Gay 'marriages'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJW
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ken said:
1. In that case society could support both straight and gay marriage as people support the marriages of all others. All the energy going into the gay marriage struggle could be better mobilized in support of all marriages.
  1. To whom will marriage mean less?
  2. Catholic US annulments were about 300/year in 1960. Today they are about 22,000/year. Now, I can see how that does lead to divorce.
Click to expand...
It is not the Annulments that are leading to a higher divorce rate it is the reduction in the value of the institution of marriage that has lead to an increass in annulments. People have lost the meaning of marriage and this has undermined marriage. Your point makes mine why were there only 300 a year in 1960, because marriage meant something then. If we continue to weaken it by allowing gay marriage the numbers will increass because it means even less.

Also you have not answered one of my other questions.

Are you Catholic??

God Bless and hope you are having a good day.
 
40.png
Ken:
OK. Exactly what is the harm? Perhaps the same harm comes from no fault divorce and gay marriage. But exactly what is that harm?
Click to expand...
Marriage is defined as the legal union between one man and one woman, both unrelated, both of age to make such decisions.

Gay “marriage” (spit) is trying to redefine the part “woman” into “woman or man”

Now, if that happens, what is to stop them from saying:

two men and one woman?
two men and two women?
three men?
four men?
five men?

polygamy and polyandry will be OK.

After all, if redefining one part is OK, then redefining another part is OK.

Why not redefine the part “of age” to “any age”? Pedophiles like NAMBLA are drooling at this prospect.

Why not define “man” and “woman” to “animal”? Bestiality will be OK.

Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? Or have someone marry their mirror? or…?

Remember, the attitude is not gay ‘marriage’ but the belief that you can redefine something that has existed for millenia unchanged (for a good reason - because God ordained it that way) into something else, simply because people says “waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, but I want it!”

THAT is the harm. Let the mirror crack the whip so we go into slavery instead of the freedom of God.
 
40.png
retina_md:
We I agree with you on this point, but from a practical point of view, the government has and will continue to marry people.
Click to expand...
Unconsitutionally, of course, under the “seperation of church and state” since Marriage is a religous ceremony.

Remember, we don’t do government sponsored baptisms, confirmations, circumcisions, or other religious things. But wait, the government can do this religious ceremony called “marriage” … interesting!
 
40.png
Ken:
That’s a good argument for those who believe in hell and see it as an outcome of gay marriage.

But if one doesn’t believe that, then exactly what is the harm? What is the harm to society?
Click to expand...
This statement assumes that there is no hell and does not reflect reality. Since here is a hell, then there’s no reason to make it easier to help people get there. It is such a terrible place to go, that making it easier for people to be sent there, is extremely harmful to the individuals in society.

Of course, if you think it is a good idea for people to go to hell, there’s a guy in a red suit, holding a pitchfork who may want to put you on his payroll 🙂
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
This statement assumes that there is no hell and does not reflect reality. Since here is a hell, then there’s no reason to make it easier to help people get there. It is such a terrible place to go, that making it easier for people to be sent there, is extremely harmful to the individuals in society.

Of course, if you think it is a good idea for people to go to hell, there’s a guy in a red suit, holding a pitchfork who may want to put you on his payroll 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks Bob I need the laugh.
 
40.png
srkbdk:
By the way Ken your argument was also used by people that wanted to make birth control legal.
Click to expand...
And abortion, as well. Unfortunately, the harm to the inconvenient and unwated little ones was somehow overlooked 🙂
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
And abortion, as well. Unfortunately, the harm to the inconvenient and unwated little ones was somehow overlooked 🙂
Click to expand...
I guess what you are trying to say is the truth is the truth no matter what I may want to make it be.
 
40.png
srkbdk:
I guess what you are trying to say is the truth is the truth no matter what I may want to make it be.
Click to expand...
:amen:

Truth is not defined by how many people vote for it, or how many people protest against it.

Truth is defined by the Truth Himeself: God.
 
_Christopher_:
I think it is a Satanic attack on the institution of the family and that once families break down society breaks down.

Next in line will be the polygamists wanting their “rights” and then the NAMBLA folks.
Click to expand...
And then incest will be declared legal. 😦

(Come to think of it, I seem to remember reading that it was (sort of) in Massachusetts. Don’t recall the details, but something related to step-parent/step-child I think.)
:mad:
 
I think that a major problem comes from the word “Marriage.” I think that any union, gay or strait, which happens in a civil arena, should carry the title of “civil union” because that is what it is - no more no less. It is a licensing. If the government redefined it as such it would not be a situation about marriage at all but a situation about receiving equal legislation.

I hear the “slippery slope” argument often about homosexual unions. If you allow Gays to marry what next, a man and his donkey, a man and his sister, a man and a rock. This will not happen because there are other things at issue here like consent and mentally disabled children.

All in all we should be careful when we employ this kind of logic.

If Vietnam falls to the communists, then it will be Camboldia and Loas, it will spread to Japan, and soon it will be at our doorstep. It is a domino effect and if we do not stop the “Reds” at the 38th parallel soon the world will be Communist. We must go to war!!!
 
There are 2 aspects to this topic that concern me:

First - is how do we convince secular society this is a bad move?
Unfortunately - many will not be convinced without “proof”
Which countries have had legalized gay marriage? For how long?
What has been the societal trend in those countries since then?

In Vermont - less than 1/2 of cohabitating homosexuals have chosen to get “married.” Their marriages do not resemble heterosexual marriage either - especially in reference to the men who have a very loose interpretation of what “monogamy” means.

How does gay marriage affect my own?
It probably doesn’t. Nor will it.
However, I have children who will eventually come to age and search for a spouse. What kind of atmosphere/attitudes will exist in this country at that time when it comes to marriage?
How many children will have tainted views of marriage (as children of divorce already do now?)
Finding a spouse in this environment could prove tricky indeed.

Second: How to address christians who have thrown up their hands?
I have come across some who argue that since God allowed polygamy in the Old Testament - then marriage is indeed open to redefinition.

A list of scripture verses pertaining to the definition of marriage would be helpful (OT & NT)
Also…how much material do we have from the Fathers concerning their interpretation of the sacrament of marriage?
Did the Fathers address homosexuality? Polygamy? Incest?
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
I think that a major problem comes from the word “Marriage.” I think that any union, gay or strait, which happens in a civil arena, should carry the title of “civil union” because that is what it is - no more no less. It is a licensing. If the government redefined it as such it would not be a situation about marriage at all but a situation about receiving equal legislation.

I hear the “slippery slope” argument often about homosexual unions. If you allow Gays to marry what next, a man and his donkey, a man and his sister, a man and a rock. This will not happen because there are other things at issue here like consent and mentally disabled children.

All in all we should be careful when we employ this kind of logic.

If Vietnam falls to the communists, then it will be Camboldia and Loas, it will spread to Japan, and soon it will be at our doorstep. It is a domino effect and if we do not stop the “Reds” at the 38th parallel soon the world will be Communist. We must go to war!!!
Click to expand...
I suspect the resolution of the question will be a ban on same sex marriage, but the institution of civil unions. This will somewhat appease people who are offended by the use of the word “marriage,” while allowing it in all but name.

However, from the perspective of those who think marriage will be weakened by any sanctioned same sex marriage, this is a worse alternative than same sex marriage. It will allow heterosexuals who would have entered marriage to enter civil unions.

If one considered a decline in marriage as harmful to the institution, then civil unions would harm marriage by leading to a decrease in marriages.
 
40.png
srkbdk:
By the way Ken your argument was also used by people that wanted to make birth control legal. Do you agree that there is a correlation between birth control and the divorce rate?
Click to expand...
Successful arguments tend to be used again.

I’d say birth control is an upward pressure on divorce since fewer children make it easier for a woman to retain custody and live on her own.

It also decreases the time from the birth of the first child to emancipation of the last child. Many people wait for the last emancipation to get divorced. So BC brings that date forward, and eliminates time during which a couple could change their minds.

And it obviously is easier for a childless couple to divorce.
 
40.png
Ken:
I suspect the resolution of the question will be a ban on same sex marriage, but the institution of civil unions. This will somewhat appease people who are offended by the use of the word “marriage,” while allowing it in all but name.

However, from the perspective of those who think marriage will be weakened by any sanctioned same sex marriage, this is a worse alternative than same sex marriage. It will allow heterosexuals who would have entered marriage to enter civil unions.

If one considered a decline in marriage as harmful to the institution, then civil unions would harm marriage by leading to a decrease in marriages.
Click to expand...
Slippery slopes aside, what is to stop, say, Utah, from legalizing polygamy, now?
 
40.png
1962Missal:
Slippery slopes aside, what is to stop, say, Utah, from legalizing polygamy, now?
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of anything unless there is some contract between Utah and the US regarding the issue. I think Utah had to agree to ban polygamy in order to become a state.

Now, in terms of any other state, I don’t know what would stop them from making polygamy legal other than the vote of the citizens.
 
40.png
Ken:
I’m not aware of anything unless there is some contract between Utah and the US regarding the issue. I think Utah had to agree to ban polygamy in order to become a state.

Now, in terms of any other state, I don’t know what would stop them from making polygamy legal other than the vote of the citizens.
Click to expand...
How nice.

Justin
 
40.png
1962Missal:
How nice.

Justin
Click to expand...
How nice dont get me wrong I love my wife and do not know what I would do with out her but I think Solomon was out of his mind to have as many wifes as he did.🙂
 
40.png
srkbdk:
How nice dont get me wrong I love my wife and do not know what I would do with out her but I think Solomon was out of his mind to have as many wifes as he did.🙂
Click to expand...
I’m with you there; Solomon must have had one heck of a garage to go to when he needed to get away. No wonder he had his own mines – what is it with women and jewelry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top