gay union

  • Thread starter Thread starter jcunningham352
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jcunningham352

Guest
Hi,
Today, I have seen the explosion of defense for gay rights as the SCOTUS is hearing appeals about the Defense of Marriage Act. As a Catholic, I strongly support and defend the proper way of marriage between one man and one woman. I just want to be able to explain this to my friends without getting all “religious,” which might incense them.

Many people say, “gays should have the right to do it.” And while I feel that the government should not interfere with fundamental things like marriage, I also do not agree that gays should be able to be united in “marriage,” but my premises are all backed with religion. Does anyone have any help?

Thanks!
 
jcunningham352 said:
Hi,
Today, I have seen the explosion of defense for gay rights as the SCOTUS is hearing appeals about the Defense of Marriage Act. As a Catholic, I strongly support and defend the proper way of marriage between one man and one woman. I just want to be able to explain this to my friends without getting all “religious,” which might incense them.
Click to expand...
You can’t explain it without religion, the idea of Sacramental marriage is religious. You believe what you believe about same sex marriage and that’s fine. I belong to the same religion and am a huge fan of Sacramental marriage and always vote for civil unions. It’s a religious argument, make it or don’t, but pretending it isn’t, just doesn’t work. There have already been huge long threads about it.
 
jcunningham352 said:
Many people say, “gays should have the right to do it.” And while I feel that the government should not interfere with fundamental things like marriage, I also do not agree that gays should be able to be united in “marriage,” but my premises are all backed with religion. Does anyone have any help?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
1st, gays have always had the right to marry. Many of them are married. they married under the same rules as straigts… one spouse of the opposite sex, of legal age, not already married, and not a close blood relative.

But now gays wish to change these requirements. They wish to change the gender requirement. Well that’s fine but if you can change the gender requirement you have no logical reason to keep the requirement of number or of close blood relations.

The gender requirement was part of the marriage concept due to the fact that opposite genders have pretty good odds of producing children. Therefore the state supports and encourages marriage as a benefit to children. Since gay unions are sterile by nature and can not produce children with out involving outside parties they hardly qualify as ‘one flesh’. Therefore gay unions are not the same as straight unions.

And although gays can jump through some hoops to become parents they must do so by depriving a child of their natural right to experience a mother and father/child relationship. This is a basic human right.

So to be perfectly fair and to not become a hypocrite yourself, if you do support gay unions then you must support plural unions and incestuous unions. After all the only difference between a lesbian marriage and me marrying my mom is our close blood relationship. So why should we be refused the rights and benefits of marriage just because of our genetics?
 
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.
Source: Why Marriage Matters from National Organization for Marriage

For other reasons, there are studies that explore the potential long-term and immediate effects such unions would have on society; these studies make cases on the emotional, psychological, biological and sociological impacts and repercussions on all parties involved: children, men, women and relationships of any kind.
 
Julia_Mae said:
You can’t explain it without religion, the idea of Sacramental marriage is religious. You believe what you believe about same sex marriage and that’s fine. I belong to the same religion and am a huge fan of Sacramental marriage and always vote for civil unions. It’s a religious argument, make it or don’t, but pretending it isn’t, just doesn’t work. There have already been huge long threads about it.
Click to expand...
It is not a religious based argument only because there are plenty of secular based arguments opposing redefining marriage
 
jcunningham352 said:
Hi,
Today, I have seen the explosion of defense for gay rights as the SCOTUS is hearing appeals about the Defense of Marriage Act. As a Catholic, I strongly support and defend the proper way of marriage between one man and one woman. I just want to be able to explain this to my friends without getting all “religious,” which might incense them.

Many people say, “gays should have the right to do it.” And while I feel that the government should not interfere with fundamental things like marriage, I also do not agree that gays should be able to be united in “marriage,” but my premises are all backed with religion. Does anyone have any help?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I think it’s always best to be simply honest. Tell them why you *really *believe what you believe rather than looking for other people’s explanations.
 
jcunningham352 said:
Hi,
Today, I have seen the explosion of defense for gay rights as the SCOTUS is hearing appeals about the Defense of Marriage Act. As a Catholic, I strongly support and defend the proper way of marriage between one man and one woman. I just want to be able to explain this to my friends without getting all “religious,” which might incense them.

Many people say, “gays should have the right to do it.” And while I feel that the government should not interfere with fundamental things like marriage, I also do not agree that gays should be able to be united in “marriage,” but my premises are all backed with religion. Does anyone have any help?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I think it’s always best to be simply honest. Tell them why you *really *believe what you believe rather than looking for other people’s explanations.
 
 
_Abyssinia said:
Secular argments against redefining marriage:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

What is Marriage?

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization

Dr. Morse’s testimony to MN Senate Judiciary

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?

Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?

77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4)

Gay marriage debate: a secular case against same-sex marriage

Watch SPUC’s Anthony Ozimic stand up to the same-sex marriage agenda

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)

Which Parent Don’t I Need, My Mom or My Dad?

Historical Observations of Marriage: Dr. Gregory Popcak
Click to expand...
Thank you for all of this! 👍
 
Show them the history of the downfall of the Roman Republic. It all gave way at the acceptance of Gay marriage, contraception, and all these messed up horrible acts.

Think of it this way also:

Minimum wage is $7.50. if we start increasing it let’s say $20, people will be like “ehh i think it might be a little much, but let’s give it shot.” Now, let’s say that the minimum wage is increased to $20.01, the people will then go “WHOOOAAAAA that’s beyond the maximum minimum wage!! Too FAR TOO FAR!!!” See, there is a limit set for minimum wage.

So, with marriage, it started and always has been between one man and one woman. Now, the people want it to increase to same sex options. So where’s the limit?? What’s next? Will there become 2 men and 1 woman to get the marriage benefit? or how about 4 men and 5 women? When does it become too much?? Will there ever be a limit if Gay “Marriage” becomes legal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top