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

[barts61]

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

So Catholics are to marry whom ever, regardless if they have feelings/love for one another? A loveless marriage? How can that be good?

 

[barts61]

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.

What I was saying is if God created the animals and they pair with the same sex, then why is it considered wrong for humans to pair with same sex and don’t give me the Bible version of your answer. From what I have been reading on this forum, because the “parts” aren’t compatible (your definition), doesn’t mean that definition applies to everyone (doesn’t mean the same thing).

 

[thewanderer]

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?

No, again, that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that if they want to exclude those who are committed to each other to share their lives together but are ** not ** in a romantic relationship. My source is that no one ever advocates to expand marriage to include these people. They want it expanded to include same-sex romantic relationships but are perfectly fine with excluding committed non-romantic relationships. They may not realize it, but they are discriminating against anyone who commits to share their life in a non-romantic relationship by doing so.

And yes, I would oppose laws that expand marriage to same-sex romantic couples but no further. The reason being partly that that is discriminatory and partly that I think it is very important for the government to be concerned about ensuring its future. Citizens turn out the best they can and one of the leading factors that tends to affect how well kids turn out is whether or not they came from a home with a stable marriage. I think our current legal contract should be modified and streamlined so that it clearly becomes something for the purpose of raising good future citizens and we should have another government contract introduced for anyone who enters a committed relationship with someone else, whether romantic or not.

 

[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.

Thanks, I know this is a catholic forum.

"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

A vast majority, in YOUR opinion. Show me proof.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

No, again, that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that if they want to exclude those who are committed to each other to share their lives together but are ** not ** in a romantic relationship. My source is that no one ever advocates to expand marriage to include these people. They want it expanded to include same-sex romantic relationships but are perfectly fine with excluding committed non-romantic relationships. They may not realize it, but they are discriminating against anyone who commits to share their life in a non-romantic relationship by doing so.

Actually, not advocating for a different group of people doesn’t mean they’re discriminating against them, it simply means they’ve not included them because they don’t see the similarities, or because they chose not to.

For example, say you want to get into a club that almost everyone is allowed in except for your group of people. You advocate for you and others like you to be allowed to enter. Now say there’s a 3rd group of people who you aren’t advocating for. That’s not the same as advocating against, you just simply haven’t included them because they’re not in your group. That’s not discriminating against them as you’re not actually doing anything against them.

But most importantly here, this isn’t actually an argument against gay marriage. Saying “They haven’t included this group” isn’t an answer as to why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed, it’s simply a statement that they haven’t included a different, unrelated, group so therefore gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed. “Why can we not get married?”, “Because you chose not to advocate for this different group”. The next obvious question is “Why does that mean we can’t get married?”.

And yes, I would oppose laws that expand marriage to same-sex romantic couples but no further. The reason being partly that that is discriminatory and partly that I think it is very important for the government to be concerned about ensuring its future. Citizens turn out the best they can and one of the leading factors that tends to affect how well kids turn out is whether or not they came from a home with a stable marriage. I think our current legal contract should be modified and streamlined so that it clearly becomes something for the purpose of raising good future citizens and we should have another government contract introduced for anyone who enters a committed relationship with someone else, whether romantic or not.

Unfortunately the contract isn’t any of those things. You have to come up with a reason as to why they shouldn’t be allowed to marry based on reality and law as it is now, not as you would like it to be. Hypotheticals or wishes aren’t reasons to restrict gay marriage.

 

[frobert]

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…

If you say so.

 

[barts61]

“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.

"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"

I don’t even know where to start with your whole rant. Gay couples DO NOT kidnap any children. They have to go through the legal system like anyone else to adopt. I see the problem with the “heterosexual” couples that produce offspring they do not want and give them up for adoption (rather see that than the child being neglected or abuses). The gays are merely wanting to give that child the best home they can.

By your statement straight couples, who can not conceive “kidnap” children, too, by adoption.

"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."

Gays do not “lure” anyone in. Heterosexual, or otherwise, pedophiles “lure” them in. You assume all gays die from aids - that is incorrect. The protective husband is a real laugh Not all women need a man to protect them.

***"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."***

1. Do you believe if a child goes against his/her parents they should be stoned?
   • you should, it’s in the Bible - a “true” christian would stone their child.
2. There are many more examples in the Bible that say the person should be stoned, but I know of no true christian that would follow through with the stoning.
3. Who are you to say that there are no gay christians?

What is VERY sad is your entire statement.

 

[kozlosap]

Quoted from Berg, in a recent post:

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

What a broad generalization. I know many gay/lesbian couples who have been together over twenty years and their personal relationships are just as valid as a straight couple who have been steadfast and true in their long term marriages. In the end, we are all called to support monogamous family relationships. It is so easy to drop back into the stereotyping trap, until the person being subjected to the stereotyping happens to be your daughter or son or friend that you love with all of your heart.

 

[Berg]

Confused about the “stoning” comments as being Christian, since Christ stopped the stoning of a woman adulterer.

Sadly, I have had a number of men share with me they were raped. Not by women. The gay lifestyle is ruinous and aggressive, and not pedophile, not just children. Although I have a friend who knew somebody who knew the founder of Boy Scouts, and was known to be gay. What a sad situation this is.

Gays want straights to think there is nothing dangerous about their lifestyle. Bologna.

That is a huge Lie.

I used the term kidnapping, because a gay couple cannot produce fruit. They have to take the fruit of a true marriage to create a false family. God’s marriage produces fruit. The very word marriage means a man uniting to a woman, so the gays are trying to use a word rooted in the opposite of what they are doing. Is that not odd?

God loves gays and straights, murderers and sinners. He always tries to bring into his fold.

He simply cannot fulfill His goals for them, if they choose to not follow His guidelines. There are guidelines, which many do not want to recognize.

What next, bestiality? Why not, what is the different. Marry your dog? Why not, who says that is any more wrong? Were does “right” and “wrong” come from?

I have relatives who are gay, so speak from experience, and I know the suffering and betrayal of it. Yes, I love my gay relatives, which is why I am outspoken. I do not enjoy seeing others suffer.

Love does not remain silent when there is suffering, and the gay/lesbian lifestyle is a very painful and isolating one. Two “same sex” clinging to each other, pretending to be “like others,” rather than continuing to grow into the adults God created them to be. I see it actually as major stuck in teenage years, and not emotionally growing. I witness this in their company. It is interesting how some teens actually “outgrow” their “gay years.”

May God bless everybody, straights and those who think they are not straight, and think they are gay, and may we all admit we are all sinners, especially me, and help to protect each other from harm. There is real harm out there. Major dangers!

One of which is the gay lifestyle, and my friend and others who have had friends dying from AIDS.

That is not love, to act like no harm done, and send them into a death of AIDS. You are not anybody’s friend, setting an example that there is no danger to any of this.

The devil works hard to pull us all off track, and the current gay agenda is one of the new major tactics. Not so new really, but currently big time.

 

[barts61]

Confused about the “stoning” comments as being Christian, since Christ stopped the stoning of a woman adulterer.

Sadly, I have had a number of men share with me they were raped. Not by women. The gay lifestyle is ruinous and aggressive, and not pedophile, not just children. Although I have a friend who knew somebody who knew the founder of Boy Scouts, and was known to be gay. What a sad situation this is.

Gays want straights to think there is nothing dangerous about their lifestyle. Bologna.

That is a huge Lie.

I used the term kidnapping, because a gay couple cannot produce fruit. They have to take the fruit of a true marriage to create a false family. God’s marriage produces fruit. The very word marriage means a man uniting to a woman, so the gays are trying to use a word rooted in the opposite of what they are doing. Is that not odd?

God loves gays and straights, murderers and sinners. He always tries to bring into his fold.

He simply cannot fulfill His goals for them, if they choose to not follow His guidelines. There are guidelines, which many do not want to recognize.

What next, bestiality? Why not, what is the different. Marry your dog? Why not, who says that is any more wrong? Were does “right” and “wrong” come from?

I have relatives who are gay, so speak from experience, and I know the suffering and betrayal of it. Yes, I love my gay relatives, which is why I am outspoken. I do not enjoy seeing others suffer.

Love does not remain silent when there is suffering, and the gay/lesbian lifestyle is a very painful and isolating one. Two “same sex” clinging to each other, pretending to be “like others,” rather than continuing to grow into the adults God created them to be. I see it actually as major stuck in teenage years, and not emotionally growing. I witness this in their company. It is interesting how some teens actually “outgrow” their “gay years.”

May God bless everybody, straights and those who think they are not straight, and think they are gay, and may we all admit we are all sinners, especially me, and help to protect each other from harm. There is real harm out there. Major dangers!

One of which is the gay lifestyle, and my friend and others who have had friends dying from AIDS.

That is not love, to act like no harm done, and send them into a death of AIDS. You are not anybody’s friend, setting an example that there is no danger to any of this.

The devil works hard to pull us all off track, and the current gay agenda is one of the new major tactics. Not so new really, but currently big time.

You are assuming all gays are suffering. I know many, many gays - none suffering. The one’s with healthy, normal children either had artificial insemination or adopted legally - hardly kidnapping. I have worked with pedophiles in he past and 1 was homosexual, the rest were heterôsexual and nearly 1/2 of them married with children.

What I was trying to get across with the stoning is there are other things/laws Christians are to follow, but I know they pick and chose what applies to them…leaving the others (eating lobster, wearing mixed clothing material, divorce, etc).

I do not find it odd at all that committed, monogamous same-sex relationships want to get married.

 

[Abu]

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

Pay attention to those who know what they are dealing with – the mental problems are widespread and deep.

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.”

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

 

[Catholic13]

eagleforum.org/topics/marriage/pdf/77reasonsREAD-ONLY.pdf

77 non religious reasons against gay marriage.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Quoted from Berg, in a recent post:

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

What a broad generalization. I know many gay/lesbian couples who have been together over twenty years and their personal relationships are just as valid as a straight couple who have been steadfast and true in their long term marriages. **In the end, we are all called to support monogamous family relationships. **It is so easy to drop back into the stereotyping trap, until the person being subjected to the stereotyping happens to be your daughter or son or friend that you love with all of your heart.

Have you joined the UCC or some reformed Catholic Church not under Rome?

In the end, notwithstanding that you know of loving and monogamous homosexuals in same sex unions, or your son or daughter or friend is in a same sex partnership, Catholics are called not to support same sex “marriage.”

Below is a Q&A that addresses the dilemma of many a Catholic in our current culture.

Are gay friends OK? Having friends who have same-sex attraction is fine, but we all have a duty to care for their salvation Msgr.
Charles Pope OSV Newsweekly
5/21/2014

Question: Can Catholics have gay friends? If so, under what circumstances?

— Charles McKelvy, Harbert, Michigan

Answer: Yes, though as you indicate, circumstances are important.

Some friendships are close and personal, others are more peripheral. Some friendships involve very personal sharing, whereas other friendships involve only a general acquaintance.

Clearly it is more possible to overlook many things with people with whom we are only acquainted, or with whom we simply have professional relationships. In these situations, our obligations to give and receive fraternal correction is less. But close friendships presume many shared values and similar respect for the truth. When such things are lacking in significant areas, close friendships are going to be strained.

Close friends also have greater obligations to instruct and admonish one another (cf. Jas 5:19; Gal 6:1). Hence, it is not the proper nature of a close relationship to simply overlook significant matters.

If I have a close friend and I know he is viewing pornography regularly or living with a woman outside of marriage, I have an obligation as a Christian to seek to correct him. If I have a close friend who is destroying his life with alcohol or drugs, I have obligations to admonish him and assist him to seek help.

All of these principles apply to someone with a homosexual orientation. If I have a close friend with this orientation and he or she is living celibately, this is fine, and I should seek to offer encouragement in this regard. If, however, they are straying into illicit sexual union and/or advocating a gay lifestyle, same-sex unions and so forth, I would have an obligation to instruct and admonish. It is difficult to see how a close relationship could continue if the individual were to utterly reject such correction about such a significant matter. The first concern for close friends ought to be each other’s salvation, not merely their feelings.

If a Christian were too weak to engage in this instruction, then it would seem that the close friendship is not really experienced as a friendship between equals, but a friendship wherein the other person has the upper hand. In this case, one might consider the admonition of Scripture that “bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor 15:33), and seek healthier friendships. For, once pressured to silence, many Christians give tacit approval, and the truth is no longer respected or proclaimed.

,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Have you joined the UCC or some reformed Catholic Church not under Rome?

In the end, notwithstanding that you know of loving and monogamous homosexuals in same sex unions, or your son or daughter or friend is in a same sex partnership, Catholics are called not to support same sex “marriage.”

Below is a Q&A that addresses the dilemma of many a Catholic in our current culture.

With all due respect to the Monsignor, his advice is not good. He does not consider that it is perfectly permissible to be close friends with a person who is not Christian. IF you are friends with a person who is not Christian, it is NOT okay to admonish them. Admonishment assumes common values.

A Christian ought to attempt to lead non-Christian friends to the Church. He should not “admonish” them, unless they agree with the particular values the Church teaches.

(He might encourage them to see the error of their ways. But that is a very different thing from admonishing. And, moreover, it is perfectly possible to be close friends with someone who obstinately refuses to see eye to eye with you on certain moral issues.)

 

[InSearchofGrace]

With all due respect to the Monsignor, his advice is not good. He does not consider that it is perfectly permissible to be close friends with a person who is not Christian. IF you are friends with a person who is not Christian, it is NOT okay to admonish them. Admonishment assumes common values.

A Christian ought to attempt to lead non-Christian friends to the Church. He should not “admonish” them, unless they agree with the particular values the Church teaches.

(He might encourage them to see the error of their ways. But that is a very different thing from admonishing. And, moreover, it is perfectly possible to be close friends with someone who obstinately refuses to see eye to eye with you on certain moral issues.)

You have a point if the friend in question is not a Christian.

Do you think the advice is not to be taken or considered if the individual is a son, daughter, or dear friend of the same faith?

Admonition does not mean strident but gentle reproof.
,

 

[CaliLobo]

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?

Okay.

thewanderer:

The question in this thread is not for an argument that will hold up in American courts, but rather for a good reasonable argument for governments in general to refrain from providing this contract as a governmental contract. And, to be honest, I think mine is quite a good argument. the government should not be meddling in things without a valid governmental reason to do so. Because of this the government should not be setting up any sort of governmental contract without a valid governmental reason to do so.

Providing a governmental contract for anyone who commits to sharing their lives together makes sense, it makes it easier to deal with the joining and dividing of property, as well as dealing with the realities that come of sharing your life with another in a committed relationship.

However, if you want to claim that that is the goal of same-sex marriage as thought of today then you have to admit that it is an extremely discriminatory set-up. It excludes all those people who are committed to share their lives with each other but who are either non-romantically involved or who are too closely related. (A mother could not enter into this relationship with her daughter, for example). Therefore, if same-sex marriage is supposed to be for the sake of having a legal way to deal with and recognize the complexities that arise when two or more people join their lives together through a committed relationship it should be rejected as a very poor solution and instead we should be advocating for a legal contract whereby truly anyone who wishes to commit themselves to another (or to more than one person) may do so.

If same-sex marriage is supposed to have another valid governmental reason to be made a governmental contract I have yet to see it. But since the government should not be creating legal contracts without a valid governmental reason to do so same-sex marriage should be rejected because it does not have a valid governmental reason to exist.

If I understand correctly, what you’re basically opening the door for is the Ron Paul solution. Get the government out of marriage because there is no valid reason for it to be involved with marriage contracts. Instead, have civil unions for both gay and straight unions, while reserving marriage for the province of a non-government entity. That is fine with me, and Pope Francis has also said that’s fine with him.

However, as long as the government gets involved with marriage, civil rights come into play and there is no viable argument for the relegation of gays into a subclass in which they are denied the right to marriage. Denying gays the right to marry is a declaration that gays are not worthy of the same privileges and opportunities of life. That constitutes unequal treatment, and the world is gradually, correctly, realizing it as such.

It is also a declaration that there is something wrong with being gay. But being gay is not wrong in itself. It is wrong because the Church says so. But religion alone cannot be the basis for such a denial of those rights. That would constitute an imposition of religion on the rest of society. It would pave the way for Sharia law to be imposed in America, under the same logic.

Being gay is also not a crime, and there are no victims. Therefore it does not fall under the same rationale as punishing murder and rape, although murder and rape are sins in most religions.

thewanderer:

Yup, and there’s a reason why pro same-sex marriage proponents never bother to include non-romantically involved people or people who are closely related in their crusade to make legal marriage more inclusive. They argue the current law is discriminatory but then put forward one that, if their arguments were truly based on a desire for the benefits of inheritance laws etc is just as discriminatory. they don’t really care about making things equal, what they want is their romantic relationships to be recognized. It is absolutely about feelings.

But what’s so **wrong **about recognizing the love that gay couples share, as equal to the love that straight couples share? Studies show that gay couples are just as stable and unstable as straights, and just as capable of raising children with no harm to them.

May I also add, that it would be wiser for the Catholic Church to take the position as a persecuted religious minority in each country, and instead seek religious exceptions and civil rights to practice its teachings, when the rest of the country opposes them. Kinda like the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses not to do the Pledge of Alleigance, and the right of Jews to skip school for Rosh Hashanah.

 

[thewanderer]

Actually, not advocating for a different group of people doesn’t mean they’re discriminating against them, it simply means they’ve not included them because they don’t see the similarities, or because they chose not to.

For example, say you want to get into a club that almost everyone is allowed in except for your group of people. You advocate for you and others like you to be allowed to enter. Now say there’s a 3rd group of people who you aren’t advocating for. That’s not the same as advocating against, you just simply haven’t included them because they’re not in your group. That’s not discriminating against them as you’re not actually doing anything against them.

But most importantly here, this isn’t actually an argument against gay marriage. Saying “They haven’t included this group” isn’t an answer as to why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed, it’s simply a statement that they haven’t included a different, unrelated, group so therefore gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed. “Why can we not get married?”, “Because you chose not to advocate for this different group”. The next obvious question is “Why does that mean we can’t get married?”.

Unfortunately the contract isn’t any of those things. You have to come up with a reason as to why they shouldn’t be allowed to marry based on reality and law as it is now, not as you would like it to be. Hypotheticals or wishes aren’t reasons to restrict gay marriage.

Whether they intend it or not they are advocating for a legal arrangement that is discriminatory. That means they are discriminating against those left out. It might be unintentional but it is still discrimination.

As for the idea that we can’t argue for laws based on what we think is objectively best that is ridiculous. Of course we can, that’s what everybody does, ultimately.

Let me try to explain mg position more clearly. There should be two different legal contracts, one for the sake of raising future citizens and one for those who commit to share their lives. Legal marriage currently has a demonstrated value for the raising of future citizens while civil unions are a start at a contract for those who commit to share their lives together. So, instead of taking current legal marriage and turning it into a discriminatory attempt at addressing the committed people dumping civil unions, and creating a new legal arrangement from scratch for the sake of raising future citizens we should tweak what we currently have. Tweak legal marriage so that it is clear it is for the sake of raising kids and expand and promote civil unions as a means of a legal arrangement for the issues that arise when people commit to share their lives together.

 

[thewanderer]

Okay.

If I understand correctly, what you’re basically opening the door for is the Ron Paul solution. Get the government out of marriage because there is no valid reason for it to be involved with marriage contracts. Instead, have civil unions for both gay and straight unions, while reserving marriage for the province of a non-government entity. That is fine with me, and Pope Francis has also said that’s fine with him.

However, as long as the government gets involved with marriage, civil rights come into play and there is no viable argument for the relegation of gays into a subclass in which they are denied the right to marriage. Denying gays the right to marry is a declaration that gays are not worthy of the same privileges and opportunities of life. That constitutes unequal treatment, and the world is gradually, correctly, realizing it as such.

It is also a declaration that there is something wrong with being gay. But being gay is not wrong in itself. It is wrong because the Church says so. But religion alone cannot be the basis for such a denial of those rights. That would constitute an imposition of religion on the rest of society. It would pave the way for Sharia law to be imposed in America, under the same logic.

Being gay is also not a crime, and there are no victims. Therefore it does not fall under the same rationale as punishing murder and rape, although murder and rape are sins in most religions.

But what’s so **wrong **about recognizing the love that gay couples share, as equal to the love that straight couples share? Studies show that gay couples are just as stable and unstable as straights, and just as capable of raising children with no harm to them.

May I also add, that it would be wiser for the Catholic Church to take the position as a persecuted religious minority in each country, and instead seek religious exceptions and civil rights to practice its teachings, when the rest of the country opposes them. Kinda like the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses not to do the Pledge of Alleigance, and the right of Jews to skip school for Rosh Hashanah.

So you agree that there are valid arguments against it. I’m glad we agree on that. However, you have still misunderstood my argument. I still believe there should be two different government contracts, one that is geared towards future citizens and one that is geared towards committed people.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You have a point if the friend in question is not a Christian.

Do you think the advice is not to be taken or considered if the individual is a son, daughter, or dear friend of the same faith?

Admonition does not mean strident but gentle reproof.
,

Yes, I agree that admonition is appropriate in such cases.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

However, as long as the government gets involved with marriage, civil rights come into play and there is no viable argument for the relegation of gays into a subclass in which they are denied the right to marriage. Denying gays the right to marry is a declaration that gays are not worthy of the same privileges and opportunities of life. That constitutes unequal treatment, and the world is gradually, correctly, realizing it as such.

It is also a declaration that there is something wrong with being gay. But being gay is not wrong in itself. It is wrong because the Church says so. But religion alone cannot be the basis for such a denial of those rights. That would constitute an imposition of religion on the rest of society. It would pave the way for Sharia law to be imposed in America, under the same logic.

Surely the justification for a law is the good of society. If a certain form of discrimination is good for society and not harmful to any particular member of society, we enforce that form of discrimination. For example, minors are not allowed to marry, blind people are not allowed to drive, and non-citizens are not allowed to vote. All these cases are cases of discrimination.

The question is whether gay marriage incurs harm on third parties. (This has nothing to do with religion). Some of us think it harms the children of such marriages. If it does, then it is probably worth discriminating against, even at the risk of making gay people feel bad.