Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

[sarahraegraham]

I posted this in the evangelization forum as well, but I would like to get some more responses. … Fyi, I’ve already read the documents in the C.A. library on this topic. Thanks!

Alrighty… I could use some assistance from all of you. I am a college student preparing to enter the realm of defense of traditional marriage at school. I’m not great at debating with words; I’m much better when I can write, taking time to think and phrase properly what I want to say, so this whole in-class thing will be a challenge for me. I’d like to get some good thoughts from you all, and/or some good resources, so that mentally I will be prepared with defenses, especially those that work no matter what a person’s faith may be.

We’ll be entering into a chapter on the subject in our text, and it asks us questions relating to the subject matter, so that’s what I’m looking to prepare for. Here are the questions… Oh, and (although I should not be surprised at the way a secular text misrepresents Catholic teaching, I am) the text states the following patently misleading statement as fact: “Early Christianity endorsed the position that sex is evil and degrading and should be indulged in only by married couples and only for the purpose of procreation. This remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.” And it cites things such as that Alfred Kinsey’s survey of American males is proof positive that sexual orientation is a myth and that all people are both homo and heterosexual. Yeah, so that’s what I’m working with here. Anyhoo, here are the questions we’ll be asked during discussion that I could use some help with:

(1) Do you believe same-sex marriages should be legalized?

and

(2) The question is, do you have judgemental tapes in your head about GLBT people?, and what I’m asking for this one is, thoughts and ideas on how to counter that judging is not necessarily a bad thing (we make judgements about things all the time, etc.), and how to counter this in a positive light.

I want to be a good witness for the truth, but many times when an issue becomes emotionally charged (and anything counter to my faith really hurts my heart) I’m no longer able to control my emotions. I’m hoping some good prep (with your help) will help me in that. Thanks!

 

[carinapir]

“Early Christianity endorsed the position that sex is evil and degrading and should be indulged in only by married couples and only for the purpose of procreation. This remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Wow, I’m not even a practicing Catholic right now and that statement from your book is offensive. I’m sure the Puritans or other Christian groups might have considered sex evil but the CC never has. It is for married couples, yes, and mostly for procreation, but I have had several priests tell me that the pleasure is also given by God to bind the couple together. When we humans just focus on the carnal pleasure part, we get a bit wild. And that’s why I think one doesn’t necessarily need to disagree with Kinsey. When humans allow their baser instincts take over, yes, we would do anything for more pleasure, so we subsequently get very kinky. But if you believe in God and a higher purpose for your life and body, it also makes perfect sense to restrict our animal nature.

do you have judgemental tapes in your head about GLBT people?, and what I’m asking for this one is, thoughts and ideas on how to counter that judging is not necessarily a bad thing (we make judgements about things all the time, etc.), and how to counter this in a positive light.

I disagree that arguing that judging is not necessarily a bad thing is the right tact to take. You should not judge them. You can only inform them of the Churches teachings regarding homosexual activity and kindly try to convince them to convert. One can be homosexual in the sense that you have same-sex attraction and still be Catholic if you do not engage in homosexual activity. I suppose that some people feel more comfortable avoiding them but I just don’t understand that. If I had to avoid everyone who sinned, I’d be a lonely person. Here I am sort of assuming that by judging, you mean treating them differently from other people in some way.

 

[Zundrah]

I posted this in the evangelization forum as well, but I would like to get some more responses. … Fyi, I’ve already read the documents in the C.A. library on this topic. Thanks!

Alrighty… I could use some assistance from all of you. I am a college student preparing to enter the realm of defense of traditional marriage at school. I’m not great at debating with words; I’m much better when I can write, taking time to think and phrase properly what I want to say, so this whole in-class thing will be a challenge for me. I’d like to get some good thoughts from you all, and/or some good resources, so that mentally I will be prepared with defenses, especially those that work no matter what a person’s faith may be.

We’ll be entering into a chapter on the subject in our text, and it asks us questions relating to the subject matter, so that’s what I’m looking to prepare for. Here are the questions… Oh, and (although I should not be surprised at the way a secular text misrepresents Catholic teaching, I am) the text states the following patently misleading statement as fact: “Early Christianity endorsed the position that sex is evil and degrading and should be indulged in only by married couples and only for the purpose of procreation. This remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.” And it cites things such as that Alfred Kinsey’s survey of American males is proof positive that sexual orientation is a myth and that all people are both homo and heterosexual. Yeah, so that’s what I’m working with here. Anyhoo, here are the questions we’ll be asked during discussion that I could use some help with:

(1) Do you believe same-sex marriages should be legalized?

and

(2) The question is, do you have judgemental tapes in your head about GLBT people?, and what I’m asking for this one is, thoughts and ideas on how to counter that judging is not necessarily a bad thing (we make judgements about things all the time, etc.), and how to counter this in a positive light.

I want to be a good witness for the truth, but many times when an issue becomes emotionally charged (and anything counter to my faith really hurts my heart) I’m no longer able to control my emotions. I’m hoping some good prep (with your help) will help me in that. Thanks!

1 Corinthians 6:9

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

 

[sarahraegraham]

Wow, I’m not even a practicing Catholic right now and that statement from your book is offensive. I’m sure the Puritans or other Christian groups might have considered sex evil but the CC never has. It is for married couples, yes, and mostly for procreation, but I have had several priests tell me that the pleasure is also given by God to bind the couple together. When we humans just focus on the carnal pleasure part, we get a bit wild. And that’s why I think one doesn’t necessarily need to disagree with Kinsey. When humans allow their baser instincts take over, yes, we would do anything for more pleasure, so we subsequently get very kinky. But if you believe in God and a higher purpose for your life and body, it also makes perfect sense to restrict our animal nature.

I disagree that arguing that judging is not necessarily a bad thing is the right tact to take. You should not judge them. You can only inform them of the Churches teachings regarding homosexual activity and kindly try to convince them to convert. One can be homosexual in the sense that you have same-sex attraction and still be Catholic if you do not engage in homosexual activity. I suppose that some people feel more comfortable avoiding them but I just don’t understand that. If I had to avoid everyone who sinned, I’d be a lonely person. Here I am sort of assuming that by judging, you mean treating them differently from other people in some way.

Yeah, that quote is a half-truth that’s twisted to fit a certain perspective. I was very upset when I read that for the first time. I really wish I could afford to go to a truly Catholic university, but I accept it as a testing and strengthening of my faith. I’m sure I’ll have plenty of opportunities for it.

I’m trying to gain more secularized arguments, if you understand what I mean, as several of my classmates are not Christians at all, and I am the only Catholic. So, working along the lines of “the Church says this” just won’t fly with them.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders\

**The word the NIV translates here, ARESENOKOITAI, may not mean homosexual.

It’s a strange word that has only three examples in ancient literature.

It’s first appearance is in the Sibylline oracles, “The ARSENOKOITAI from the north will abduct our children.”

Next is six centuries later by St. Paul.

Then in 600 AD or so, St. John the Faster says that “ARSENOKOITAI is something that some men even dare do to their wives.”

If it’s something a man and woman can do, it’s clearly NOT homosexuality.

FWIW, the two terms used in this verse–MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI–are merely transliterated in the Slavonic NT, made about 800 AD, and NOT translated.**

 

[kimmielittle]

I would attack Alfred Kinsey’s research.

There are many in academia and physical studies, who have charged the Kinsey’s of pedophilia practices during their study.

Attack the source.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[carinapir]

So I guess the two Bible quoting posts won’t help you much either.

Secular arguments against legalizing gay marriage or homosexuality?

Try these:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1940

 

[Nec5]

Good stuff. Those links encapsulated most of my suggestions. One thing you ought to try is to ask for a definition of the term marriage. You can ask everyone what the common definition is and then proceed to ask for a revised one. When you get the revised definition, pick apart any form of judgment in the new definition. For example, if marriage is redefined as “two consenting adults”, then question the deference to “2”. Why can’t 3 consenting adults marry? You can argue that having three spouses increases the safety net and access to parenting for kids.

You can then go into incest and all sorts of fun tangents until the class decides to revise the definition further. Be careful, you may run into a few folks that will accept any and everything. For them, you’ll need to turn to the arguments about subjective truth. For example, why can’t people walk around nude?

The point is that many of the foundational principles for a given society are necessarily arbitrary. Marriage is one of them. Murder is another. If questioned about murder being legalized, explain that barbarian tribes thrived for centuries often employing a kill to be promoted mentality. The same was true for Genghis Khan. We even had dueling as a legalized form of murder here in the US well into the 19th century. Who’s to say that murder isn’t a acceptable part of society?

I don’t know what class/institution this is for, but be careful. My entire bachelor’s and master’s programs were filled with professors that skewered any non-progressive ideology with poor grades. You may be better served ducking, getting your degree, and then doing something with your values.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Good stuff. Those links encapsulated most of my suggestions. One thing you ought to try is to ask for a definition of the term marriage. You can ask everyone what the common definition is and then proceed to ask for a revised one. When you get the revised definition, pick apart any form of judgment in the new definition. For example, if marriage is redefined as “two consenting adults”, then question the deference to “2”. Why can’t 3 consenting adults marry? You can argue that having three spouses increases the safety net and access to parenting for kids.

You can then go into incest and all sorts of fun tangents until the class decides to revise the definition further. Be careful, you may run into a few folks that will accept any and everything. For them, you’ll need to turn to the arguments about subjective truth. For example, why can’t people walk around nude?

The point is that many of the foundational principles for a given society are necessarily arbitrary. Marriage is one of them. Murder is another. If questioned about murder being legalized, explain that barbarian tribes thrived for centuries often employing a kill to be promoted mentality. The same was true for Genghis Khan. We even had dueling as a legalized form of murder here in the US well into the 19th century. Who’s to say that murder isn’t a acceptable part of society?

I don’t know what class/institution this is for, but be careful. My entire bachelor’s and master’s programs were filled with professors that skewered any non-progressive ideology with poor grades. You may be better served ducking, getting your degree, and then doing something with your values.

I’ll have to take a look at those links. I like your suggestion of picking apart the definition as well.

As far as my professors/grades, I’m not concerned. I have the highest grade in the class (right now), and there are only two professors for the program I’m in now: him and a lady I’ve had before. No problems with that, thank God!

 

[Charlotte408]

Hello fellow college student!! Well, your in luck ( i think), Just last year I was in the SAME situation as yourself…it was an ethnic studies class…anyhow at the time I wasnt practicing a religion, so, I argued my beliefs against same-sex marriage as much from the secular point as possible…thinking about whats good for myself, others, my child…society…how people function…God…well…I’m catholic now <----lil’ short story…

(1) Do you believe same-sex marriages should be legalized?

Absolutely not.

and

(2) The question is, do you have judgemental tapes in your head about GLBT people?, and what I’m asking for this one is, thoughts and ideas on how to counter that judging is not necessarily a bad thing (we make judgements about things all the time, etc.), and how to counter this in a positive light.

Thats a real question? Tapes? in my head?? lol…

if they are asking if I am judgemental towards GLBT people than I would say no. I judge people based on their actions towards me. I’ve heard an arguement somewhat like what you say about people needed to judge and its actually a positive thing, but, its not ‘judging’ them, its ‘stereotyping’ them. I’ve heard that people naturally and subconsciously stereotype people based on dealings with people…liiike, if you meet 5 short people, and 4 out of 5 of them, idk steal from you, then without even meaning to on some level to protect yourself- stereotype them…

idk, I dont buy into it either way.

but here are some points you might have to argue…

-It’s DISCRIMINATION:

Against whom? Laws should be made to discriminate against actions, not people. And they discriminate against actions to ensure that people are not behaving in ways that could hurt themselves or others, or so that society is not harmful to itself. To say that ‘A woman can not vote’, is obviously discriminating against women. To say that ‘Blacks can’t own property’, discriminates against African Americans. In retrospect, if a law stated that someone is not allowed to ride a bicycle on the freeway, that’s not discriminating against that person. That same person can get into a car and drive on the freeway. Technically a gay man could marry a gay woman.

-It’s an INFRINGMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS:

Marriage was defined by ‘God’ and the church as a union between a man and a woman. And there are people that really and truly believe that. In God, in marriage, in their religion. And they’ve been believing that for a long time. I think that to come and have the government of all things tell them that they are going to redefine something as sacred as marriage is an infringement on their religious freedoms. Really! Would it be any more fair to parade into a Buddhist temple and dissect their beliefs? That is why there is separation of state and church. They provide Civil unions for those who don’t believe or do not follow the churches teachings. I wish the best for homosexual couples and hope they enjoy the same rights and privileges that marriage does, but ‘marriage’ is a religious ceremony and therefore should be left to the church. Another point would be that if they have Civil Unions in their state that offer them the same partner rights as marriage, why would they pursue the term? **Partner rights the state can give you, religious acceptance they can not. **

-Homosexuality/Same sex education WILL NOT be taught in schools:

Blatent lie. They already do in some schools, maine for sure, do your homework and look em’ up to strengthen your arguement. Last year when prop 8 was on the ballot in california they said that it wasnt true, they dont-wouldnt teach it…prop 8 didnt even pass and 5 months later they sent home letters in alameda county that some schools would be implementing the program next (this) year.

-What if your NOT religious? Why should your rules apply to me???

Religion aside, I believe that the family as a unit is a fundamental cell in society. And society has to have some sort of standard, or Norm if you will for the stability and structure that kids need growing up. If gay marriage is legalized, I feel, its kind of like saying, whatever you want to do is okay. And I don’t think that’s true. Not everything is okay. For instance, marrying your Brother isn’t ‘okay’. You could argue that you love him and why are you as a couple any different, but really?? Imagine a society in 20-50 years from now, men marrying men, women marrying women, sisters marrying brothers, cousins marrying cousins. How twisted and confused are kids going to be growing up? Its like, chaos. There has to be some sort of an idea of just, how things are supposed to be, a **natural order **if you will.

Ultimately, to say that homosexuals want to participate in traditional marriage, when traditional marriage is between a man and a woman (when homosexuals do not want to marry people of the opposite gender) is a contradiction.

**Good luck and wear your brass knuckles!!! **

 

[Charlotte408]

sorry but just one more thing…

i think its a common misconception that religious people, or…christians ‘judge’ homosexuals, or ‘hate’ them…yeah you got some whackos -i wont name em- but really were all just people, like they’re all just people…lol…

WHAT IT IS…and you should explain it…is that we dont disagree with, or have a problem with the person, we believe that the act ITSELF is the issue. We dont think its right. There are homosexuals who are CHASTE and are active members in the church. It is not a sin to be homosexual, its a sin to commit homosexual acts…

 

[buffalo]

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth.
The success of so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When
it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don’t hold up under
scrutiny. “Gay” sympathizers aren’t necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into
accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.
He who defines the terms controls the debate – and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms
have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the “gay” movement.
Sophistry, it must be noted, is the ancient Greek art of persuasion by subtly false reasoning. The key to
overcoming sophistry is to simplify and clarify what the sophists have intentionally made complex and
vague. That process begins by defining the terms and concepts being used in the arguments. One quickly
discovers that most arguments advocating “gay rights” depend upon hidden false assumptions and
deliberately ambiguous terms. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
Among the most common terms and concepts in the “gay rights” debate are: homosexuality, sexual
orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and
tolerance. These words and phrases are used by “gay” sophists to frame the question of homosexuality
as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves
as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, “gay” arguments are easily
refuted.
WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY?

 

[sarahraegraham]

Hello fellow college student!! Well, your in luck ( i think), Just last year I was in the SAME situation as yourself…it was an ethnic studies class…anyhow at the time I wasnt practicing a religion, so, I argued my beliefs against same-sex marriage as much from the secular point as possible…thinking about whats good for myself, others, my child…society…how people function…God…well…I’m catholic now <----lil’ short story…

but here are some points you might have to argue…

-It’s an INFRINGMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS:

Marriage was defined by ‘God’ and the church as a union between a man and a woman. And there are people that really and truly believe that. In God, in marriage, in their religion. And they’ve been believing that for a long time. I think that to come and have the government of all things tell them that they are going to redefine something as sacred as marriage is an infringement on their religious freedoms. Really! Would it be any more fair to parade into a Buddhist temple and dissect their beliefs? That is why there is separation of state and church. They provide Civil unions for those who don’t believe or do not follow the churches teachings. I wish the best for homosexual couples and hope they enjoy the same rights and privileges that marriage does, but ‘marriage’ is a religious ceremony and therefore should be left to the church. Another point would be that if they have Civil Unions in their state that offer them the same partner rights as marriage, why would they pursue the term? **Partner rights the state can give you, religious acceptance they can not. **

**Good luck and wear your brass knuckles!!! **

Hey Char! Your thoughts here on religious liberties got me thinking. I’ve always been under the impression (and someone can correct me here if I’m wrong) that marriage has always been a religious institution, and that it only began to be regulated by the state when property rights and such came into play. Now, if that’s true, then the state has no right to redefine it. I guess one solution to that whole problem (and I am NOT at all saying I would endorse this, but just some food for thought here) would be to rid the state of all control of “marriages”, and replace them with civil unions which could be hetero or homosexual, which would maintain the sanctity of “marriage” as a religious institution and leave the state to deal with it only in the legal aspect, as it should. Then what would happen is, say, a Catholic couple would be married in the church and then apply for a state “civil union” license to ensure the legalities of their union. If anyone wants to comment or elaborate on that, that’s fine with me… Kind of a tangent, but I don’t mind.

 

[Holly3278]

I posted this in the evangelization forum as well, but I would like to get some more responses. … Fyi, I’ve already read the documents in the C.A. library on this topic. Thanks!

Alrighty… I could use some assistance from all of you. I am a college student preparing to enter the realm of defense of traditional marriage at school. I’m not great at debating with words; I’m much better when I can write, taking time to think and phrase properly what I want to say, so this whole in-class thing will be a challenge for me. I’d like to get some good thoughts from you all, and/or some good resources, so that mentally I will be prepared with defenses, especially those that work no matter what a person’s faith may be.

We’ll be entering into a chapter on the subject in our text, and it asks us questions relating to the subject matter, so that’s what I’m looking to prepare for. Here are the questions… Oh, and (although I should not be surprised at the way a secular text misrepresents Catholic teaching, I am) the text states the following patently misleading statement as fact: “Early Christianity endorsed the position that sex is evil and degrading and should be indulged in only by married couples and only for the purpose of procreation. This remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.” And it cites things such as that Alfred Kinsey’s survey of American males is proof positive that sexual orientation is a myth and that all people are both homo and heterosexual. Yeah, so that’s what I’m working with here. Anyhoo, here are the questions we’ll be asked during discussion that I could use some help with:

(1) Do you believe same-sex marriages should be legalized?

and

(2) The question is, do you have judgemental tapes in your head about GLBT people?, and what I’m asking for this one is, thoughts and ideas on how to counter that judging is not necessarily a bad thing (we make judgements about things all the time, etc.), and how to counter this in a positive light.

I want to be a good witness for the truth, but many times when an issue becomes emotionally charged (and anything counter to my faith really hurts my heart) I’m no longer able to control my emotions. I’m hoping some good prep (with your help) will help me in that. Thanks!

Same-sex marriage most definitely should not be legalized.

Also, I don’t know what you mean by having judgmental tapes in ones head. I don’t judge GLBT people. I know a person who is gay and he is one of my best friends. He is an active homosexual but I still love him as another person. I pray for him that he would learn the error of his ways and become celibate.

 

[carinapir]

Hey Char! Your thoughts here on religious liberties got me thinking. I’ve always been under the impression (and someone can correct me here if I’m wrong) that marriage has always been a religious institution, and that it only began to be regulated by the state when property rights and such came into play. Now, if that’s true, then the state has no right to redefine it. I guess one solution to that whole problem (and I am NOT at all saying I would endorse this, but just some food for thought here) would be to rid the state of all control of “marriages”, and replace them with civil unions which could be hetero or homosexual, which would maintain the sanctity of “marriage” as a religious institution and leave the state to deal with it only in the legal aspect, as it should. Then what would happen is, say, a Catholic couple would be married in the church and then apply for a state “civil union” license to ensure the legalities of their union. If anyone wants to comment or elaborate on that, that’s fine with me… Kind of a tangent, but I don’t mind.

This has been thought of. I’ve argued it myself but the CC will not allow members to vote for civil unions. I don’t have the specifics to reference but there you go. I kind of like the idea myself.

I was reading on the other thread that you posted and someone had brought up a very good argument. The adoption issue is a biggy. The rest of the arguments in the links I posted for you don’t really hold much water for me personally without religion to back them up, but growing up with a single-mother, I know what it’s like to be raised without a male figure in my life. It’s not hellish or anything, and children raised by two mothers or fathers would survive, but it there is definitely something lacking. I have absolutely tortured my boyfriend of 10 years in ways that I know I would not have if I’d had a father. However, for me it was that my father left rather than died or anything noble.

 

[Charlotte408]

Hey Char! Your thoughts here on religious liberties got me thinking. I’ve always been under the impression (and someone can correct me here if I’m wrong) that marriage has always been a religious institution, and that it only began to be regulated by the state when property rights and such came into play. Now, if that’s true, then the state has no right to redefine it. I guess one solution to that whole problem (and I am NOT at all saying I would endorse this, but just some food for thought here) would be to rid the state of all control of “marriages”, and replace them with civil unions which could be hetero or homosexual, which would maintain the sanctity of “marriage” as a religious institution and leave the state to deal with it only in the legal aspect, as it should. Then what would happen is, say, a Catholic couple would be married in the church and then apply for a state “civil union” license to ensure the legalities of their union. If anyone wants to comment or elaborate on that, that’s fine with me… Kind of a tangent, but I don’t mind.

ok sarah…i been down that line of thought and … this is where i wound up…take it a step farther…

ask, why DO the states recognize marriage? Why DO they offer tax breaks for married couples? WHY DO MARRIED people get all the perks they do??

It all goes back to the family. Its THE FUNDAMENTAL cell of a society. Marriage has perks because for a society to EXIST, people need to get together and have kids…marriage promotes population…while the state CANT ignore marriages, because society NEEDS heterosexual couples…they can provide civil unions separately from them for those who do not adhere to the religious beliefs…i would dare say i’d be open to a ‘civil union’ between same sex’s, providing them the same rights…but even then…its a slippery slope…

anyone can correct me if im wrong…lol…im kinda wingin’ it myself…lol…

ALso…when i was doing research, i found that there are countries in europe who have nationalized same sex marriage- and it DESTROYED their societies…were talkin’ its gone to the PITS…look that up too for back up…

 

[carinapir]

ok sarah…i been down that line of thought and … this is where i wound up…take it a step farther…

ask, why DO the states recognize marriage? Why DO they offer tax breaks for married couples? WHY DO MARRIED people get all the perks they do??

It all goes back to the family. Its THE FUNDAMENTAL cell of a society. Marriage has perks because for a society to EXIST, people need to get together and have kids…marriage promotes population…while the state CANT ignore marriages, because society NEEDS heterosexual couples…they can provide civil unions separately from them for those who do not adhere to the religious beliefs…i would dare say i’d be open to a ‘civil union’ between same sex’s, providing them the same rights…but even then…its a slippery slope…

anyone can correct me if im wrong…lol…im kinda wingin’ it myself…lol…

ALso…when i was doing research, i found that there are countries in europe who have nationalized same sex marriage- and it DESTROYED their societies…were talkin’ its gone to the PITS…look that up too for back up…

The Catholic Church does not allow its members to support same-sex civil unions. Even so, I doubt that there are any countries that have been DESTROYED by same-sex marriages. That would have been on CNN.

Also, the argument that we’d all go extinct, which is what your first argument reminds me of, is not very convincing. There will still be plenty of heterosexual couples if homosexual couples are allowed to marriage. We won’t all turn homosexual.

 

[Lynxdk]

It all goes back to the family. Its THE FUNDAMENTAL cell of a society. Marriage has perks because for a society to EXIST, people need to get together and have kids…marriage promotes population…while the state CANT ignore marriages, because society NEEDS heterosexual couples…

The problem with that argument is that it’s not logically sound. Society can potentially continue to exist without heterosexual marriage Period. Children can be born without marriage. Arrangements from adoption to artificial insemination to “deals” worked out between differing pairs of homosexual partners in order to have children of their own… so the argument comes back to religious grounds…

I’m ~not~ trying to pick a fight or start an argument… it might be helpful for the OP to see what they’re up against, and I’m happy to intrude for that purpose if I keep having the time for it … and I’m sure some will enjoy disabusing me of my notions…

 

[sarahraegraham]

The problem with that argument is that it’s not logically sound. Society can potentially continue to exist without heterosexual marriage Period. Children can be born without marriage. Arrangements from adoption to artificial insemination to “deals” worked out between differing pairs of homosexual partners in order to have children of their own… so the argument comes back to religious grounds…

I’m ~not~ trying to pick a fight or start an argument… it might be helpful for the OP to see what they’re up against, and I’m happy to intrude for that purpose if I keep having the time for it … and I’m sure some will enjoy disabusing me of my notions…

By all means, play devil’s advocate!

 

[sarahraegraham]

The problem with that argument is that it’s not logically sound. Society can potentially continue to exist without heterosexual marriage Period. Children can be born without marriage. Arrangements from adoption to artificial insemination to “deals” worked out between differing pairs of homosexual partners in order to have children of their own… so the argument comes back to religious grounds…

I’m ~not~ trying to pick a fight or start an argument… it might be helpful for the OP to see what they’re up against, and I’m happy to intrude for that purpose if I keep having the time for it … and I’m sure some will enjoy disabusing me of my notions…

While the argument could be made (and rightly so) that society could continue to exist without heterosexual marriage by using the means you’ve listed above, I think it would be evident to all that a society existing and procreating in that way could not be considered “natural”. Now, whether or not people would care about that is another thing altogether. But it would seem that if homosexuals would take use the argument that they believe that their sexual orientation is “natural” in that it’s something they did not choose/were born with/however you want to word it (whether or not there is evidence now or in the future to back it up), then it would follow that then having to procreate society in the manner stated above would be “unnatural”. This would fly in the face of the premise for their original behavior/argument, because you cannot have one “natural” state necessarily lead to an “unnatural” state and call that logical.

Hope that makes sense to y’all.