Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

[Lynxdk]

I might also include with artificial means also can come multiple children… and then they have to choose to abort some (which is intrinsically wrong) and keep one, or carry them all to term and they’re often born premature and live with health issues (health issues that are avoidable by the natural way)… so even unnatural means of having children with that method isn’t a “solution” (assuming replacing a hetero society with a homosexual one, which is really going overboard, but just “for example”

oops, I was supposed to be arguing the other way… I’ll be back

p.s. don’t forget to research and cite sources for the arguments you choose

 

[camerong]

Sorry, I’m going to go against others here are say that you have little basis to say that gay marriage is wrong outside of religion. Why? There’s no basis to say that ANYTHING is wrong outside of religion. If people say that “it feels wrong,” alluding to their natural sense of morality, but say that this morality is not from a higher power, than what significance is one’s ideas of morals? You say it hurts kids, but what is wrong with hurting kids? If we decide morality for ourselves, outside of God, than I might well conclude that my sexual pleasure is superior to the welfare of children. Certainly many have, in fact, made this conclusion.

**We should follow God’s truth not because it happens to make sense to us, terribly flawed and mistaken humans, but because it is God’s truth.

I would also humbly suggest that our job on Earth is to lead people to Christ, not to win debates. Arguing over gay marriage, especially using the secular points already brought up in this thread, is a tremendous way to push people away from His Church. A much more humble and Christ-like response is to say that God’s ways are not our ways. He has made His Ruling very clear in His Church, and you will trust and follow it without a single reason besides that it is from God.**

 

[Lynxdk]

I would also humbly suggest that our job on Earth is to lead people to Christ, not to win debates.

The point of this thread is the OP is in a class in which they have to argue the point, so is looking for help refuting homosexual marriage in (I assume) a debate format.

Arguing over gay marriage, especially using the secular points already brought up in this thread, is a tremendous way to push people away from His Church.

I agree, arguing about it is indeed pushing people away from Christ.

A much more humble and Christ-like response is to say that God’s ways are not our ways. He has made His Ruling very clear in His Church, and you will trust and follow it without a single reason besides that it is from God.

That works for you, not for people outside the Church.

 

[Charlotte408]

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.

I understand the CC doesnt support civil unions, but just that in itself isnt going to help our friend out too much in the secular arena of her classroom- so for conversations sake??

And as far as ‘other countries’ and the institution of marriage completely disintergrating…

here:

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0079.html

or if you want secular here:

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0079.html

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.

Oh I dont mean it in the way that ‘we’ll all go extinct’…if thats what you took from it than i apologize…but its only freakn common sense that a country would need…people…especially for like…armies…idk…just thinking…

 

[lil_flower_luv]

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.

No, but everything starts in and with the family. I know it’s been said before, but when the definition of “family” is unclear, society itself becomes unclear. I don’t see why our society wouldn’t be “destroyed” if homosexual marriage became the norm.

God’s blessings on you.
+JMJ+

 

[Lynxdk]

Just to point something out to the OP… I’m not trying to be intentionally obtuse and pick apart your post just for the sake of argument, etc… but I think the OP’s best place to start would be to research the arguments ~for~ it and find flaws in their arguments from there (some of the links provided previously have some good starting points)… you won’t find a great many arguments for it here but you can always bring them here for help picking them apart, I’m sure. So…

No, but everything starts in and with the family. I know it’s been said before, but when the definition of “family” is unclear, society itself becomes unclear. I don’t see why our society wouldn’t be “destroyed” if homosexual marriage became the norm.

The same ways societies have adapted to change since the beginning. The “traditional nuclear family” only exists in fairy tales. “It takes a village to raise a child” has never been more true than it is today, only now the “village” is much much larger.

As for the word “Family”, the definition has been unclear for a long time:
1.
a. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
2. All the members of a household under one roof.
3. A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at collective noun.
4. Lineage, especially distinguished lineage.
5. A locally independent organized crime unit, as of the Cosa Nostra.
6.
a. A group of like things; a class.
b. A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the family of human beings.
7. Biology A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking below an order and above a genus. A family usually consists of several genera. See Table at taxonomy.
8. Linguistics A group of languages descended from the same parent language, such as the Indo-European language family.
9. Mathematics A set of functions or surfaces that can be generated by varying the parameters of a general equation.
10. Chemistry A group of elements with similar chemical properties.
11. Chemistry A vertical column in the periodic table of elements

Not to mention that to say it that way “if homosexual marriage became the norm” has a hint of trying to say that if we allow homosexual marriages, then they will become “the norm” as in all marriages will become homosexual marriages.

(I know that’s not what you meant, lil flower

Back to the OP,
You can also find plenty of other threads dealing with different aspects of this subject that have been had in the past with the forum search too, like this one:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=337081

 

[camerong]

Insofar as you must debate this, I think these are the best arguments you must overcome (the arguments which persuaded me before I was Catholic). Here are common answers to our objections against gay marriage in quotes, and what I consider a reasonably response in brackets.

Saying that children need a mother and a father is a farce when half of kids are raised by single, straight parents. It would be a remarkable inconsistency to say that two women can’t raise a kid, but a single woman can.

Saying that traditional protects the family unit is similarly farcical, given the state of divorce in this country. The family unit is unquestionably far more under attack because of divorce than gay marriage. How many marriages do you know of that have been destroyed by gay marriage? How many have ended in divorce? Also, I would submit, the divorce rate began to skyrocket back when homosexuality was still considered a disorder by the APA, long before states began considering allowing gays to marry, so one cannot say that current divorce rate is the result of homosexual marriage.

[A response to these above two could be that the divorce rate AND gay marriage both stem from a lack of respect for the family–the problem with that is that homosexuals may want strong families, just families with two men or two women. They could counter that divorce is the result of people being less committed to one another, which is at least partially true]

Saying that gay marriage should be prohibited because they are nonprocreative fails, because we allow and encourage marriage among couples who plan on not procreating, or who are unable to procreate.

Saying that gay marriage contradicts the “natural law” also fails, because so does oral sex, so does contraception, so does abortion, so does a million other things our society freely permits. A man sticking a penis in another man’s rectum is no more unnatural than a man wrapping his penis in latex before sticking it into a female. In fact, the former is seen among male primates in their “natural” state, in the wild, unlike the latter (i.e. male monkeys raping other males. Look it up).

[While a Catholic might well say that condoms are not acceptable in the same way as gay marriage is not acceptable, but try telling a room full of college students and a professor that condoms are unacceptable. That is the equivalent of quoting from the Bible]

Saying that traditional marriage simply means a man and a woman, and so its not discriminating to say no homosexuals, is like the owner of a whites-only bar saying “you can’t allow blacks into a whites only bar! The whole point of a whites-only bar is that its for whites only!” Without religion, the community defined marriage, and is free to change its definition. Democracies are never bound by their pasts.

[Here, I think, you can appeal to the fact that the majority of every state does not wish to expand marriage to homosexuals; if the definition of marriage is indeed malleable as they argue, which it absolutely is without religion, that is immaterial because no majority wants to change it]

Anyway, good luck! If you cannot humbly decline a debate, you might as well be as prepared as possible, so its good you’re reviewing the arguments.*

 

[LittleBits]

Yes, gay ppl should be allowed to get married, why not? I am gay, and a member of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the world at large. My love is just as valid as my straight counterparts love, and even more to the point, I did not choose to be gay anymore than I chose to be male or human.
The Church keeps talking about sex and marriage being two-fold; to bring a couple closer together and to procreate. I agree with the first part, but the procreation part is where my views diverge. What if someone doesn’t want to be a parent, why shouldn’t they be able to make that decision and still explore the sexual part of their relationship? What if the man was born without testicles, or the woman born without a uterus (or perhaps she had a hysterectomy), do you mean to tell me they can’t have sex because they cannot procreate?

 

[Charlotte408]

abortion/contraception/ etc are deemed ‘ok’ because society has accepted a relativism of ‘truth’…

50/60 yrs ago, if a woman went out and had an abortion- people would be appaulled…

but hey…if you grow up…everyones havin’ em on fridays after hittin’ mcdonalds…and its legal right?? so who are YOU to say its wrong?? people become desensitized and after awhile…it becomes normal…and hey…why not? we’ve been doing it all this time and it hasnt rained sulfuric acid…

SAD-

and as far as ‘arguing about it pushes people away from Christ’ SHAME ON YOU…you’d give up the good fight so easily??? and im a recent convert!!! lol…if you LOVE someone, you tell them the truth, you have thier best interest in heart…you dont give up…and I dont think you can be christian without following christ’s teachings and I’m pretty sure his teachings on homosexuality are clear.

To allow same sex marriages is like allowing someone to live in a lie. They’re only fooling themselves…

Good example. My daughter comes home. addicted to heroin. I love my daughter, but I’m not going to tell her, I love you so much, go ahead and keep doing it because I just accept that your an addict. BTW, if you want to use a straight across the board example, my daughter comes home and tells me shes lesbian. I would tell her, I love you so much, and always will, however I completely disagree with the lifestyle you have choosen (as I would if she was a stripper or a porn star…or any other thing that could hurt her emotionally or physically) and I’d work my BEHIND off getting my relationship tight with her again…find out what the heck shes goin thru…

Anyways back to why I came here…

Go here: tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Its the secular case for gay marriage…and its a good one

 

[Charlotte408]

Yes, gay ppl should be allowed to get married, why not? I am gay, and a member of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the world at large. My love is just as valid as my straight counterparts love, and even more to the point, I did not choose to be gay anymore than I chose to be male or human.

Nobody would argue that you love at any less a degree than the next person…

The Church keeps talking about sex and marriage being two-fold; to bring a couple closer together and to procreate. I agree with the first part, but the procreation part is where my views diverge. What if someone doesn’t want to be a parent, why shouldn’t they be able to make that decision and still explore the sexual part of their relationship?

Well, if someone doesnt want to be a parent, there is always abstinence. And, I believe, the whole point of marriage, is that its somewhat a ‘vocation’…like, a nun is called to the church…or a priest…a woman might be ‘called’ to marriage…to be a wife…to accept her role (as only a woman can be) as mother. Yes, a man has a like role, being he would be the father. Those roles dont/arent supposed to be swapped around…and as far as exploring the sexual part of your relationship…by all means! lol…EXPLORE…with your husband. (or wife…lol…not sure what your sex is sorry!!)

What if the man was born without testicles, or the woman born without a uterus (or perhaps she had a hysterectomy), do you mean to tell me they can’t have sex because they cannot procreate?

Yes, if physcially they are able to have sex, then, why wouldnt they?? With someone of the opposite sex. And no, they wouldnt be able to procreate, given their state. Not sure what point you were making here…

 

[sarahraegraham]

Yes, gay ppl should be allowed to get married, why not? I am gay, and a member of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the world at large. My love is just as valid as my straight counterparts love, and even more to the point, I did not choose to be gay anymore than I chose to be male or human.
The Church keeps talking about sex and marriage being two-fold; to bring a couple closer together and to procreate. I agree with the first part, but the procreation part is where my views diverge. What if someone doesn’t want to be a parent, why shouldn’t they be able to make that decision and still explore the sexual part of their relationship? What if the man was born without testicles, or the woman born without a uterus (or perhaps she had a hysterectomy), do you mean to tell me they can’t have sex because they cannot procreate?

Hi LittleBits… While I appreciate your thoughts, this thread is about how I can defend against gay marriage, which is against our Catholic faith, no room for disagreement if we are orthodox in our faith. If you would like to debate on that topic, there are other threads. This is not one of them.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\You can then go into incest and all sorts of fun tangents until the class decides to revise the definition further. \

**This is typical of those arguing against homosexuality–side issues are invoked that are not germane to the discussion.

As a matter of fact, the first marriages HAD to be incestuous, if the Bible is taken literally.

Abraham’s wife Sarah was really his half-sister.

Queen Victoria married her first cousin Prince Albert–something illegal in the laws of many nations.**

 

[carinapir]

I understand the CC doesnt support civil unions, but just that in itself isnt going to help our friend out too much in the secular arena of her classroom- so for conversations sake??

I suppose, but you can’t argue the CC’s position by compromising when it does not. It doesn’t seem relevant to discuss it if the OP really can’t technically use it to her advantage. And if some one else in the class knows that CC doesn’t support it and the OP suggests it, then the OP is hosed.

 

[Nec5]

\You can then go into incest and all sorts of fun tangents until the class decides to revise the definition further. \

**This is typical of those arguing against homosexuality–side issues are invoked that are not germane to the discussion.

As a matter of fact, the first marriages HAD to be incestuous, if the Bible is taken literally.

Abraham’s wife Sarah was really his half-sister.

Queen Victoria married her first cousin Prince Albert–something illegal in the laws of many nations.**

They are definitely germane. This is where homosexuality supporters crawdad and get stuck as you have. The key here is how you define marriage. If you define it, as most progressives do today, as “two consenting adults”, then incest will become acceptable. They are consenting adults. This cannot be avoided and is an absolutely logical application of the new definition. It is germane.

Why are you referring back to the Bible? The original poster is looking for purely secular arguments. What does Queen Victoria’s marriage have to do with a new definition of marriage except to say “anything has and should be accepted”?

 

[Charlotte408]

ok heres one for the slippery slope of what same sex marriage can open the door for…

NAMBLA…and organization for men and consenting boys to…well…you know…they’re just waiiiting for same sex marriage to pass so they can throw in their agenda…people that say it WONT open the doors for other perversions are flat out wrong or lying…

but then they might throw that ‘subjective’ argument out there…

‘whats wrong for you might not be wrong for me’ in which case if they truly believe that men having sex with consenting minor boys is ok- i might just barf

 

[kgbdman]

My two cents FWIW:
(1) Do you believe same-sex marriages should be legalized?

Absolutely NOT! and I can’t stand the sympathizers of Connecticut for legalizing it!

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.

Judgemental tapes in my head, I’m not sure I know what that is, however, my response to people of “another persuasion” is we as a Catholic Community DO NOT condemn the sinner (homosexual or otherwise) we condemn the sin (homosexuality)! God will do the Final Judgment besides! I don’t think judging is a bad thing, it can be done proactively and positively without harm. As others have said here our responsibility as Christians is to lead people to Jesus; that may require judgment to point out the correct path to take. Let’s not confuse judgment with conviction, sentencing and punishment.

Thanks for letting chime in.

Peace,
Jim

 

[Benadam]

I think it’s a good idea to keep anchored in natural law. A few things I think important to the debate related to being able to define the terms as mentioned in a previous post.

Refer to marriage as the matrimonial bond as much as possible. Marriage describes any two distinct things that are joined to make one thing.

The matrimonial bond is very primal. It means literally ‘a bond to a mother.’ It’s a bond that creates a safe environment for generating offspring. It’s required. The male black widow will vouch for that. It’s natural duration parallel’s the requirements of copulation and or the needs off the offspring. For us the environment that the matrimonial bond creates must be a projection of intellect.

Newly emerging human intellect requires that the maternal environment recieving it be structured by authentic freedom. That fact has deep implications.

Civil society is the child of the matrimonial bond. Societies that enshrined it developed into civil society as we know it. Not that the Aldous Huxley version isn’t a possibility now. :twocents:

 

[sans_Delilah]

Yes, Marriage between same-sex couples should be legalized.

Biblical arguments should not be entered into the legislative arena per the Separation of Church and State.

And as for the concept that “God” defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, and it therefore being a religious term, I submit that if that is the case, marriage should cease to be a legal term.

But as it is, marriage is at this point in the United States a legal concept, much like a business partnership.

I justify this with the reasoning that there are a VAST number of marriages performed that are not Christian ceremonies, yet under the law, they carry the same weight as Christian marriages.

So clearly, United States Law and policy regards marriage as a legal term and not a religious one, and thus the Separation of Church and State dictates that it cannot be both.

So as marriage is a legal term, the Constitution’s equal protection clause would render bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

And I won’t even dignify the notion that legalized same-sex marriage would destroy the family unit with a response.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, Marriage between same-sex couples should be legalized.

Biblical arguments should not be entered into the legislative arena per the Separation of Church and State.

And as for the concept that “God” defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, and it therefore being a religious term, I submit that if that is the case, marriage should cease to be a legal term.

But as it is, marriage is at this point in the United States a legal concept, much like a business partnership.

I justify this with the reasoning that there are a VAST number of marriages performed that are not Christian ceremonies, yet under the law, they carry the same weight as Christian marriages.

So clearly, United States Law and policy regards marriage as a legal term and not a religious one, and thus the Separation of Church and State dictates that it cannot be both.

So as marriage is a legal term, the Constitution’s equal protection clause would render bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

And I won’t even dignify the notion that legalized same-sex marriage would destroy the family unit with a response.

Separation of church and state is a myth.

 

[sans_Delilah]

Separation of church and state is a myth.

A myth in practice, perhaps.

Take a look at something, if you will. We call it the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson himself said that the First Amendment was to create “a wall of separation between church and State.”

So as ill-enforced as it may be, Separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental policies of United States law. Simply saying that it’s a myth isn’t going to remove its presence from the Constitution.