R
Rau
Guest
That might depend on your understanding of “good”. Simply an objection to the word “marriage” being commandeered might qualify as good reason.
And it’s easily addressed.
- Status
And it’s easily addressed.
C
cornucopian1984
Guest
There is no BAN ON GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. They can get married like anyone else but they refuse to do so. It is not discrimination because they actively refuse to use the opportunity given to them. If you have the time, please read this:heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it
Ask gay marriage supporters if they think a biological dad, his son and his step dad together can get married because they ‘love’ each other and you are a BIGOT for denying their rights. This will inevitably happen. Right now, it is not acceptable but it would not surprise me at all if this happens in the future.
Marriage has always been about the offspring that the union produces. Because the state grants many privileges and promotes it by making it exclusive only to married couples, society holds marriage in high regard.
Basically, it is society’s way of ensuring two people are together for love and sex and in return their relationship produces children which are essential for society.
The reason why marriage works is because of its monogamous nature. Both husband and wife benefit from the relationship and in turn they raise the child. How else could you get people to be together to raise a child? By making it special through certain rights and privileges. It is like a invisible lid placed on two people so they love each other and in order to do that they had to make offspring.
Recently, marriage has come under a revisionist attack by the liberals. They claim it is just another emotional union…except their sexual acts do not contribute anything to society. It is a biological fact that a man and a woman is required for an offspring.
What are the consequences of redefining it?
** Destruction of marriage itself.** The monogamous nature of it will erode due to weakening of cultural norms. It will lead to more divorces and it will trivialize the union itself. Imagine 20 years from now, culturally polygamous relationships will be acceptable so there is no incentive for the mom and the dad to stay together. The children of the union now suffer. Kids need their parents to guide them through life. Kids raised by a stable family (marriage) tend to perform better in school, are less likely to get involved in crime, drugs and are generally more successful in every measure. Married couples even live longer.
**From heritage foundation: **The erosion of marriage harms not only the immediate victims, but also society as a whole. A Brookings Institution study found that $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse, and health problems.[1] A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year,[23] and Utah State University scholar David Schramm has estimated that divorce alone costs local, state, and federal-level government $33 billion each year.[24]
They gay lobby knows this and enjoy seeing marriage destroyed. They don’t hide it at all.
Again from heritage: **Some advocates of redefining marriage embrace the goal of weakening the institution of marriage in these very terms. “[Former President George W.] Bush is correct,” says Victoria Brownworth, “when he states that allowing same-sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage…. It most certainly will do so, **and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”[41] Professor Ellen Willis celebrates the fact that “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.”[42]
Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex couples to** “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”**[43] Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”[44]
Finally gays and monogamous simply don’t go together. The New York Times recently reported on a study finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners:** “‘With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,’ said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, ‘but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.
**
I have highlighted few paragraphs from the report but I think it is a good idea to read the whole report. I don’t think you will able to convince people who support gay ‘marriage’ because they have already made up their minds.
Ask gay marriage supporters if they think a biological dad, his son and his step dad together can get married because they ‘love’ each other and you are a BIGOT for denying their rights. This will inevitably happen. Right now, it is not acceptable but it would not surprise me at all if this happens in the future.
Marriage has always been about the offspring that the union produces. Because the state grants many privileges and promotes it by making it exclusive only to married couples, society holds marriage in high regard.
Basically, it is society’s way of ensuring two people are together for love and sex and in return their relationship produces children which are essential for society.
The reason why marriage works is because of its monogamous nature. Both husband and wife benefit from the relationship and in turn they raise the child. How else could you get people to be together to raise a child? By making it special through certain rights and privileges. It is like a invisible lid placed on two people so they love each other and in order to do that they had to make offspring.
Recently, marriage has come under a revisionist attack by the liberals. They claim it is just another emotional union…except their sexual acts do not contribute anything to society. It is a biological fact that a man and a woman is required for an offspring.
What are the consequences of redefining it?
** Destruction of marriage itself.** The monogamous nature of it will erode due to weakening of cultural norms. It will lead to more divorces and it will trivialize the union itself. Imagine 20 years from now, culturally polygamous relationships will be acceptable so there is no incentive for the mom and the dad to stay together. The children of the union now suffer. Kids need their parents to guide them through life. Kids raised by a stable family (marriage) tend to perform better in school, are less likely to get involved in crime, drugs and are generally more successful in every measure. Married couples even live longer.
**From heritage foundation: **The erosion of marriage harms not only the immediate victims, but also society as a whole. A Brookings Institution study found that $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse, and health problems.[1] A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year,[23] and Utah State University scholar David Schramm has estimated that divorce alone costs local, state, and federal-level government $33 billion each year.[24]
They gay lobby knows this and enjoy seeing marriage destroyed. They don’t hide it at all.
Again from heritage: **Some advocates of redefining marriage embrace the goal of weakening the institution of marriage in these very terms. “[Former President George W.] Bush is correct,” says Victoria Brownworth, “when he states that allowing same-sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage…. It most certainly will do so, **and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”[41] Professor Ellen Willis celebrates the fact that “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.”[42]
Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex couples to** “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”**[43] Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”[44]
Finally gays and monogamous simply don’t go together. The New York Times recently reported on a study finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners:** “‘With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,’ said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, ‘but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.
**
I have highlighted few paragraphs from the report but I think it is a good idea to read the whole report. I don’t think you will able to convince people who support gay ‘marriage’ because they have already made up their minds.
G
GangGreen
Guest
You should start this whole argument with contraception.
If a person is OK with contraception, then they are OK with removing fertility from the sexual act. If they remove fertility from the sexual act then what’s the difference between heterosexual intercourse and homosexual intercourse? Both have no real end besides pleasure.
You see, the common person says contraception is OK. Therefore, sex is about always about pleasure and fertility only comes into play when there’s a desire to have children. So when this mindset takes hold, then the next logical step is for the person to think homosexual sex is no different.
Contraception also leads to sex outside of marriage being common. How many people do you know who waited until marriage to have sex? How many people do you know who didn’t wait and only had sex with the person they actually married? The likely answer is practically zero in both cases. Contraception removes that risk of pregnancy (usually) so therefore people now become of the idea that sex outside of marriage is OK. So if sex outside of marriage is OK and sex is about pleasure not fertility then we start to see where the idea of marriage and the idea of sex in itself becomes distorted.
If we take these things into consideration we see how contraception feeds into all of this. It feeds into the idea that homosexual sex is fine because the common person no longer sees sex as something that is saved for marriage or something that requires it to be open to life. These things are gone in our society due to contraception.
So what’s the point? Well, try to make any secular arguments against homosexual marriage and when a person believes in what society says is the norm it’s like talking to a wall.
If a person is OK with contraception, then they are OK with removing fertility from the sexual act. If they remove fertility from the sexual act then what’s the difference between heterosexual intercourse and homosexual intercourse? Both have no real end besides pleasure.
You see, the common person says contraception is OK. Therefore, sex is about always about pleasure and fertility only comes into play when there’s a desire to have children. So when this mindset takes hold, then the next logical step is for the person to think homosexual sex is no different.
Contraception also leads to sex outside of marriage being common. How many people do you know who waited until marriage to have sex? How many people do you know who didn’t wait and only had sex with the person they actually married? The likely answer is practically zero in both cases. Contraception removes that risk of pregnancy (usually) so therefore people now become of the idea that sex outside of marriage is OK. So if sex outside of marriage is OK and sex is about pleasure not fertility then we start to see where the idea of marriage and the idea of sex in itself becomes distorted.
If we take these things into consideration we see how contraception feeds into all of this. It feeds into the idea that homosexual sex is fine because the common person no longer sees sex as something that is saved for marriage or something that requires it to be open to life. These things are gone in our society due to contraception.
So what’s the point? Well, try to make any secular arguments against homosexual marriage and when a person believes in what society says is the norm it’s like talking to a wall.
C
cornucopian1984
Guest
Sadly you are right about contraception and the role it has played to destroy marriage.
Today sex is seen as a recreational activity. It has weakened monogamy considerably. The question now is do we completely destroy marriage or do we let it slowly decay and see it become an ancient ritual that no longer means anything in this world.
You can add no fault divorce, porn and abortion to the list. They have decoupled marriage and sex…
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
The following talk was given at Franciscan University of Steubenville by Dr Jennifer Roback Morse. She points to a number of secular points:
youtube.com/watch?v=I7AwGxqjPWg
youtube.com/watch?v=I7AwGxqjPWg
J
JimG
Guest
You are right. Contraception leads directly to homosexual marriage, while enabling all the other follies of the sexual revolution along the way.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
This is just toooooo good to pass up.
I knew this would start.
Two heterosexual guys get married to attend Rugby World’s Cup.----Gays go berserk!
odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/315551/mates-marriage-horrifies-gay-rights-groups
I knew this would start.
Two heterosexual guys get married to attend Rugby World’s Cup.----Gays go berserk!
odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/315551/mates-marriage-horrifies-gay-rights-groups
N
NotAllHere
Guest
The research does not prove “orientation” and you are reading devaluing a person into what I said – fact is, everyone is created in God’s image.
Based on chapter 4, Darwin would agree that homosexuality as a gene would be gone. You claiming such a gene gives an advantage is simply some pro-gay advocates begging the question.
Their logic is:
A gay gene exists today (not proven)
Therefore, that gene must somehow have some positive effects towards selection (assumed on wishful thinking)
From Chapter four by Darwin,
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12329088
bartleby.com/11/4011.html
If being gay was fatalistic as some pro gay advocates would have us believe, then what I said does refute them.
catholicgraymatters.blogspot.com/2011/08/darwins-case-against-homosexuality.html
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I take “secular arguments” to mean non-religious.
Starting at the basics…
Homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct. This is a logical and intuitively sound understanding.
Therefore we can say that homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and un-changeably heterosexual.
There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of political self-interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy.
It must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.
Starting at the basics…
Homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct. This is a logical and intuitively sound understanding.
Therefore we can say that homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and un-changeably heterosexual.
There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of political self-interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy.
It must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.
R
Rau
Guest
Huh.
Consider those who experience the desire for same sex sex acts, are tormented by it and struggle to resist it, and do so, for they know it is morally wrong to accede to it. They may experience nil desire toward the opposite sex.How do you apply the words heterosexual, heterosexuality, homosexual and homosexuality to that person?
R
Rau
Guest
Another question might be - to whom does the Church refer in the following:
Does she refer only to those engaging in homosexual acts, or also to those drawn to them, but not engaging?
H
Holly3278
Guest
I believe that the argument from Natural Law is a good one. Basically, because homosexual sex is intrinsically sterile, it is sinful.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
How would I know if an individual was so inclined and struggling to resist such desires?Huh.
How do you apply the words heterosexual, heterosexuality, homosexual and homosexuality to that person?
When a person IDENTIFIES himself/herself as a homosexual (with or without the torment you describe) …then I would apply the word homosexual.
R
Rau
Guest
Perhaps a person you know, love and trust tells you so?
R
Rau
Guest
The Church does not mention this idea of “defining” oneself, but refers to:
The Church speaks of an actual experience, not a chosen “self-definition”. Of course, the reality of the experience may prompt the self-description. The Church also says this experience may be a trial.
There seems to be an undertone in your posts that the **experience **is contrived - that is, exists by choice. And that you will never accept that it could be otherwise, because no person could ever prove to you it is not contrived. Yet at times, you have admitted that there are people who have the experience, are pained by it, struggle with it and remain chaste. Where do you see the contrivance?
R
Rau
Guest
The person tells you he experiences predominately same sex attractions. Can that not be simply accepted as a fact (from one you know and trust), rather than being characterised as “he is defining himself”…
What is the reason for complicating and layering the situation?
J
JimG
Guest
That’s a 59 minute talk, but well worth watching. I took the time to listen to the whole thing. Dr. Morse cuts through a lot of the nonsense surrounding this issue, and it is something that is sorely needed.
When judges undertake to throw biology under the bus, they endanger women, children, and families.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Could you summarise the main points for us, then? I have wasted a lot of time listening to YouTube videos someone thought was great just because they agreed with the conclusion.
Just skipping through the apparently irrelevant prologue of her lecture, I see her claiming that all reptiles such as snakes give birth to live young - not a good start! - and going on to make an argument that creatures who either do not care for children after birth, or do not reproduce sexually so only have one parent, would have no need for pair bonding, a.k.a. ‘Marriage’.
Given that same sex couples can and do raise kids (the thing she seems to be making marriage all about), that many heterosexual married couples do not do so, and that pair bonding in nature quite explicitly takes place in same sex couples, her argument seems pretty unlikely to be worth 59 minutes of my life so far, in the nicest possible way. So I stopped there, but am open to persuasion that the rest might be worth watching.
- Status