T
TexCatholic4JMJ
Guest
Thanks, I’ll try it again.
Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage
- Status
L
lux_in_tenebris_1
Guest
I agree with you that we should absolutely be concerned about the state of society crumbling under changes of social structure. However humanity is not like math as you were implying and social ethics are as never straight forward.
If somebody asked, what is marriage? The answers would follow
Catholic-Man+Woman
Gay- Man+Man
Mormon fundamentalist- Man + Women
Mosou tribe- Woman + men
Hipster-Marriage is obsolete
My point being already in current and recent history, there are already different concepts of what marriage is and what role marriages play in society. 2+2 may equal 4 100% of the time, but current polls of educated Americans don’t necessarily agree with the traditional marriage definition. If it was as easy as a fundamental falsehood as 2+2=5, this problem would have resolved by now.
L
lux_in_tenebris_1
Guest
I’m playing devil’s advocate here, just because all these arguments have been said before and haven’t gone down very well.Well said. The SS"M" position is based on emotion and saying, “see, we got it legalized in X,Y, and Z places” which is a political power argument.
The fundamental problem remains however, if a unitarian universalist in all their wackiness say to us as a society “hey, gay marriage is the most sacred sacrament in all of unitarianism, you have no right to infringe upon that” We can say “it’s not conducive to offspring etc.” but that won’t hold water with the folks I work with. Plenty of religious practices aren’t pro-offspring. The live slaughter of chicken and pigs of Hmong shamanism isn’t something I look as enhancing humanity, but as a country we certainly tolerate it and haven’t passed a law on it. Why can’t the unitarian universalist do what they want to do as crazy and theologically shakey it might be? And certainly if they do start gay marriage ceremonies, I highly doubt that there would be a tide of people flocking towards same sex unions enough to make a dent in our population and posterity.
J
JimG
Guest
Human anatomy and biology is a good guide. The human race is composed of two sexes which are sexually complementary. Marital intercourse is something that can only be accomplished by opposite sex couples. Marital intercourse is quite impossible to same sex couples. Anatomy is the forerunner of marriage.
One can arbitrarily declare non sexually complementary pairings as marriage, but it means about as much as arbitrarily declaring four-sided geometric figures to be triangles.
Same sex pairings can never be conjugal, can never be marital, can never be marriage. It’s physically impossible.
One can arbitrarily declare non sexually complementary pairings as marriage, but it means about as much as arbitrarily declaring four-sided geometric figures to be triangles.
Same sex pairings can never be conjugal, can never be marital, can never be marriage. It’s physically impossible.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I think you are saying that the relevance of the fundamental equation is obscured by the variety of sexual unions that are being accomodated in the 6 billion strong human family that exists currently. I don’t know if you’ve seen the episode of Big Bang where Sheldon has progressed far into an equation on his whiteboard before finally realising that the thing is defunct. Leonard then points to one small error right at the beginning which caused the final impotence of the structure. So it certainly can happen in math that a fundamental falsehood can persist obscured by other truths that are pulling their weight around it, only to be found in the final failure of the entire equation.
And so with gay marriage. It may look perfectly harmless in the grand scheme as other truths try and compensate for it, but it’s proven useless in the microcosm. Take it out of the greater equation where it stands alone and man + man (or woman + woman) can never equal family. It will always be a false equation.
D
dmar198
Guest
L
lux_in_tenebris_1
Guest
So basically the main arguments I’m hearing is pretty much it’s not good for society and biologically incorrect and therefore impossible. As much as I agree with both of those, I think I’m going to have a doozy of a time convincing others. Thanks for all the responses!
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Nevermind. When a whole country like China with considerable intellectual capacities, can defend a belief in ‘one child policy’ to the extent of losing a whole generation of female children… it stands to reason that other ‘educated’ brains can defend policies equally destructive to the species wellbeing. We’re a thick lot sometimes.So basically the main arguments I’m hearing is pretty much it’s not good for society and biologically incorrect and therefore impossible. As much as I agree with both of those, I think I’m going to have a doozy of a time convincing others. Thanks for all the responses!
L
livingwordunity
Guest
When we try to explain basic biology to those on the other side of the argument it gets ignored. They want what they want, and they don’t care to hear anyone telling them that they can’t have it. It is reason vs emotion.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, the link was wrong. Yours is correct.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I’ve experienced this a number of times. It’s as if biology, anatomy, the makeup of human beings, is all irrelevant. So, men are not women, women are not men. Bolts are not nuts. It comes down to “I want what I want and if I can’t have it it’s because you hate me.”
H
HelenRose
Guest
I have often thought that if God did not exist (and thankfully He does, or I would be terribly discouraged) He would not be necessary in order to destroy a people, a nation, a civilization because good old Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” would do the job.
We are a nation that in a large part does not want children, abuses, uses children and aborts them at a rate of well over a million a year. Same sex relationship is the end of the genetic line. Abortion is the end of the genetic line. It would be a sterile miserable world without children. And in time the civilization will slowly drift into a sterile world of selfish old people.
But because we have hope in our Lord Jesus Christ and the wise teachings of our Beautiful Catholic Church, we can continue to live and rejoice that there is an answer. We can to our best to teach the mercy and love of Christ. And above all pray.
Is there an secular argument? I can only say that it is sterile sad world. No matter how creative an individual may be from Beethoven to the Beatles, no creation in the art world, literature world or music world is greater that the creation that only a mother and father can give the world – the beauty of a human baby known and loved by his or her mother and father. Anything beyond that is, at best, second best and at worst manipulation of the dignity of children.
Same sex marriage is an illusion. A mechanic knows that. That is why they call the different parts of pipe fittings, nuts and screws “female and male”. Without the proper connection nothing can be built.
We are a nation that in a large part does not want children, abuses, uses children and aborts them at a rate of well over a million a year. Same sex relationship is the end of the genetic line. Abortion is the end of the genetic line. It would be a sterile miserable world without children. And in time the civilization will slowly drift into a sterile world of selfish old people.
But because we have hope in our Lord Jesus Christ and the wise teachings of our Beautiful Catholic Church, we can continue to live and rejoice that there is an answer. We can to our best to teach the mercy and love of Christ. And above all pray.
Is there an secular argument? I can only say that it is sterile sad world. No matter how creative an individual may be from Beethoven to the Beatles, no creation in the art world, literature world or music world is greater that the creation that only a mother and father can give the world – the beauty of a human baby known and loved by his or her mother and father. Anything beyond that is, at best, second best and at worst manipulation of the dignity of children.
Same sex marriage is an illusion. A mechanic knows that. That is why they call the different parts of pipe fittings, nuts and screws “female and male”. Without the proper connection nothing can be built.
L
lutheran_farmer
Guest
From a scientific standpoint, there are some good medical reasons to avoid non-standard intercourse. The topic is pretty taboo in today’s society, but there are various long term health problems. Tell them to look it up for themselves to avoid you needing to provide them with explicit descriptions.
J
JTD_Eagle1
Guest
Same sex “marriage” simply goes against the natural law. Biology shows us that two men or women can’t produce human life. Same sex couples can never compliment each other,thus making it impossible for a true marriage. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman(except maybe ancient Greece or Rome), and governments are doing away with the gender requirement. If they have done away with this requirement, they will surely do away with others, probably the number requirement, and then we’ll have polygamy.
W
weller2
Guest
I actually think that there is no good argument against SSM.
This is because marriage nowadays is not a social institution, but has been reduced to a contract.
You cannot arbitrarily forbid people to enter contracts. E.g. you cannot declare that black people can buy milk from white people (or vice versa), but trading milk between two white people or two black people is illegal.
This is because marriage nowadays is not a social institution, but has been reduced to a contract.
You cannot arbitrarily forbid people to enter contracts. E.g. you cannot declare that black people can buy milk from white people (or vice versa), but trading milk between two white people or two black people is illegal.
W
weller2
Guest
Because back then the traditional marriage contract made sense.
The idea behind the traditional marriage contract is that woman is expected to produce man’s offspring in exchange for participating in his assets. That’s all there is to it. This is why traditional societies condemn female infidelity, but turn a blind eye to male infidelity. The former voids the contract, the latter does not. (Cf. European queens having an affair were guilty of treason, while their husbands were effectively allowed to keep harems.)
The traditional arrangement stopped making sense after WW2 when women went to work, and so could support themselves and their children without relying on men.
Gay marriage is not a problem, it is a symptom.
D
dmar198
Guest
I agree that our society has reduced marriage from what it is supposed to be, but that doesn’t mean there’s no good argument, it just puts our argument one step back: now we have to prove that marriage shouldn’t just be a contract, but rather a social institution, and base it on natural law. The big problem for me is that once you start talking in terms like that, people stop caring. People don’t consciously think of marriage as a contract – they don’t really think of it at all, except as that thing you do when you really really love someone. And because we’ve reduced it to just a thing people do when they love each other, rather than the completion of the two parts of human nature (male and female), nobody sees why we should care if two people of the same-sex go through the same ceremony that other people do.
J
JimG
Guest
I think that you are exactly right. I also agree that current trends if left to their natural course, will result in a civilization that will slowly drift into “a sterile world of selfish old people.” A world in which marriage, family, and children, are not valued is a civilization in a death spiral. We already see it in the depopulation trends in many of the developed nations. The biggest problem in the near future will be the problem of underpopulation.
Same sex marriage makes its appearance near the end of that devolution, not at the beginning. The beginning of the end was characterized by widespread contraception, sexual revolution, divorce, children without mothers or fathers, collapsing families. We are living at a point near the end of that process. See Eberstadt’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” for the sad statistics. She, at least, thinks that sanity can make a comeback before it is too late. I’m not so sure. In the end, the Church will pick up the pieces of civilization and rebuild.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
I am not sure how dmar has not answered this already where [s?]he said:
“Exquisite punishment” sounds, to me, like the sort of thing that would make people think twice before publicising their same sex ‘marriage’!
But would it be fair to infer, from your post, that you are unaware of any claims of same sex marriage made between the Theodosian Code and the modern day same sex marriage movement? Or are you aware of such claims (and if so, which claims?) and reject their validity (and if so, why?)
For the record, I have already posted my beliefs on this matter on threads in this forum, which I cannot now edit, and will willingly give you links to those posts after you have responded. Or it would be trivial for you to review my posting history and find them now. But I would deeply appreciate your response before seeing my opinions on the matter!
D
DrTaffy
Guest
That assumes that conception is the sole purpose of marriage. Or, to be fair, is an essential component of marriage.
Now, I have no problem with you believing that, as regards living your own life, but do you think you can prove that objectively and indisputably, such that you are justified in forcing that belief on others who do not agree with you?
- Status