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

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Prodigal_Son Sure you can. If I implied that a person was a racist (which is also a condition), and it was clear that I was wrong, I would apologize – even if I didn’t mean the word as a “slight”.

Good Morning Prodigal Son: I do my very best to be honest about how I think and feel. I am not sorry for thinking that you were homophobic, because it was an honest assessment based on this chain of discussions with you. It isn’t honest to say you are sorry when you are not. It is honest however to make clear that there was no ill intent.

It was a yes or no question. You didn’t answer it.

Yes or no questions are often used by people who are trying to limit the scope of an idea that has more dimension to it. To that end, it really doesn’t matter whether or not every child deserves a mother and father, because every child in fact has a mother and father. You don’t get born without them. What every child doesn’t have is someone to actually raise them, give them food, provide clothing, education, safety, love and caring. Whoever can provide these things is the person a child deserves.

Thank You,
Gary

 

[Hopey]

You do not have to come up with a good reason, in my opinion. We just need to remind them why it has been like that in the first place, natural law (which is NOT how animals behave in nature).

Most of our laws used to be based on natural law - what can be observed, and how things are supposed to be used, ends.

This is why it isn’t just one religion who objects to this but even non-believers because they can see that something is not right - not being used in the way it was meant to.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

You do not have to come up with a good reason, in my opinion. We just need to remind them why it has been like that in the first place, natural law (which is NOT how animals behave in nature).

Most of our laws used to be based on natural law - what can be observed, and how things are supposed to be used, ends.

This is why it isn’t just one religion who objects to this but even non-believers because they can see that something is not right - not being used in the way it was meant to.

With regard to the natural world, homosexual behavior is found throughout the natural world, to include the following species (to name a few):

Bison
Brown Bears
Brown Rats
Cavy
Caribou
Cats
Cattle
Chimpanzees
Dolphins
Marmosets
Dogs
Elephants
Foxes
Giraffes
Goats
Horses
Humans
Koalas
Lions
Orcas
Raccoons
Barn Owls
Chickens
Common Gulls
Emu
King Penguins
Mallards
Ravens
Seagulls
Amazon mollies
Bennetts
Blackstripe topminnows
Bluegill Sunfish
Char
Grayling
European Bitterling
Green swordtail
Guiana leaffish
Houting Whitefish
Jewel Fish
Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)
Mouthbreeding Fish
Salmon
Southern platyfish
Ten-spined stickleback
Three-spined stickleback
Bearded Dragons
Broad-headed Skinks
Checkered Whiptail Lizard
sChihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizards
Common Ameivas
Common Garter Snakes
Cuban Green Anoles
Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizards
Desert Tortoises
Fence Lizards
Five-lined Skinks
Gopher (Pine) Snakes
Green Anole
Jamaican Giant Anoles
Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizards
Largehead Anoles
Mourning Geckos
Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizards
Red Diamond Rattlesnakes
Red-tailed Skinks
Side-blotched Lizards
Speckled Rattlesnakes
Water Moccasins
Western rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis)
Western Banded Geckos
Wood Turtles

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I do my very best to be honest about how I think and feel. I am not sorry for thinking that you were homophobic, because it was an honest assessment based on this chain of discussions with you. It isn’t honest to say you are sorry when you are not. It is honest however to make clear that there was no ill intent.

Being sorry is not a feeling; it is an act of will and an act of humility that occurs after one judges oneself to have made a mistake. Not even close to a feeling.

 

[Hopey]

With regard to the natural world, homosexual behavior is found throughout the natural world, to include the following species (to name a few):

Bison
Brown Bears
Brown Rats
Cavy
Caribou
Cats
Cattle
Chimpanzees
Dolphins
Marmosets
Dogs
Elephants
Foxes
Giraffes
Goats
Horses
Humans
Koalas
Lions
Orcas
Raccoons
Barn Owls
Chickens
Common Gulls
Emu
King Penguins
Mallards
Ravens
Seagulls
Amazon mollies
Bennetts
Blackstripe topminnows
Bluegill Sunfish
Char
Grayling
European Bitterling
Green swordtail
Guiana leaffish
Houting Whitefish
Jewel Fish
Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)
Mouthbreeding Fish
Salmon
Southern platyfish
Ten-spined stickleback
Three-spined stickleback
Bearded Dragons
Broad-headed Skinks
Checkered Whiptail Lizard
sChihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizards
Common Ameivas
Common Garter Snakes
Cuban Green Anoles
Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizards
Desert Tortoises
Fence Lizards
Five-lined Skinks
Gopher (Pine) Snakes
Green Anole
Jamaican Giant Anoles
Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizards
Largehead Anoles
Mourning Geckos
Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizards
Red Diamond Rattlesnakes
Red-tailed Skinks
Side-blotched Lizards
Speckled Rattlesnakes
Water Moccasins
Western rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis)
Western Banded Geckos
Wood Turtles

Thank you,
Gary

No, that is not what is meant by natural law, what is JUST found in nature. It takes into consideration the function of it, good, etc. Also, although we are similar in some ways to animals, we possess reason which they do not have so we are able to discern that some acts are not good, where animals may do it all day long (eating their vomit, eating their young, etc)
There are several good books out there on natural law. It is a common misconception that natural law means it happening in a nature alone.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Hopey;No, that is not what is meant by natural law, what is JUST found in nature. It takes into consideration the function of it, good, etc.

I am wondering if it is possible to find something in nature that is against natural laws. If it happens, it is allowable within the parameters of the governing laws under which it happens. If it happens a lot, as does homosexuality, it is an established natural behavior. You may not see it as a desired behavior, but it is natural nonetheless.

Also, although we are similar in some ways to animals, we possess reason which they do not have so we are able to discern that some acts are not good, where animals may do it all day long (eating their vomit, eating their young, etc).

Your argument was about the natural world I believe. It was not about the social conventions of humans as to what is good and bad. That’s another conversation. Nature doesn’t appear to have ideas about good and bad, and your point was about nature.

There are several good books out there on natural law. It is a common misconception that natural law means it happening in a nature alone.

If we accept that there are natural laws,what happens in nature is by necessity in accord with natural law. As for good books, you are free to share whatever takeaways you feel are relevant from them, but my conversation is with you. I have read things and you have read things. Having been so equipped, let’s talk.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Being sorry is not a feeling; it is an act of will and an act of humility that occurs after one judges oneself to have made a mistake. Not even close to a feeling.

I have actually had the feeling of being sorry in my time. I do not believe I was mistaken as to what it was that I was feeling, since what I am feeling is pretty much defined by me and me alone.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Hopey]

@ WildCatholic
I have read, Written on the Heart by Budziszewski.

He has a new book out, What We Can’t NOT Know which is highly recommended. From the reviews, it seems that it may easier to read, understand, than the first, and may help you when discussing this and other things with your friends.
amazon.com/What-We-Cant-Not-Know/dp/1586174819

One other thing, Aquinas in 50 pages is free by Dr. Marshall. I thought it was a good primer.
taylormarshall.com/2013/05/free-book-is-ready-thomas-aquinas-in-50.html

 

[Hopey]

I am wondering if it is possible to find something in nature that is against natural laws.

Your argument was about the natural world I believe. It was not about the social conventions of humans as to what is good and bad. That’s another conversation.

If we accept that there are natural laws,what happens in nature is by necessity in accord with natural law.

Thank you,
Gary

No, you are stopping too soon as we are like but not the same as animals. Animals do not possess reason, we do, or should.
Natural Law doesn’t apply to these animals you listed as they are acting on their natural, animal instincts. We are not animal like in that regards because of, you guessed it, reason.

 

[Hopey]

Just one thing further, if you follow out your reasoning - we are animals, every action is “good”, or neutral. This is also why the loud warning is coming that our society will collapse as people, when lied to as to what is right/wrong, good/bad, becomes the norm. People will start acting like animals. We used to call that uncivilized.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Need I quote 100 years of scientific research, and hundreds of thousands of studies about the benefits of having a mother – starting, for instance, with the advantages of breast milk? If you like, I can list some of that research. I assure you it is not “nothing”.

Again, different argument. You’d have to compare the health and well being of children raised by same-sex couples compared to those raised with a mother for this argument to work as one against same-sex couples.

In other words, you can’t argue about the benefits of a mother without also comparing it to children raised by same-sex couples if you want to argue against same-sex parenting.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Again, different argument. You’d have to compare the health and well being of children raised by same-sex couples compared to those raised with a mother for this argument to work as one against same-sex couples.

In other words, you can’t argue about the benefits of a mother without also comparing it to children raised by same-sex couples if you want to argue against same-sex parenting.

False. The studies I’m talking about compare a child with a mother to a child without one. They could be disproven, I suppose. But they very clearly address a general comparison between ANY situation with a mother and ANY situation without a mother.

Recent studies that claim to show an equivalence between same-sex parenting and traditional parenting are quite new. There are hundreds of years of research that they seek to invalidate. By claiming that same-sex parenting is equivalent to traditional parenting, you are also claiming that hundreds of thousands of (apparently credible) scientific studies are invalid.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

No, you are stopping too soon as we are like but not the same as animals. Animals do not possess reason, we do, or should.
Natural Law doesn’t apply to these animals you listed as they are acting on their natural, animal instincts. We are not animal like in that regards because of, you guessed it, reason.

Good Evening Hopey: You have again shifted the point. Your point was to look at the natural world around us in deciding about gay marriage. I pointed out that the natural world is full of homosexuality. Therefore, if we are conferring on the natural world to make decisions on legislating human behavior, we must thereby stick within the context of the natural world, and again, the natural world exhibits homosexual behavior throughout. I didn’t choose the natural world as the measure by which we make decisions on legislation. You did that. I simply offered the argument that if we look at the natural world, it suggests that we should allow gay marriage, because gay behavior is present across vast samples of species, including our own.

As for the diversion about humans not being animals, we are in fact animals. Specifically, we are mammals/primates. Within the animal kingdom, each species has its own area of specialization. Ours just happens to be the left side of our brains, whereas the right side of our brains are rather diminished in capability in comparison with many other animals. As for what we can accomplish with the left side of our brains, well, some of us have managed to fool ourselves into thinking that we are separate from the world around us. tTat we are somehow outside of nature, or elevated above all living things in some way.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Hopey]

Good Evening Hopey: You have again shifted the point. Your point was to look at the natural world around us in deciding about gay marriage. I pointed out that the natural world is full of homosexuality. Therefore, if we are conferring on the natural world to make decisions on legislating human behavior, we must thereby stick within the context of the natural world, and again, the natural world exhibits homosexual behavior throughout. I didn’t choose the natural world as the measure by which we make decisions on legislation. You did that. I simply offered the argument that if we look at the natural world, it suggests that we should allow gay marriage, because gay behavior is present across vast samples of species, including our own.

As for the diversion about humans not being animals, we are in fact animals. Specifically, we are mammals/primates. Within the animal kingdom, each species has its own area of specialization. Ours just happens to be the left side of our brains, whereas the right side of our brains are rather diminished in capability in comparison with many other animals. As for what we can accomplish with the left side of our brains, well, some of us have managed to fool ourselves into thinking that we are separate from the world around us. tTat we are somehow outside of nature, or elevated above all living things in some way.

Thank you,
Gary

No, I haven’t shifted my point. I referred to Natural Law which is different than things just being found in nature.
When Natural Law is spoken of, it isn’t just observing nature but takes into account the purpose of the function.
Although we are similar to animal, we remain different because we have use of reason. And yes, that would be elevated way as we care for things, animals, grow things, build things, invent things, etc.

If you want to learn more about Natural Law, it may have been discussed on the forum before or you could grab one of those books I recommended to wildcatholic.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, I haven’t shifted my point. I referred to Natural Law which is different than things just being found in nature.
When Natural Law is spoken of, it isn’t just observing nature but takes into account the purpose of the function.

To expand on this, natural law is the view that the various objects (including the human person) have a telos, or purpose, and that we can judge whether the object is a “good” instance of its sort of object by evaluating whether it fulfills its purpose. According to many natural law theorists, the purpose of humankind is happiness/thriving. Thus, one way of “cashing out” the question of homosexual behavior is asking whether such behavior helps people thrive and helps people live happy and rewarding lives.

That seems, to me, to be an open question – and a question that is entirely independent of the gay marriage issue.

 

[Hopey]

I am not sure which theorist you are referring to, but Natural law takes into account the function of something to determine if it is a good or not, not necessarily happiness. EG, your reproductive organs are for reproducing. To do this, you need a male and female. The end result, fruit, is a good - child conceived. The expansion could be what about infertile couple in which, they would be different than s/s couples because if what was causing them to be infertile was healed or removed, they could conceive. It is called accidental. The s/s couple would not be accidental as they may not be infertile. There actions are what is causing it - have relations with someone of the s/s which could never result in the conception of a child.
So, the ones I have read do not have happiness as the greatest good. Happiness is a feeling that could come or go.

 

[Hopey]

To expand on this, natural law is the view that the various objects (including the human person) have a telos, or purpose, and that we can judge whether the object is a “good” instance of its sort of object by evaluating whether it fulfills its purpose. According to many natural law theorists, the purpose of humankind is happiness/thriving. Thus, one way of “cashing out” the question of homosexual behavior is asking whether such behavior helps people thrive and helps people live happy and rewarding lives.

That seems, to me, to be an open question – and a question that is entirely independent of the gay marriage issue.

I understand what you are saying. They are redefining the ends to be the greatest “happiness” not looking at what the purpose is regarding reproductive organs.

Yeah, as a mom who cleans toilets and hates it, don’t we wish! I am not happy to clean a toilet but it is necessary in good hygiene etc.

It is also very self-centered.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hopey,

I know the natural law argument you’re referring to, but I don’t think it is a good argument. I think there are much better natural law arguments. My post here made me think about this a good deal, so I’ve started a thread on it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12162676#post12162676

 

[Ben_Carmine]

False. The studies I’m talking about compare a child with a mother to a child without one. They could be disproven, I suppose. But they very clearly address a general comparison between ANY situation with a mother and ANY situation without a mother.

Recent studies that claim to show an equivalence between same-sex parenting and traditional parenting are quite new. There are hundreds of years of research that they seek to invalidate. By claiming that same-sex parenting is equivalent to traditional parenting, you are also claiming that hundreds of thousands of (apparently credible) scientific studies are invalid.

Incorrect. Again you can’t use “without a mother” as an argument against gay marriage as that encapsulates a whole range of situations that have nothing to do with gay marriage. You’d also have to show that the sole fact of not having a mother is the cause for all of these things, which studies have shown isn’t the truth. Coming from a single parent household I know that studies conclude that it’s not the lack of a certain parent that causes problems, it’s the unstable situation it causes. Hence the reason why kids going through divorce go through similar problems despite having two parents.

Also how would same-sex parenting having no adverse affects on the childs health and well-being invalidate studies about other two parent households? That doesn’t follow any logic. Both studies would be correct, they’re not mutually exclusive.

 

[Hopey]

I will look at it. I will have to go back to the books on Natural and make sure, but the good doesn’t have happiness as the good. So, that would be false.
Also, reproductive organs, ends are for reproducing.
My understanding if you get into foreplay, you are in a gray area in what is moral and not. But, it could never apply to s/s couple because they would never be able to complete it in a way that would respect the reproductive way because they are with someone of the s/s.

I will look at it.