Homosexual "marriage" -- secular & natural law arguments against

  • Thread starter Thread starter mbryanbooks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Rosalinda:
The financial security and emotional well-being of two individuals participating in SSM is not a justification. The argument that ‘nobody is being harmed’ is not an argument which can be proven either; it is nothing more than a meaningless mantra repeated ad nauseum in letters to- the-editor. Even shop lifters use that excuse to justify stealing.
Pope Paul VI in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” made predictions that forsaw the degradation of the status of women; how violence, abuse, abortion, adultery, divorce and even euthansia would all ensue as a result of the proliferation of the contraceptive mentality. Those dire warnings were given thirty-six years ago and the situation we find ourselves in today with the SSM debate is parallel. History has taught us the lesson repeatedly: sin has consequences and we’re going to learn that lesson first hand in short order.
Contemporary man in his hubris however, likes to think he has discovered a new level of tolerance, sensitivity and pluralism of life-style choices. Proponents of SSM pride themselves on being sophisticated, even intellectually superior.
It is wrong to assume no one is going to be hurt by SSM. Sin is not private because it injures everybody. These unions are not “sacred” - as some have advocated in their eagerness to bend over backwards- because they are intrinsically unholy and disordered.
SSM couples are going to use surrogate mothers, in-vitro fertilization, adoption, divorce (from their heterosexual spouses): any means necessary to prop up their illusion that they are just normal, benign families. All of this- reduces human beings to commodities to be bought and sold. This lack of respect for the dignity of human life with its’ origin in God inevitably diminishes all mankind. That so many are willing to allow children to become part of this great, social experiment is profoundly disturbing.
No, this represents a new low.
Click to expand...
  1. The three items I mentioned are not offered as a justification for SSM. They are in answer to a question about the benefits.
  2. This is a religious argument and depends on people accepting the religion and authority of its leaders. Our civil society does not accept either religious leadership or religious veto.
  3. Can you tell us exactly what particular and observable harm will be done by SSM? What particular and observable harm is being done to people in Massachusetts that is not being done to people in other states?
 
40.png
kimie:
That case of bigotry was still a marriage between a MAN AND A WOMAN of different races and many of the “alternative lifestyle” folks compare this to “homosexual bigotry” of today. Point out the difference to your friend: We may have been wrong with the race issue, but it was a marriage between a male and female which is not immoral. Marriage between male/male, female/female is and goes against the marriage covenant…
Click to expand...
  1. What is the marriage covenant?
  2. Is there one single covenant in our society, or do we observe that there are several?
  3. Where did the marriage covenant come from?
 
40.png
mlaforme:
The state didn’t establish the institution of marriage. It was a result of God setting nature in motion. Governed by natural laws. It is, what it is. This man not embracing the natural law arguments is like him not accepting the law of gravity.
Click to expand...
yes but we’re not talking about religious marriage…God isnt marrying these p eople because the church wont let them…this is about marriage of the state for benefits. Its not affecting youre religion…we’re not telling your church to accept it…this is the state and completely separate.
 
Hey there you guys n gals!

When was the last time you visited the motel 6 in Sodom?

I kinda think that story in the OT was God’s way of showing how He reeeeeeealllly feels about homosexality. Sheesh. These folks were so lustful they even wanted to _______ with the angels visiting! And the guy who they were visiting was so oppressed by their demonic lifestyle that he offered his daughters to them!

Gee, do we want to degenerate to that point before we agree that homosexuality shouldn’t be encouraged anymore?

I’m praying that we don’t.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2
 
I am from Massachusetts. And I have not noticed one difference in my life now that gay marriage is legal. I am only proud to live in such an accepting place. No one suddenly decided to become gay because of it, society isnt collapsing. Many people are opposed to it here…but there have been no ramifications yet. And as for this procreation thing…thats ridiculous. How about infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children, couples who are too old to have children, many marriages dont result in procreation…which is probably good the world being as overpopulated as it is. And many, in fact, probably most, gay people who get married, have kids through means of artificial insemination or adoption. There are so many kids waiting for homes out there, that this is beneficial. Bottom line…procreation argument ridiculous. We’re not gonna die out because gay people arent reproducing, which they are anyways.
 
Oh…and if you have any questions about how life has been in Massachusetts since the ruling or want to know why i support it…my AIM is siamesecat1414 and my email is snailgirl4@aol.com
 
40.png
siamesecat:
I am from Massachusetts. And I have not noticed one difference in my life now that gay marriage is legal. I am only proud to live in such an accepting place. No one suddenly decided to become gay because of it, society isnt collapsing. Many people are opposed to it here…but there have been no ramifications yet. And as for this procreation thing…thats ridiculous. How about infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children, couples who are too old to have children, many marriages dont result in procreation…which is probably good the world being as overpopulated as it is. And many, in fact, probably most, gay people who get married, have kids through means of artificial insemination or adoption. There are so many kids waiting for homes out there, that this is beneficial. Bottom line…procreation argument ridiculous. We’re not gonna die out because gay people arent reproducing, which they are anyways.
Click to expand...
Very interesting testimony from Massachusetts.

Does this mean that marriage has not been destroyed in Mass.?

Does it mean that the family has not been destroyed in Mass.?

Does it mean that the foundation of society has not been destroyed in Mass.?

Does it mean that pedophilia has not been approved in Mass.?

Does it mean that polygamy has not been approved in Mass.?

Does it mean that age of sexual consent laws have not been eliminated in Masss.?

Does it mean that divorce rates have not increased in Mass.?

Does it mean that marriage rates have not fallen in Mass.?

Does it mean that abortions have not gone up in Mass.?

Does it mean that illegitimacy has not increased in Mass.?
 
P.S. I’m sure that those red stripes on my flag didn’t die so that homosexuals could flaunt their perversity in public!

Peace and all good,

Thomas2
 
40.png
Thomas2:
P.S. I’m sure that those red stripes on my flag didn’t die so that homosexuals could flaunt their perversity in public!

Peace and all good,

Thomas2
Click to expand...
Homosexuals are among all those who gave their lives for the country. And they are among all those who put their lives on the line, yet survived.
 
MEMO TO ALL THAT ARE STILL CONFUSED:

It takes a man and a woman to reproduce. I’m sorry but that is a fact that you simply cannot talk your way around. The procreation argument cannot be rediculous. What is rediculous is that we are now so blinded by sin we make statements like “the union of two men is the same thing as the union of a man and woman.” Now that is rediculous! We are confused on one of the most essential truths regarding human beings.

For all that are still confused; it required a man and a woman for you to exist. I know that is a troubling fact but a fact non the less.
 
40.png
martino:
MEMO TO ALL THAT ARE STILL CONFUSED:

It takes a man and a woman to reproduce. I’m sorry but that is a fact that you simply cannot talk your way around. The procreation argument cannot be rediculous. What is rediculous is that we are now so blinded by sin we make statements like “the union of two men is the same thing as the union of a man and woman.” Now that is rediculous! We are confused on one of the most essential truths regarding human beings.

For all that are still confused; it required a man and a woman for you to exist. I know that is a troubling fact but a fact non the less.
Click to expand...
Let’s be a bit more accurate. It required a fertile man and a fertile woman for us to exist. How do infertile people fit into all this?
 
40.png
Ken:
Let’s be a bit more accurate. It required a fertile man and a fertile woman for us to exist. How do infertile people fit into all this?
Click to expand...
It was not inaccurate for me to say that procreation exists only between men and women. Didn’t God make it that way? I cannot believe we must argue this elementary point.
 
40.png
martino:
It was not inaccurate for me to say that procreation exists only between men and women. Didn’t God make it that way? I cannot believe we must argue this elementary point.
Click to expand...
Correct.It twas not inaccurate. My version is simply more accurate.

So, how do infertile people fit into this scheme?
 
I’ve been away for a few days getting my children settled into a new school year. But here’s an answer to Ken’s post of a few days ago:

Ken says: The reason the opposition to SSM is always defending their position is because they take such extreme positions. We hear that SSM will destroy marriage, destroy the family, eliminate the foundation of society, and some say destruction similar what Sodom experienced. Others say it is a plot to eliminate sexual age of consent laws, and usher in socially approved pedophilia, polygamy, and beastiality.
Code: 
 I know that some are using hyperbole to defend their positions regarding SSM, but I don’t think I have done that.  However, it is true that the family is the foundation of society, it being where children are socialized.  When the family is weakened, society is weakened. There is a movement to eliminate age of consent laws as well as legalize polyamoury.  I don’t know how widespread this is in the homosexual community, but regardless, the elimination of one sexual taboo makes it easier for others to fall.
*Now, these are hard positions to defend. As we have seen, when asked how particular, observable phenomena will be encouraged by SSM, the opposition has little to say. Most of their arguments resonate with others in opposition, but they have not stood up well in critical analysis. *
Code: 
 *So, the SSM proponent does the same thing over and over again. He just asks how all these dire things will happen, and why they will happen. At that point the opposition often falls back on tradition, saying it's always been that way, and always should. *
The opposition actually has plenty to say and has been saying it. You just aren’t accepting the evidence we have so far. Kurtz’s main argument is that changing the definition of marriage and formally separating it from it’s procreative purpose will make it just another lifestyle choice and unimportant to childbearing. His articles on the Scandinavian experience do analyze the initial causes of marital decline as well as the effect of SSM in furthering that decline. These were written for popular reading, not a sociology trade pub, so they’re not replete with footnotes and peer-reviewed analyses. His arguments do appeal to reason and he attempts to apply the SSM Scandinavian experience to American culture. *

On the other hand, the SSM proponents simply say that SSM is socially benign. It will help some, and hurt none. This is a much less ambitious argument than that marshalled by the opposition. It is an argument that relies on the absence of something. To defeat it, the opposition must demonstrate the presence of something. They must demonstrate the presence of observable and particular harmful phenomena. So the cycle starts over.*
Code: 
 SSM proponents have offered no proof that it will hurt nobody.  They want the radical change—they should show how it would be beneficial to the common good.  They won’t be able to prove it before it happens, but they should at least offer some kind of reasonable analysis as to why it would be good.
*Continued in next post
*
 
(continued from last post)

Now, you have asked what are the benefits to SSM. First, the SSM argument does not rely on demonstrating benefits. It relies on the socially benign character of SSM.

But it’s a fair question, and deserves an answer. In general the benefits to society from SSM are the same as the benefits to society from the marriage of people who have no children for one reason or another. If society benefits from the marriage of two fifty-five year old heterosexuals, then the same benefits accrue to society from the marriage of two gays.

But what are they?
  1. Establishing economic and emotional support networks increases the probability that each individual will be more successful, and contribute more to society through their occupation, volunteer work, economic activity, and community participation. SSM is a basic social network.
  2. Sexual diseases are decreased to the exotent that monogamy is observed by the partners.
  3. The formal social support systems are less likely to be employed by SSM partners since they can rely on the support of each other.
Do these in any way measure up to the importance of producing and raising children? No. But they are social benefits.*
I’m so glad you addressed this and admitted that the social benefits don’t measure up to raising children. You see, the only place where this was tried is in Scandinavia, and only a tiny minority of SS couples have even registered their partnerships. So the social benefits that may exist aren’t even accruing in any significant way. Then the question becomes why should the U.S. make such a major change that is unwanted by the vast majority of the people to benefit a tiny minority of the people when the social consequences of this change could be dire.
 
Check out the AIDS statistics here.

Cases by Exposure Category
Code: 
Following is the distribution of the **estimated number **of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.

  Exposure Category Male Female Total **Male-to-male sexual contact                   420,790                   -                   420,790** Injection Drug Use 172,351 67,917 240,268 **Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 59,719 - 59,719** Heterosexual contact 50,793 84,835 135,628 Other* 14,350 6,519 20,869 * Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion,               perinatal,
            and risk not reported or not identified.                [Back                to top](http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#Main)

  The distribution of the **estimated number** of diagnoses               of AIDS among children* by exposure                categories follows:

  Exposure Category # of AIDS Cases Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 236 Mother with or at risk for HIV infection 8,629 Receipt of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue 390 Other/risk not reported or identified 45    * The term "children" refers to persons under age 13 at the time                of diagnosis.
 
40.png
siamesecat:
I am from Massachusetts. And I have not noticed one difference in my life now that gay marriage is legal. I am only proud to live in such an accepting place. No one suddenly decided to become gay because of it, society isnt collapsing. Many people are opposed to it here…but there have been no ramifications yet. And as for this procreation thing…thats ridiculous. How about infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children, couples who are too old to have children, many marriages dont result in procreation…which is probably good the world being as overpopulated as it is. And many, in fact, probably most, gay people who get married, have kids through means of artificial insemination or adoption. There are so many kids waiting for homes out there, that this is beneficial. Bottom line…procreation argument ridiculous. We’re not gonna die out because gay people arent reproducing, which they are anyways.
Click to expand...
Oh please, does anybody expect the effects to take place overnight? It takes a long time for a society to decline (although not as long as it takes to build it up), and even longer to look back and quantify the effects.
 
40.png
Ken:
Correct.It twas not inaccurate. My version is simply more accurate.

So, how do infertile people fit into this scheme?
Click to expand...
Since the “scheme” is the correct union between men and women, infertile people fit into that scheme by being men and women united together.

I am saying that a man and a woman is what is needed for marriage, the union between the sexes is the essence of marriage. It is from men and women that children come into the world, therefore both must be present in marriage.

Infertile couples fit into the scheme simply because their infertility is not the result of incompatability, which is the case with same sex couples. Infertile couples do not thwart Natural Law as a homosexual couple does.

How do homosexual couples fit into the “scheme” of Natural Law? They seem to engage in a horrific imitation of sex and marriage; making a mockery of both.
 
To justify Gay Marriage on the grounds that some heterosexual
couples fail to produce children is ludicrous.We all have our trials
in life.Much as we would like children we cannot have them.
Perhaps this is because God has something else in mind for us.
Sometimes people,with the help of prayer,do eventually manage
to bring a child into the world.That is not going to happen with a gay couple.It can also happen that a person’s Cross comes in the form of a disability.The way society is,you are not much of a catch if your ability to earn is hindered by disability.It would be a good thing if the homosexual could carry his Cross a bit more cheerfully.
I knew an old woman who,in her later years,was rather upset that she could no longer attend Mass.The priest,who was bringing her the Eucharist,told her to stop worrying about it.He
said,“this is your Cross,you want to go to Mass and you are not being allowed to”.
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
I must have misunderstood your original challenge as to how we might know marriage is weakened. I don’t believe for a minute that divorce, abortion and illegitimacy are a result of SSM; but they are an indicator of the weakened state of marriage.
Click to expand...
I want to clarify this point I made some days ago. I don’t think that in the US divorce, abortion and illegitimacy are a result of SSM. It’s too new a phenomenon to be causing these things.

It is possible that in Scandinavia that the decline in marriage and the increase in illegitimacy may be due to SSM. Stanley Kurtz points out here: www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp
that the decline in Dutch marriages didn’t really start until SSM was legalized. I know Ken will say that there’s no proof that SSM is causing women to have children out of wedlock. I understand this argument, and I would guess if you asked an unmarried mother why she did this she probably wouldn’t answer that SSM made her do it. However, people are a product of their culture. And if the culture devalues marriage the people will too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top