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

[barts61]

My point is, that today, the original reasons are no longer the reasons… now it’s all about feelings of the couple.

As for polygamy, it’s coming, and it’s been legal in many places… The reason why it was not in the United States is merely due to the complexity, and negative reaction by fundamentalist/protestant groups.

Wow! So let me try to understand your logic here. The only reason to marry is to procreate…not have “feelings/love” for one another. That is totally messed up.

 

[frobert]

Yes, because those can all be legislated and/or contracted - just streamline and simplify the process. There’s a reason why “marriage” was what was wanted and that it was selected - feelings.

If you say so.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Wow! So let me try to understand your logic here. The only reason to marry is to procreate…not have “feelings/love” for one another. That is totally messed up.

Let me understand your logic, the only reason to marry is to have “feelings” for one another?

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Grace & Peace!

This isn’t necessarily the case. Homosexuality is much more public these days, and both public vocal approval and disapproval are commensurately increased. This means that young gay folks coming to terms with their sexuality are experiencing a lot more pressure from both sides to define themselves in particular ways that can be incredibly confusing.

On the one hand, the “approval” camp insists on a vision of what it means to be gay that places a heavy value on unquestionably accepting your “self” and being publically out in a way that resonates with a lot of images of homosexuality on television, which images are often: white, male, affluent. If you’re not white, male and affluent, but you are gay, you’re going to have some issues fitting into the image of homosexuality that’s offered by many approving folks (including the often culutrally-reinforced suspicion that only white folks are gay and that, should you be Latino, for instance, you’ll be inauthentically Latino if you’re authentically gay). Moreover if you’re not sure of the drift of your affections, you’re still going to be pressured to publicly and definitively define yourself in ways that might not be helpful in the long run. The message “trust your feelings” has a limited value generally, though the approval camp sees it as having more of an absolute value. But when everything’s in flux (as it tends to be when you’re young), “trust your feelings” isn’t as universally helpful as some might blithely think and isn’t always indicative of or conducive towards the self-knowledge required to actually be comfortable with your homosexuality, either in public or in private. So living up to all of that pressure to be out and open and to live into a white-washed image of what it means to be gay can be a lot to handle.

On the other hand, the “disapproval” camp will let you know in no uncertain terms that being attracted to folks of the same sex represents varying degrees of physical, mental, or moral illness/disorder. If this is the perspective of your home OR of your peer group OR of your larger community OR of anyone you love, respect or admire (and from whom you might seek approval), to suspect that you might in fact be gay means living into a vision of yourself that is overwhelmingly negative: you cannot help but be fundamentally wrong. You’ll find yourself blamed for the dissolution of the moral fabric of your community; you’ll find that your capacity to be attracted to others of the same sex is seen as an endless source of evils; you’ll find that people tend to believe they know a lot more about the drift of your affections or even your true “nature” than you do and will encourage you to take on their understanding as your own (this is actually true of the “approval” camp as well); you’ll find yourself accused of desiring (and even performing) sexual acts or ways of expressing your sexuality that would have never occurred to you to desire, let alone perform; you’ll find yourself and/or people like you understood as de facto disappointments, failures or betrayers by people you love. You’ll begin to see your capacity to give and receive love as fundamentally diseased or worthless, and you’ll be encouraged to believe that none of your feelings are actually trustworthy. Your self-knowledge will begin and end with a consciousness of other people’s perception of your own wrongness. This is poisonous.

So with both sides being so much more vocal these days, it’s no surprise to me that LGBT folks (especially LGBT youth) are caught in the crossfire and suffer for it. I don’t imagine that the suicide rate will decline significantly any time soon. Even if we were to reach “full acceptance” (whatever that might mean, for either good or ill), the increased visibility that gay folks will experience will continue to cause some of them increased stress and distress. At any rate, a couple more generations are needed, I think, for these suicide numbers to noticeably decline.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Just wanted to quote you because this was a great post. People need to remember this.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Wow! So let me try to understand your logic here. The only reason to marry is to procreate…not have “feelings/love” for one another. That is totally messed up.

You are confusing reasons a person might want to get married with reasons why the society might want to grant special recognition of marriage as an institution. They are very different reasons.

 

[Bookcat]

Catholic Answers has pubished (on the site and off) things on this…

 

[barts61]

This is a Roman Catholic forum. We believe homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

There is also a vast majority of people who do not need a religious organization to tell them that homosexuality is contrary to natural law…they KNOW it is wrong.

How do you explain the animals in the wild, then? God made them.

Researchers describe homosexual behavior in animals as sexual activity, nonreproductive sex , courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs.

Last count, nearly 1,500+ species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species.

Maybe someone should tell them it is wrong.

 

[barts61]

So it’s other people’s fault.

Not necessarily. What I was saying is because homosexuals are treated like second class citizens and their self-esteem can be low (especially teens or others just coming out) they may feel the only way to solve the issue is by suicide. My point is with so many people telling them it is wrong it doesn’t help the situation.

 

[frobert]

How do you explain the animals in the wild, then? God made them.

Researchers describe homosexual behavior in animals as sexual activity, nonreproductive sex , courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs.

Last count, nearly 1,500+ species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species.

Maybe someone should tell them it is wrong.

not that I am against your reasoning but you need to understand that the CC argument is based on Thomistic natural law theory. Thomas sets aside classes of acts in which the ends, in this case procreation, justifies the means. Other natural law theorists come up with different theories.

 

[barts61]

Let me understand your logic, the only reason to marry is to have “feelings” for one another?

I would not marry someone if I did not have “feelings” “chemistry” “love” for that person. To marry someone for other than that would be a life of torment for me, anyway. I might as well stay single and enjoy my company! Plus not every man or woman is able to produce a child - should they be banned from marrying?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I would not marry someone if I did not have “feelings” “chemistry” “love” for that person.

That’s your choice, but it’s a modern Western mentality. “Feelings” and “chemistry” are nice but not the foundation for any relationship, esp. marriage.

To marry someone for other than that would be a life of torment for me, anyway. I might as well stay single and enjoy my company!

Torment? You should probably reset your priorities.

Plus not every man or woman is able to produce a child - should they be banned from marrying?

Legally or ecclesially? Legally, as I stated earlier, there had been a toleration of exceptions to the norm for the purposes of law, today that toleration is expanded to include much more than intended previously. Polygamy and other forms not tolerated before will be coming soon.

 

[MacQ]

Plus not every man or woman is able to produce a child - should they be banned from marrying?

Of course not. The Church only says that they should be open to children. Not that they are required to produce them.
You might want to look at the documents of Vatican II…one of them has a pretty substantive section on marriage, clarifying the importance of the bond between husband and wife. Not just about procreation.

 

[frobert]

That’s your choice, but it’s a modern Western mentality. “Feelings” and “chemistry” are nice but not the foundation for any relationship, esp. marriage.

Torment? You should probably reset your priorities.

Legally or ecclesially? Legally, as I stated earlier, there had been a toleration of exceptions to the norm for the purposes of law, today that toleration is expanded to include much more than intended previously. Polygamy and other forms not tolerated before will be coming soon.

It would be nice to have lawyers chime in on why this is not a likely possibility in the US.

Here is my non-legal take, In the US people who are married to more than one person at a time are bigamist so at the very least the first step needs to legally rule bigamy unconstitutional. Does anyone know of any such cases? I think not.

The only people that are harping on polygamy are those who want to see it tied in with SSM. I find it both annoying and insulting.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

How do you explain the animals in the wild, then? God made them.

Researchers describe homosexual behavior in animals as sexual activity, nonreproductive sex , courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs.

Last count, nearly 1,500+ species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species.

Maybe someone should tell them it is wrong.

I knew only one homosexual and I considered him a friend. He died of AIDS three years ago.

For his sake I am extremely offended by this idiotic comparison of homosexuals and animals. I would think such an argument would offend any self respecting homosexual.

Are you saying that homosexuality should be accepted because animals mimic it?

That’s a good one.

Researchers found out long ago that bears sh** in the woods. Does that mean it is acceptable for homosexuals to sh** in the street?

 

[frobert]

Are you saying that homosexuality should be accepted because animals mimic it?

That’s a good

You are being disingenuous. You know Barts is not saying any such thing.

It is you that is making the comparison with bears sh**ing in the woods.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You are being disingenuous. You know Barts is not saying any such thing.

It is you that is making the comparison with bears sh**ing in the woods.

Barts argument is that animals do something, therefore human beings have no mental/emotional/physical/spiritual capability to do something against their animalistic nature. Quite insulting indeed.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It would be nice to have lawyers chime in on why this is not a likely possibility in the US.

Here is my non-legal take, In the US people who are married to more than one person at a time are bigamist so at the very least the first step needs to legally rule bigamy unconstitutional. Does anyone know of any such cases? I think not.

The only people that are harping on polygamy are those who want to see it tied in with SSM. I find it both annoying and insulting.

Canada’s courts recently upheld the ban on polygamy, but the arguments are coming, slowly at first and eventually you’ll hear the same arguments you hear defending SSM:
A 2005 report by the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre recommended that Canada decriminalize polygamy, stating: “Criminalization is not the most effective way of dealing with gender inequality in polygamous and plural union relationships. Furthermore, it may violate the constitutional rights of the parties involved.”

Sound familiar?

slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

 

[frobert]

You are being disingenuous. You know Barts is not saying any such thing.

It is you that is making the comparison with bears sh**ing in the woods.

I retread Bart’s post. He said nothing pro or con as to humans not having mental/emotional/physical/spiritual capability to do something against their animalistic nature. I don’t mean to be harsh, we have all replied to what we believe the intent is then what was actually written.

 

[MacQ]

I knew only one homosexual and I considered him a friend. He died of AIDS three years ago.

For his sake I am extremely offended by this idiotic comparison of homosexuals and animals. I would think such an argument would offend any self respecting homosexual.

Are you saying that homosexuality should be accepted because animals mimic it?

That’s a good one.

Researchers found out long ago that bears sh** in the woods. Does that mean it is acceptable for homosexuals to sh** in the street?

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.

I think the person was saying that it’s part of nature, as it is widely evident therein.

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

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?

 

[frobert]

Canada’s courts recently upheld the ban on polygamy, but the arguments are coming, slowly at first and eventually you’ll hear the same arguments you hear defending SSM:
A 2005 report by the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre recommended that Canada decriminalize polygamy, stating: “Criminalization is not the most effective way of dealing with gender inequality in polygamous and plural union relationships. Furthermore, it may violate the constitutional rights of the parties involved.”

Sound familiar?

slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Even so you are confusing civil right tactics used be for civil rights with SSM when you try to tie SSM to polygamy. Successful tactics will breed imitation. These tactics where developed over time by many diverse groups. That a civil liberties research group says such a thing is not indicative of courts buying it.

If you are truly concerned why not alert your congressional reps.