How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?

[Michael_VPV]

I am having a debate with a friend fo mine who, while Christian, basically holds the position that gay marriage is okay as long as his church is not forced to marry homosexuals. Basically he comes from a nondenominational perspective, so saying marriage is a sacrament doesn’t work. Also, he accuses me of supporting a theocracy when I say that states shouldn’t allow gay marriage and that its intolerant to deny them their rights. He also says that as Christians we have to love others. I tried to tell him how while I don’t support marriage, I am not for violence or discrimination of gays and even recognize some people are born with same sex inclinations (which is why i’m against conversion therapy unless the person wants this… is this in line with church teaching btw?) so how do I argue this. It’s complicated because he is a very devout Christian, but its complicated because he’s very knowledgeable and believes in a lot of typical non-denom teachings (earth is 6000 years old, Faith alone etc). Also how do I not come off sounding like some 16th century papal monarchist who wants a theocracy. I don’t want this, but i am sure he’ll make it sound like i do since he always talks about how bad Christendom was and how people didn’t have jesus in their hearts at this time even though it was the law of the land.

I think there is a secular argument for this, which I think is what most governments would need to hold to a position of no same-sex marriage.
It touches on things others have said already.

If the definition of marriage includes “the right to raise children”, there are two ways a same sex couple can achieve this, adoption, and donor conception/ surrogacy. With adoption there is an argument that simply says that raising by two same-sex people as legal “parents” is not “in the best interest of the child” and that therefore it should not be allowed,

Now there is nothing stopping a man/woman couple in their seventies marrying. They would not expect to have children at that age, and would in practice be turned down for adoption ( at least here in the UK). However, as has been mentioned, they are open to having children, and if they do ( remember St Ann!) they are the right people to raise them.

Then there is the other way - what about donor conception/surrogacy? Well, there is a secular argument that children do best ( mental health, delinquency and other such metrics) if they are raised by their parents.
This is also acknowledged in the UN convention on the rights of the Child, 1989, Article 7: " The child shall…have… as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. "

The " as far as possible" scenario allows for adoption in the case of criminal, neglectful or promiscuous parents. It does not allow for surrogacy or donor conception, because care from one or both parents ( as in the man and woman who provided the gametes) is not given " as far as possible", the child is actually created with no intention of it being cared for and or known by at least one of its parents.

Some will argue with this by trying to change the definition of “parent” to some legal definition. But the child’s parents ( as is the case throughout the animal kingdom) are the male and female who produced the sperm and egg.

So, if marriage includes the right to raise children, then there is a disconnect between SS marriage and the UN convention on the rights of the child, article 7 (if the donor-conceived/surrogacy route is taken) and arguably ( in both donor conception and the case of adoption) a violation of
Article 3.1:" In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. "

In the particular case of adoption it can be argued that being raised by a suitable man and woman will always be better for the child than being raised by any same sex couple.

It is worth pointing out that the convention above is a legally binding treaty on all UN members for what thats worth…

So same-sex marriage could be disallowed on these grounds. Some other contractual commitment between same sex couples could be allowed that does not confer the right to adopt, however, that is a state/secular position and not the position of catholics for whom all homosexual *behaviour *is of course a grave sin.

 

[CaliLobo]

There are none.

 

[thewanderer]

There are none.

I have presented some in this thread already. Would you mind looking them over and then explaining to me why you think they aren’t good reasons?

 

[frobert]

Some will argue with this by trying to change the definition of “parent” to some legal definition. But the child’s parents ( as is the case throughout the animal kingdom) are the male and female who produced the sperm and egg.

It is not the definition of parents as a word but the meaning of the word. For you the meaning is biological parents for others it is surrogate parents. Since you brought in the animals let me give you an example. At one time I raised parakeets and cockatiles, I had a one particular cockatiel who loved being a mother. She did not care if it were cockatiels or parakeets she would mother them all. She was at times the biological parent of cockatiels and the surrogate mother of parakeets. She loved them equally and did a great job as a mother.

 

[SyroMalankara]

She loved them equally and did a great job as a mother.

Talk about anthropomorphizing… now the bird is getting human psyche, while humans are supposed to be like animals and unable to control instinct.

 

[SuperLuigi]

There are none.

:dts:

Incorrect.

There are many and gay marriage activists have no answer for them.

 

[frobert]

Talk about anthropomorphizing… now the bird is getting human psyche, while humans are supposed to be like animals and unable to control instinct.

It’s obvious that you never raised birds.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

I have presented some in this thread already. Would you mind looking them over and then explaining to me why you think they aren’t good reasons?

I went back to check and it seems you talk about incest and polygamy, AKA not gay marriage.

You also seem to think the government only makes contracts if it’s beneficial to the government, which isn’t actually the case, the government also gets involved in matters of equality even if it doesn’t actually benefit the government to do so.

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #31
Abu the source you quote does not appear to support you. It simply observes a correlation between homsexuality and mental illness, it doesn’t state that the cause of that correlation. It is really you who have faciley opined the correlation is a causal one.

False.

“A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that “the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.” Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else–not even life and health itself–is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.”
narth.org/docs/whitehead.html

Poor mental health among homosexuals caused by “lifestyle itself” or “discrimination”?
Dr. Neil Whitehead, a scientific research consultant from New Zealand and author of the book “My Genes Made Me Do It - a scientific look at sexual orientation” said in a paper available on the *National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality *(NARTH) website (narth.com/docs/whitehead.html) that “Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.”

However, Dr. Whitehead questions, “Does pressure from society lead to mental health problems?”

“Less, I believe, than one might imagine,” he states. “The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.”

A study by Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute in 2007 revealed that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment.

The researchers found that homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50’s, or in their 40’s if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age of death for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and member of the Catholic Medical Association, observed that there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder. Fitzgibbons says the disorder is accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including “major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships.”
tinyurl.com/mn5wf5c

Do you have Magisterial sources that baldly states that the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation?

Michael Pakaluk (name corrected) is correct and to the point.

In *The Truth About Homosexuality *Fr John F Harvey establishes from *Gaudium et Spes *(#48-51) and *Humanae Vitae * (#8-12) as well as the CCC 1603, 1643 et passim “that there are two inseparable purposes in the marital act, the permanent union of man and woman and the procreation of children.”

Fr Harvey sums up: “Since, then, homosexual activity cannot signify union, it does not tend to unite those who engage in it. This is a contributing factor to the instability of homosexual relationships. In any case, Pakaluk’s argument counters effectively the position that homosexual activity can be justified.” [See op.cit. p 124, 134-5].

 

[thewanderer]

I went back to check and it seems you talk about incest and polygamy, AKA not gay marriage.

You also seem to think the government only makes contracts if it’s beneficial to the government, which isn’t actually the case, the government also gets involved in matters of equality even if it doesn’t actually benefit the government to do so.

Thats actually not at all what I said. I did not in any way condone incest. You can commit to live your life with another person without being in a romantic relationship with that person. That is my point. And so, those who advocate for same-sex marriage because on the basis that since they are committing to share their life together they should receive the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples are discriminating against those who share their lives together without a sexual relationship.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Thats actually not at all what I said. I did not in any way condone incest. You can commit to live your life with another person without being in a romantic relationship with that person. That is my point. And so, those who advocate for same-sex marriage because on the basis that since they are committing to share their life together they should receive the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples are discriminating against those who share their lives together without a sexual relationship.

In what way are they discriminating against them? Could you link an example?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think your arguments are somewhat specious, not to mention illogical.
Sorry

Are “self respecting” heterosexuals offended by the fact that others in the animal world reproduce the same way they do? I think not.

Of course not. That is the NATURAL progression of reproduction. Not the mimicking of natural intercourse by animals or homosexuals.

Oh…and animals aren’t “mimicking”…they are doing what comes natural to them. (You think they watched gay people?)

Well I would give the animals the benefit of the doubt…sometimes they can’t seem to tell the difference between male & female. Maybe gays are mimicking them…

What any of that has to do with bears in the woods is anyone’s guess. But to make your argument more logical, you might have said is it ok for people to S** in the woods (not the streets). OOPS…I reckon it IS. Ever been camping?

No…the example of bears in the woods has a lot to do with it…if gays want to behave like weird animals…fine. Just don’t tell me it is normal…please.

 

[Berg]

“Marriage” is a word that originated with a meaning. Now the not-so-gay community wants to re-define the word, whose origination and definition actually speaks against their goals.

In my not so top-notch research, “maritus” seems to actually be Latin for a man who wed a “mari,” a lady. So the word itself comes from a man wedding a lady.

Interesting.

Gay couples have to “kidnap” children from true marriages, to create a false family. The kidnapped children do not have one of their natural parents. It is stealing the children’s lives, to satisfy their own. Boys may have no father to relate to, or girls may have no mother to relate to. Very sad.

Basic science shows the anatomies are made to be complementary, and so are the hearts and minds. You cannot get electricity by putting two plugs together, only plug and socket. Basic science.

The tragic danger of “gay marriages” is they make what is abnormal appear normal, and lure teens who are trying to find their place in the world, and form their identity, into lifestyles that are extremely dangerous, leading young men to die of AIDS, or young women to be deprived of a protective husband and having their own children, etc.

No gay person should be harmed by society, but neither should gay people harm their neighbors by trying to make a dangerous lifestyle appear safe.

Women have emotional cycles that men’s nature balances out, and men have a rational aloofness that women can warm up and bring heart to. God made each for the other. They have complementary bodies, emotions, natures, mental attitudes. Brain wave studies show this.

People who do not believe in God, try to manipulate the world to suit themselves.

A true Christian wants to learn what God wants, and tries to adjust his/her life to God’s design.

Government reflects the will of the people. We seem to have an organized minority with an agenda to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture from within. It is a cosmic battle, that only prayer and God can win.

It is not loving, to let people form relationships that can lead to their death, physical and spiritual.

I had a friend who died of AIDS. I do not appreciate those who were predators on him and pulled him into this tragic lifestyle. Many men have been subjected to this. It is a great tragedy. To profess it is an okay lifestyle, equal to marriage, is a mockery of marriage and an insult to human intelligence.

You can tell a lie enough times that some will believe it, but it is still a lie. Satan the father of lies is also a murderer, and he is murdering our young men in false marriages.

Your Christian friend needs to think about what he is “allowing.” He is allowing young boys, trying to find their way to manhood, becoming victims to sexual predators who can potentially lead them into great anguish and a painful death.

No Christian wants this for another human being.

It is not love to say, yeah, sure, drive over that cliff. Go with my love.

No, Love tries to protect and guide souls to the Truth, to Life, to God.

Your Christian friend misunderstands Love, and misunderstands how dangerous the gay lifestyle is. Extremely dangerous. Physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

 

[thewanderer]

In what way are they discriminating against them? Could you link an example?

They want the government contract to exclude those who are committed to each other but in a romantic relationship.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

They want the government contract to exclude those who are committed to each other but in a romantic relationship.

Do you have a source for this?

Also, to clarify what you’re saying, if gay marriage is discriminatory against other types of romantic relationships then that’s the reason to not allow it?

 

[Michael_VPV]

I can see this is going to be fun !

It is not the definition of parents as a word but the meaning of the word.

This sounds like one of those statements, which said assertively and with confidence, should refute an argument, but when you look at what is actually being said doesn’t appear to mean a great deal.
Firstly, what is “It” referring to?
Secondly, the difference between “definition” and “meaning” does not make what you are saying at all clear:
Definition - “an explanation of the exact meaning (of a word, term or phrase)” - Chambers Dictionary (English)
Or perhaps you are American and the word means something different:
Definition - “an explanation of the meaning of a word” Merriam-Webster, online.
So it looks like Mr Webster saw no good reason to mess around with the word and its meaning much.

So what you are saying here is “It is not the explanation of the meaning of parents(sic) as a word but the meaning of the word”. Hmmm.

For you the meaning is biological parents for others it is surrogate parents.

Relativism - the modern way to kill arguments by saying that it varies with individuals’ beliefs, in this case, the “Meaning” of “parents”
I don’t think that works though. The definition, or meaning of “parents” that was relevant to the point I was making was the one used by the UN in the convention, and which was agreed by all UN Member countries in the legally binding treaty that was signed. It really doesn’t matter to the argument what you or I think constitutes a parent here.

Inbdividual “meanings” don’t work in these situations ( remember, we are talking about whether governments, should allow SS marriage, not whether individuals should be in favour of it, and not whether the church should allow it, although we are discussing this on a catholic forum).
For example if you went to trial and said to the judge, " I’m sorry, your honour, I did intentionally bludgeon Michael VPV to death with a copy of Webster’s dictionary. I realise that for you this might be murder, but for others murder has a different meaning, therefore I plead not guilty". What do you think your chances would be?
You are applying the same principle here.

The thing is, in the UN Convention of the rights of the child, it is fairly clear that the intended meaning of “parents” is the genetic parents. The wording of the article is as follows:

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

If “parents” means “adults who care for the child” rather than “genetic parents” in this case, then the article means:

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by the adults who care for him/her/it".

So it then becomes a tautology and therefore meaningless. The UN article clearly therefore meant the child’s genetic parents.

As an aside - , this also shows how the entire donor-conception and surrogacy industry is in violation of the UN rights of the child. But that is not the main topic, here.
.

 

[frobert]

I can see this is going to be fun !

This sounds like one of those statements, which said assertively and with confidence, should refute an argument, but when you look at what is actually being said doesn’t appear to mean a great deal.
Firstly, what is “It” referring to?
Secondly, the difference between “definition” and “meaning” does not make what you are saying at all clear:
Definition - “an explanation of the exact meaning (of a word, term or phrase)” - Chambers Dictionary (English)
Or perhaps you are American and the word means something different:
Definition - “an explanation of the meaning of a word” Merriam-Webster, online.
So it looks like Mr Webster saw no good reason to mess around with the word and its meaning much.

So what you are saying here is “It is not the explanation of the meaning of parents(sic) as a word but the meaning of the word”. Hmmm.

Relativism - the modern way to kill arguments by saying that it varies with individuals’ beliefs, in this case, the “Meaning” of “parents”
I don’t think that works though. The definition, or meaning of “parents” that was relevant to the point I was making was the one used by the UN in the convention, and which was agreed by all UN Member countries in the legally binding treaty that was signed. It really doesn’t matter to the argument what you or I think constitutes a parent here.

Inbdividual “meanings” don’t work in these situations ( remember, we are talking about whether governments, should allow SS marriage, not whether individuals should be in favour of it, and not whether the church should allow it, although we are discussing this on a catholic forum).
For example if you went to trial and said to the judge, " I’m sorry, your honour, I did intentionally bludgeon Michael VPV to death with a copy of Webster’s dictionary. I realise that for you this might be murder, but for others murder has a different meaning, therefore I plead not guilty". What do you think your chances would be?
You are applying the same principle here.

The thing is, in the UN Convention of the rights of the child, it is fairly clear that the intended meaning of “parents” is the genetic parents. The wording of the article is as follows:

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

If “parents” means “adults who care for the child” rather than “genetic parents” in this case, then the article means:

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by the adults who care for him/her/it".

So it then becomes a tautology and therefore meaningless. The UN article clearly therefore meant the child’s genetic parents.

As an aside - , this also shows how the entire donor-conception and surrogacy industry is in violation of the UN rights of the child. But that is not the main topic, here.
.

I have nothing against you attempting to convince others of the meaning you place on particular words. No matter how eloquent your arguments may be at the end of the day the civil use a the words marriage and parenting are what the state says they are. and the CC use of the words for Catholics are what the CC says.

 

[Michael_VPV]

I have nothing against you attempting to convince others of the meaning you place on particular words. No matter how eloquent your arguments may be at the end of the day the civil use a the words marriage and parenting are what the state says they are. and the CC use of the words for Catholics are what the CC says.

Thank you for implying that my arguments are eloquent ( I do genuinely take that as a complement) . Your point though is again tautological: If the state can redefine what it means by “marriage” and “parent” ( not “parenting” although I understand the American fondness for turning nouns into verbs) then the OP’s question becomes meaningless. The state can allow “same sex marriage” by calling anything it likes that does not offend anybody “same sex marriage”. So in that case there is no longer a reason to debate it.
Although the state can and does redefine word meanings to suit its own agenda, when a state signed up to the UN Convention on the rights of the child, it had to agree with the definition used in the treaty ( otherwise we get a situation like the murder example I used in my last post).

That’s also why near the start of my first post I stated “If the definition of marriage includes…” as I anticipated discussions over the meanings of terms getting in the way.

 

[MacQ]

False.

“A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. ].

I find your argument flawed…as it’s based on key words “in its most extreme form”.

Therefore, you could make the same claim of mental derangement, psychiatric illness, neurosis or moral depravity about ANYTHING “in its most extreme form”.

Eating becoming gluttony…Conscience becoming scruples…Dieting becoming anorexia…Religion becoming jihad (or inquisition)…

 

[Michael_VPV]

She loved them equally and did a great job as a mother.

Talk about anthropomorphizing… now the bird is getting human psyche, while humans are supposed to be like animals and unable to control instinct.

It’s obvious that you never raised birds.

Love it! So now, the authority on what is a parent comes from whether or not somebody has raised birds, in particular cockatiels and parakeets.

In which case frobert, I’ll see your “Its obvious that you never raised birds” and raise you a BSc(Hons) in Biology.

Suffice to say that attributing love ( or any other emotion) to any living thing other than a human being was the sin of anthropomorphism and would have led to an immediate fail at my university…