gay marriage. And I’m against gay marriage, myself.
The only reason I have for being against it is that marriage has always been between a man and woman, and it was created by God. Neither would change a liberal persons opinion.
The only reason I have for being against it is that marriage has always been between a man and woman, and it was created by God. Neither would change a liberal persons opinion.
M
Millie123
Guest
Faith 1960: Just do a google search and you will find, non religious/secular arguments against gay marriage. After a quick google search here is a secular argument I found for you.
THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE
Adam Kolasinksi
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
To Be Continued…
THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE
Adam Kolasinksi
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
To Be Continued…
M
Millie123
Guest
Continued…
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
freerepublic.com/focus/news/1082190/posts
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
freerepublic.com/focus/news/1082190/posts
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Since same-sex marriage is intended to sanctify or legitimize sodomy, there are plenty of arguments, both religious and secular, against it. Not only is sodomy condemned by virtually all religions since the dawn of time, but it has also been condemned by secular philosophers as being in opposition to nature law, even in ancient times, as could be seen by studying Plato, Aristotle, and the Greek playwight Aristophanes, who wrote satirical scenes about same-sex relations for the Greek stage.
S
Sochi
Guest
So you are fine, then, with marriage between two women.
J
JimG
Guest
Really? You think that the facts of anatomy are religious, and demand a belief in religion? If the sexual complementarity of man and woman is meaningless, then civilization would not have lasted this long. Most societies up until our own irrational times have recognized the facts of biology as a given.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks. Lot’s of food for thought.
J
josh987654321
Guest
I started out in threads about same sex marriage, I however gave up on arguing with these people as I found the conversations simply became endless circles, their arguments I believe live on blurred lines.
I believe it’s really simple -
"New Testament:
Easy.
I believe we all know that our sexual organs are designed to be used a certain way.
I believe there are many men and women who are like Pilate, upon having the Truth in front of them, they can only think of saying, ‘What is truth?’ As Pilate, they refuse to see the truth, because they are afraid, because truth makes demands, truth implies obligations, truth implies commitment and because once we acknowledge the truth, living with the status quo (of a lie) becomes harder.
As for *“How does allowing this affect your marriage?” *I would simply say “I believe It instead makes a mockery of marriage and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.”Her point of view is that gay marriage has nothing to do with me.
If she isn’t a Christian, I would ask her what she thinks marriage is? and if it’s simply a certificate to say that people love one another, than I don’t really see the point from her perspective of marriage at all, why would she ever get married with such a view of marriage? wouldn’t she simply say “we don’t need a certificate to prove our love for one another?”
My vote will be ‘no’ (if it ever comes to a vote where I am) as I don’t believe the union of the same sex is a marriage, as an attempt to consumate such a union I believe means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, thus I will not be encouraging that.
I believe ‘family’ is very important, and this I believe will add to eroding the family for secular society, I believe sometimes **** happens and many people cannot live up to the traditional family, I believe we should be merciful on those people, but I also believe scoeity shouldn’t be lowering the bar on the family.
And as the old saying goes “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.”
“If you turn devoutly to the wounds and precious stigmata of Christ, you will find great comfort in suffering, you will mind but little the scorn of men, and you will easily bear their slanderous talk.” - Extract from the book ‘Imitation of Christ’ by Thomas A Kempis
God Bless, Hope I have helped.
Thank you for reading
Josh
S
SMGS127
Guest
The easy counter to this argument is that gay people make up such a tiny percent of the population that allowing them to be together has no actual effect on the reproductive rate of the culture. It would probably be unwise to use this as an argument with someone who disagrees with the Church, because they’ll consider the argument absurd unless you’re arguing that heterosexuals will flock into same-sex relationships.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Whether gays marry or not does nothing to shorten civilization. Gays have been having sex since whenever.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
If you think oral sex between women is not sodomy, go check your dictionary.
D
djames99
Guest
Did you bring her up living the Catholic faith?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.
F
Faith1960
Guest
No, she isn’t Catholic so my being so has no bearing on her opinion.
K
Kitcat1968
Guest
I’ve said it on this forum before and I’ll say it again: why must we focus so much on the gay marriage issue? Here in the United States, there has yet to be any real threat from gay people trying to force their beliefs into the church system. Civil marriage is a completely different machine of that of which the church considers “marriage”. We all know that it is going to inevitably become legal in the United States. But that doesn’t mean the church will have to change its position, nor any individual.
I just can’t for the life of me figure out what all the fuss is about. Civil marriage and religious marriage two completely different things. If you don’t support gay marriage, the legalization of it doesn’t mean you’ll suddenly have to change your personal opinion about it.
What is focus on more pressing issues.
I just can’t for the life of me figure out what all the fuss is about. Civil marriage and religious marriage two completely different things. If you don’t support gay marriage, the legalization of it doesn’t mean you’ll suddenly have to change your personal opinion about it.
What is focus on more pressing issues.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I don’t disagree with this, but don’t agree either. There is nothing wrong with marrying for love, the problem is marrying for love to the exclusion of a full realization that marriage is about love becoming fully realized in new human beings; that love is essentially a creative process; that the joining together of a man and a woman is not merely an emotional bond but an active participation in being itself which has the potential to actualize the distinctive realities of two distinct individuals within a new being who is a “blending” of both.
The issue isn’t so much that marrying for love has been introduced but that everything else has been left out or forgotten in the transmission. Many heterosexuals who marry just don’t get the significance of what they are doing beyond their own emotional stake in it which is precisely what love, in the full sense, transcends.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
A woman fellating a man is also sodomy.If you think oral sex between women is not sodomy, go check your dictionary.
It was inevitable that once birth control became available marriage would lose children as an integral element after marriage became about love.
J
JD1789
Guest
I feel as if governments should only recognize marriage in general in order to provide the best environment for children. Children do best in solid, stable two parent homes and the government should not in any way have the right to deny the child his or her right to both their father and mother. Since society wouldn’t benefit from gay marriage, why should the government be concerned with it?
V
vsedriver
Guest
- Status