The WHO has confirmed that homosexuality is not a disease. I doubt that they have proved it. Many Protestant Churches are being liberal towards homosexulity, my view.I am currently in a debate on gay marriage with atheists. I am looking for some links that would provide me with some much needed ammunition to argue against gay marriage. I have done a good job so far thanks to God; but I would really like to read more stuff or listen to more stuff. So please help me out with links. Thanks.
I like this argument, but the problem I see if someone will inevitably say “they can always adopt”/“surrogate mother”. In the case of woman/woman, they can just use artificial insemination.Here is my favorite secular argument, which has left not a few pro-gay marriage people stumped for an answer:
George and Sam are two single men. They live in different homes, and they pay taxes as single individuals. Joe and Mary are both single, living separately, and also paying taxes as single individuals.
Joe and Mary get married, move in together, and pay taxes as a married couple (lower tax rate.) They have children, who presumably will grow up and contribute to the national economy.
George and Sam go through a ceremony, call themselves married, and move in together. They pay taxes now as a married couple. Since they cannot biologically reproduce, they do not have children who will grow up and contribute to the economy.
Why should George and Sam get a tax break when they can’t make an investment in the future of the country?
Even if Joe and Mary cannot have children, there is the possibility that they could. There is no way that George and Sam could.
Nobody has been able to explain that one to me.
The really crazy thing is that other rights that apply to anyone at all, things such as the ability to buy property with anyone you want to, to leave your money to anyone you want to, to designate anyone at all as your health care proxy or next of kin in extreme medical cases, already exist. You don’t need to be “married,” to take advantage of those rights. All you need to do is contact a lawyer to draw up the paperwork.
In other words, those who profess an active homosexual lifestyle don’t need a new law to safeguard their rights to hold property in common, to designate inheritance or relatedness. It’s merely a “statement.”
But the “statement” takes tax revenue away from the government, since they can get taxed at a lower rate.
Why should two single people who are sharing living quarters get a tax break if they cannot bring children into the world (who will contribute to the national coffers when they are old enough to work and pay taxes?) It’s discriminatory against single people who do not live with other people.
Just my two cents on the matter.
I’m afraid you have ignored a simple thing: tax law can change. In my country there is no tax advantage or disadvantage to being married. Children impose costs as well as benefits, to society as well as parents. I know two lesbian couples who are raising children (sperm donors), and very well too. I don’t see why they should be treated differently from heterosexual couples, including those who do not have children.Here is my favorite secular argument, which has left not a few pro-gay marriage people stumped for an answer:
George and Sam are two single men. They live in different homes, and they pay taxes as single individuals. Joe and Mary are both single, living separately, and also paying taxes as single individuals.
Joe and Mary get married, move in together, and pay taxes as a married couple (lower tax rate.) They have children, who presumably will grow up and contribute to the national economy.
George and Sam go through a ceremony, call themselves married, and move in together. They pay taxes now as a married couple. Since they cannot biologically reproduce, they do not have children who will grow up and contribute to the economy.
Why should George and Sam get a tax break when they can’t make an investment in the future of the country?
Even if Joe and Mary cannot have children, there is the possibility that they could. There is no way that George and Sam could.
Nobody has been able to explain that one to me.
The really crazy thing is that other rights that apply to anyone at all, things such as the ability to buy property with anyone you want to, to leave your money to anyone you want to, to designate anyone at all as your health care proxy or next of kin in extreme medical cases, already exist. You don’t need to be “married,” to take advantage of those rights. All you need to do is contact a lawyer to draw up the paperwork.
In other words, those who profess an active homosexual lifestyle don’t need a new law to safeguard their rights to hold property in common, to designate inheritance or relatedness. It’s merely a “statement.”
But the “statement” takes tax revenue away from the government, since they can get taxed at a lower rate.
Why should two single people who are sharing living quarters get a tax break if they cannot bring children into the world (who will contribute to the national coffers when they are old enough to work and pay taxes?) It’s discriminatory against single people who do not live with other people.
Just my two cents on the matter.
To anyone with an open mind, the disease rates and early death rates provide all the reasons needed (even from a secular/atheistic perspective) to avoid anything that would condone homosexual behavior.I am currently in a debate on gay marriage with atheists. I am looking for some links that would provide me with some much needed ammunition to argue against gay marriage. I have done a good job so far thanks to God; but I would really like to read more stuff or listen to more stuff. So please help me out with links. Thanks.
Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54
Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
catholic.com/documents/gay-marriageLesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58
CCC 1867-1869why would a Catholic need to protest gay marriage and meddle with other people’s personal lives that way?
Simply put, a heterosexual society makes for a growing human race.I agree with your approach in trying to argue from purely non-religious grounds. The way I see it, those who support traditional sexuality have several tools for arguing in secular terms: 1) anatomy - if we are purely evolutionary creatures as an atheist would say, then evolution has produced anatomical structures designed for sexual intercourse between a male and a female. 2) If we are the product of evolutionary processes, then the sexual impulse is designed to give impetus for the propagation of the species. This is not possible in same-sex relationships. 3) Every study supports the fact that Children are best raised by their biological parents in a two-parent home. 4) Men and women, while being equal in dignity, are different and complementary. We aren’t just the same spirit stuff trapped in a random body. 5) If we give rights to all homosexual couples, under what basis could we deny a group of 3 individuals their respective rights?
There are all kinds of arguments to make in this situation. Good luck.
Not true. Check out the Love Parade in Berlin or in San Francisco. Burningman in Nevada. Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. When given license, (at least some) heterosexuals act that same way.Sorry, again, it is hard to tell this to a homosexual, but I do not believe it is a choice. The way they behave in parades , the clothes, is not normal: it seems that they are calling for attention. Heterosexuals do not do that.
Others have mentioned adoption and surrogate mothers. But from your argument it follows that a married man and a woman who don’t have children shouldn’t qualify for a tax benefit? Also, what gives you the right to define eligibility criteria on who deserves a tax break? What if your children grow up to be impoverished, reaping more in social assistance than they’re producing in national income? That’s going to be the case for a substantial minority of people. These are very tenuous grounds for defining eligibility. The atheists you were arguing with were clearly idiots if you ‘stumped them’ (but between you and I, I don’t believe you sincerely stumped anyone).Here is my favorite secular argument, which has left not a few pro-gay marriage people stumped for an answer:
George and Sam are two single men. They live in different homes, and they pay taxes as single individuals. Joe and Mary are both single, living separately, and also paying taxes as single individuals.
Joe and Mary get married, move in together, and pay taxes as a married couple (lower tax rate.) They have children, who presumably will grow up and contribute to the national economy.
George and Sam go through a ceremony, call themselves married, and move in together. They pay taxes now as a married couple. Since they cannot biologically reproduce, they do not have children who will grow up and contribute to the economy.
Why should George and Sam get a tax break when they can’t make an investment in the future of the country?
Even if Joe and Mary cannot have children, there is the possibility that they could. There is no way that George and Sam could.
Nobody has been able to explain that one to me.
The really crazy thing is that other rights that apply to anyone at all, things such as the ability to buy property with anyone you want to, to leave your money to anyone you want to, to designate anyone at all as your health care proxy or next of kin in extreme medical cases, already exist. You don’t need to be “married,” to take advantage of those rights. All you need to do is contact a lawyer to draw up the paperwork.
In other words, those who profess an active homosexual lifestyle don’t need a new law to safeguard their rights to hold property in common, to designate inheritance or relatedness. It’s merely a “statement.”
But the “statement” takes tax revenue away from the government, since they can get taxed at a lower rate.
Why should two single people who are sharing living quarters get a tax break if they cannot bring children into the world (who will contribute to the national coffers when they are old enough to work and pay taxes?) It’s discriminatory against single people who do not live with other people.
Just my two cents on the matter.