I think gay marriage should be legal. Is that wrong?

[holyrood]

I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to society and to children.

1. A gay person getting married has NO impact on your marriage, your family, or your life. If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person!
2. I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to children. How is ANY committed relationship where two people want to love a child a detriment to that child? Answer: it’s not.

Two intellectually disabled individuals who are competent enough to consent can marry and reproduce, which certainly would be a detriment to a child, and yet two people of sound mind and body are somehow less capable of raising a child?

The state is not forcing churches to marry ANYONE. Religion should have no place in affording legal protection to a committed couple- gay or straight.

And this whole argument of “we must make straight people get married and have sex to keep our population up” argument is complete bollocks. There have been and always will be infertile couples, or couples who are child-free by choice.

There are 143 million orphans in the world. Until they all have a home there’s no reason that we need to be worried about humans going extinct.

Yep, bumper sticker slogans.

You can find thousands of threads, forums, blogs, and thoughtful articles explaining exactly how redefining marriage is a detriment to society. None of it will have any impact on you. I suspect many people won’t bother reading such discussions about why this is going to harm all of society because it’s a profound subject which doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

…and also, because people simply don’t want to think that hard about these things in a day where we’ve been conditioned by 40 or more years to believe that what we want and feel is what’s really important, rather than what is true, what is good, what is beautiful, what is healthy, what is responsible, what is our duty, what is ultimately the best for our children, our eternity.

Nope, easier to stick a fast food hamburger in our mouths, shout out a bumper sticker slogan to prove we ‘care,’ and go get our pseudo emotional intimacy from whoever is willing, of whatever sex, and tell ourselves God doesn’t really care all that much, and the Bible and every major world religion couldn’t possibly know anything. Because if we admit that, we might have to actually cook for ourselves, read hefty volumes, think hard, and be lonely sometimes until we find a quality person to share that true gift of intimacy.

 

[EasterJoy]

Is it wrong to think gay marriage should be legal? If you’re a Catholic, it is.

If you appreciate that homosexual acts are not marital acts, it is. The problem with elevating relationships based on homosexual acts to the same status as relationships based on the marital act is that it enshrines a falsehood into the foundation of society, which is that sexual acts have no meaning to society except the meaning put onto them by the people engaging in them.

After all–if marriage is defined as a union between any people who have sexual consort, why should marriage have a special status at all? Why should it be confined to just two people? Why on earth could gay marriage especially not be polygamous? If you have a person committed to taking care of you, why on earth should society give you support that single people do not get? Don’t you already have more care than they have? If your sex life means nothing to anyone but you and is no one’s business but yours, then what business is your commitment to anyone else? Why do you and your partner deserve some special status for a relationship that is no one’s business but yours?

 

[raikou]

Do I believe that gay marriage is okay? No. But why? Because it goes against my religious beliefs. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say, “This goes against MY religion, therefore, nobody can practice it.” And this isn’t like abortion. Abortion is murder, which is why it should be illegal. But gay marriage is a sexual sin, where both people are choosing to partake. I mean, premarital sex is also a sexual sin, and is just as bad as homosexuality. But nobody protests against that, or wants to ban that. Almost everybody will agree that premarital sex should not be illegal. So why should gay marriage be?

Our religion affirms that homosexual acts are wrong.

But natural reason also tells us that it is morally wrong, as in the case of abortion. You see, by using reason, people can tell that the sexual act is only appropriate between a man and a woman. We can see this by looking at the nature of the reproductive organs. They are biologically designed to be between humans of opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation and union of the spouses.

Do you think a man is fit to have intercourse with a tree? How about an animal? No. That would be wrong and immoral! A man is not naturally designed for that, we observe. In the same way, we can see that a man is not naturally designed to have intercourse with another man. It is contrary to his sexual purpose.

Now, the second aspect of your question concerns the difference between criminalizing an immoral action and giving legal approval for an immoral action. PMS is also immoral. One of the reasons it is immoral is that sex is naturally linked to having a child, and having a child in an uncommitted relationship (outside marriage) is unfair for the child who could potentially be a result of PMS.

Should we criminalize PMS, then? Not necessarily. Remember that not all immoral actions can be criminalized. Telling a lie is immoral, but it cannot be criminalized in all circumstances. I think, in order for an immoral action to be criminalized, it must be perceived to be a grave threat to the common good or to inalienable human rights. But for the government to give a legal approval, support, or recognition for lying or PMS is another thing and is totally wrong.

That’s what gay marriage is: it seeks that the entire nation should approve and accept homosexual relationships as if it is not wrong at all. It also seeks to give them the benefits that is ordinarily given to support and encourage heterosexual couples to found a family. While it is not necessarily wrong not to criminalize an immoral action, It is downright unjust to give approval for an immoral act.

 

[ClearWater]

Do I believe that gay marriage is okay? No. But why? Because it goes against my religious beliefs. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say, “This goes against MY religion, therefore, nobody can practice it.” And this isn’t like abortion. Abortion is murder, which is why it should be illegal. But gay marriage is a sexual sin, where both people are choosing to partake. I mean, premarital sex is also a sexual sin, and is just as bad as homosexuality. But nobody protests against that, or wants to ban that. Almost everybody will agree that premarital sex should not be illegal. So why should gay marriage be?

Premarital sex is sinful, but it is also a question of degree. Homosexual acts are on of only 4 sins which cry out to heaven for vengeance. Premarital sex, at least is between a man and a woman It’s at least natural, less sinful, and nobody seems to be looking to us to condone it, approve.

Besides that, this is asking society to give its blessing to it, though, something we don’t wish to do.

I see premarital sex and homosexual marriage as two entirely different issues, that we can’t even begin to compare them. They are “apples and oranges”.

 

[ClearWater]

In homosexual “marriage”, they are asking us, society, to pay survivor’s benefits and all the rest to people in these so-callled “marriages”. Some will try to say we are not affected, but we have to, literally, pay for this, something we believe should be illegal, and is immoral, unnatural, that should be discouraged, not encouraged.

We are paying people for something that is so detrimental to society, at large.

 

[garn9173]

Here in Iowa were it’s legal, to be honest, I could care less either way as it hasn’t had an impact on my life.

That said, if an individual (baker, photographer, etc.) cites religious objections to gay marriage and turns down providing their services, they shouldn’t be dragged through the mud for doing so.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to society and to children.

1. A gay person getting married has NO impact on your marriage, your family, or your life. If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person!

A weak argument.

Abortions in China have NO impact on my marriage, my family nor my life, If you don’t like abortions in China, don’t go to China to have one.

The fact that something doesn’t affect you personally is only a pragmatic argument not a moral one. Pragmatic considerations don’t automatically translate to morally acceptable practice.

Merely because no perceivable or tangible harm is currently evidenced does not mean real, long-lasting harm to humanity won’t occur.

The fact that me or my family have never been personally harmed by a drunk driver does not mean I should keep silent about driving while inebriated.

The fact that your analysis stretches only to what is in front of your eyes is somewhat disconcerting.

I don’t see how it could harm me personally, therefore, it is not harmful?!!?

 

[ClearWater]

Here in Iowa were it’s legal, to be honest, I could care less either way as it hasn’t had an impact on my life.

That said, if an individual (baker, photographer, etc.) cites religious objections to gay marriage and turns down providing their services, they shouldn’t be dragged through the mud for doing so.

The is what Catholic Answers says to that argument that “same-sex marriage doesn’t affect me”.

catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/four-ways-that-same-sex-marriage-will-affect-you

 

[raikou]

I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to society and to children.

1. A gay person getting married has NO impact on your marriage, your family, or your life. If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person!
2. I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to children. How is ANY committed relationship where two people want to love a child a detriment to that child? Answer: it’s not.

Two intellectually disabled individuals who are competent enough to consent can marry and reproduce, which certainly would be a detriment to a child, and yet two people of sound mind and body are somehow less capable of raising a child?

The state is not forcing churches to marry ANYONE. Religion should have no place in affording legal protection to a committed couple- gay or straight.

And this whole argument of “we must make straight people get married and have sex to keep our population up” argument is complete bollocks. There have been and always will be infertile couples, or couples who are child-free by choice.

There are 143 million orphans in the world. Until they all have a home there’s no reason that we need to be worried about humans going extinct.

It has a negative impact to everyone because it gives legal approval to an immoral action.

By approving gay marriage, the State is effectively saying: “Oh, sex really doesn’t need to be between a man and a woman. We can just ignore nature and just allow our sexual inclinations to get the better of us.” And oh, let us condone and even encourage the practice by giving them benefits.

Suppose people engaging in other sexual perversions propose to have legal recognition for their relationships. Would you approve of polyamorous marriage? Bestial marriage? Pedopheliac marriage? If they argued “Oh, let us just be married because it won’t necessarily affect you anyway. Just don’t marry more than one person/an animal/a child.” You might disagree. Not only will the State be approving immoral actions, but in fact, marriages will also be affected because in legalizing these marriages, the State is redefining what marriage is. It alters its significance. By perverting marriage, the State also undermines the legal meaning of your own marriage.

 

[UnCatholicBride]

It has a negative impact to everyone because it gives legal approval to an immoral action.

Suppose people engaging in other sexual perversions propose to have legal recognition for their relationships. Would you approve of polyamorous marriage? Bestial marriage? Pedopheliac marriage? If they argued “Oh, let us just be married because it won’t necessarily affect you anyway. Just don’t marry more than one person/an animal/a child.” You might disagree. Not only will the State be approving immoral actions, but in fact, marriages will also be affected because in legalizing these marriages, the State is redefining what marriage is. It alters its significance. By perverting marriage, the State also undermines the legal meaning of your own marriage.

Strawman argument. A child cannot consent to marriage, therefore pedophilic marriage will not be legalized as a result of same-sex adult marriage.

An animal cannot consent. It is not human. A marriage of two consenting humans will not set a legal precedent for humans marrying non-human species.

As for polygamy- I can’t for the life of me understand why someone would want more than one spouse, but if consenting adults want to have a marriage of 3 or more, frankly it’s none of my business.

 

[ClearWater]

Strawman argument. A child cannot consent to marriage, therefore pedophilic marriage will not be legalized as a result of same-sex adult marriage.

An animal cannot consent. It is not human. A marriage of two consenting humans will not set a legal precedent for humans marrying non-human species.

As for polygamy- I can’t for the life of me understand why someone would want more than one spouse, but if consenting adults want to have a marriage of 3 or more, frankly it’s none of my business.

So, you want to want to have polygamy, too, now? See what we mean? Once gay marriage is everywhere, people will then want polygamy. Then, bisexual polygamy…
Where will we ever draw the line?

As society, we need some guidelines, or there will be more chaos than there already is.

Some people have speculated that the next step after gay marriage would be legalized polygamy, everywhere. What would come next, I have no idea.

We are going backwards…with gay marriage and such, it’s like the time of Sodom and Gomorrah, and with polygamy, it’s way back to the time of Abraham.

Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.

Gilbert K. Chesterton

 

[ClearWater]

Strawman argument. A child cannot consent to marriage, therefore pedophilic marriage will not be legalized as a result of same-sex adult marriage.

An animal cannot consent. It is not human. A marriage of two consenting humans will not set a legal precedent for humans marrying non-human species.

As for polygamy- I can’t for the life of me understand why someone would want more than one spouse, but if consenting adults want to have a marriage of 3 or more, frankly it’s none of my business.

So, if someone wants to start a harem in the US, you will just say, "More power to you!’?

 

[EasterJoy]

I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to society and to children.

1. A gay person getting married has NO impact on your marriage, your family, or your life. If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person!
2. I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to children. How is ANY committed relationship where two people want to love a child a detriment to that child? Answer: it’s not.

Two intellectually disabled individuals who are competent enough to consent can marry and reproduce, which certainly would be a detriment to a child, and yet two people of sound mind and body are somehow less capable of raising a child?

The state is not forcing churches to marry ANYONE. Religion should have no place in affording legal protection to a committed couple- gay or straight.

And this whole argument of “we must make straight people get married and have sex to keep our population up” argument is complete bollocks. There have been and always will be infertile couples, or couples who are child-free by choice.

There are 143 million orphans in the world. Until they all have a home there’s no reason that we need to be worried about humans going extinct.

The concern is not that the human race will die out. The concern is that it is assumed that the connection between a child and his or her biological parents is being presumed to be nothing special to the child, nothing that needs to be encouraged on the child’s behalf. As you say, people are just assuming that ANY committed couple is the same to a child as any other. Why? Is this really how people typically feel about their parents, that they didn’t care of one or the other was around to raise them or not?

The emergence of gay approximation of marriage has shown that the couples are electing to have children not by adoption, but by artificial insemination and surrogacy. According to the latest census numbers, over 70% of children living in a household with a same-sex couple were described as “biological only”, meaning that there were no step-children or adopted children. The vast majority were conceived outside of wedlock, by choice.

IOW, to endorse same-sex “marriages” is to encourage the conception of children outside wedlock. The children are told, in effect, “As long as you get two parents, it is not for you to care where your biological parent or parents are. We decided that this is not important for you.” This is reducing children to possessions, or livestock. Whether heterosexuals do it or homosexuals do it, it is morally repugnant. The difference is that a) homosexuals cannot have biological children in any way except by extramarital liaison and b) the child is denied either a same-sex or an opposite-sex parent by design. Not by an unfortunate accident of fate, by design.

People do studies to try to prove that having your own parents raise you doesn’t make a difference. It floors me…as if you can tell me that as long as my grades are just as high, I shouldn’t care that you decided before I was born you decided for me that I didn’t need my mom or I didn’t need my dad, that someone else could be chosen, and I ought to be taught that this was fine! That is very sad.

(People also said that no-fault divorce would be better for kids. What a lie that was, too.)

 

[gmx2014]

I have to put this out there.

India has it right. The SPIRITUAL GOAL of unification, where two become one, can only come about between one man and one woman. Two males cannot do it. Two females cannot do it.

India anagrams to: I and I

To be blunt about it, the eye of the penis meets the eye of the cervix, in face to face love making, between one man and one woman. THIS is righteous.

When people do not have the Highest Purpose in mind, as a goal, they miss out on what can be achieved.

India has made homosexual sex illegal.

 

[ClearWater]

I have to put this out there.

India has it right. The SPIRITUAL GOAL of unification, where two become one, can only come about between one man and one woman. Two males cannot do it. Two females cannot do it.

India anagrams to: I and I

To be blunt about it, the eye of the penis meets the eye of the cervix, in face to face love making, between one man and one woman. THIS is righteous.

When people do not have the Highest Purpose in mind, as a goal, they miss out on what can be achieved.

India has made homosexual sex illegal.

They have? Good for India! :bounce::yup::clapping:

 

[Carlj1497]

I guess I look at it like this. If people are going to put so much effort into protesting homosexuality and gay “marriage”, then those same people should also put the same amount of effort into protesting premarital sex. They should also be protesting pornography. I don’t think it should be looked at like, “Well, at least premarital sex is between a man and woman.” or, “Well, at least porn is just something you watch.” That’s like saying, “Well, this guy’s a killer, but he only kills men. At least he doesn’t kill women and children”. Either way, killing is wrong, just like either way, sexual sins are wrong. Once again, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I definitely don’t agree with the people who choose to partake in it. I also don’t agree with the people who have premarital sex, or the people who look at porn. But, if that stuffs not getting attention, then why is homosexuality? Why should being gay be illegal, yet this other stuff shouldn’t be?

 

[gmx2014]

I guess I look at it like this. If people are going to put so much effort into protesting homosexuality and gay “marriage”, then those same people should also put the same amount of effort into protesting premarital sex. They should also be protesting pornography. I don’t think it should be looked at like, “Well, at least premarital sex is between a man and woman.” or, “Well, at least porn is just something you watch.” That’s like saying, “Well, this guy’s a killer, but he only kills men. At least he doesn’t kill women and children”. Either way, killing is wrong, just like either way, sexual sins are wrong. Once again, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I definitely don’t agree with the people who choose to partake in it. I also don’t agree with the people who have premarital sex, or the people who look at porn. But, if that stuffs not getting attention, then why is homosexuality? Why should being gay be illegal, yet this other stuff shouldn’t be?

Some sort of sexual revolution has changed the world. People want lust to be normal, socially acceptable, permissive and the way of life. They won, they got their way.

After homosexuality comes polygamy. After polygamy comes pedophilia and incest. After that is bestiality and other paraphilias. It is a downward spiral. Cannibalism is a result of sexual immorality. At the very root and core of cannibalism is none other than sexual immorality itself. That doesn’t mean that every person will suffer that consequence but every person who is cannibalistic has sexual immorality.

Insanity is a sexual disease, by the way.

 

[EasterJoy]

I guess I look at it like this. If people are going to put so much effort into protesting homosexuality and gay “marriage”, then those same people should also put the same amount of effort into protesting premarital sex. They should also be protesting pornography. I don’t think it should be looked at like, “Well, at least premarital sex is between a man and woman.” or, “Well, at least porn is just something you watch.” That’s like saying, “Well, this guy’s a killer, but he only kills men. At least he doesn’t kill women and children”. Either way, killing is wrong, just like either way, sexual sins are wrong. Once again, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I definitely don’t agree with the people who choose to partake in it. I also don’t agree with the people who have premarital sex, or the people who look at porn. But, if that stuffs not getting attention, then why is homosexuality? Why should being gay be illegal, yet this other stuff shouldn’t be?

That’s our choice: Either allow gay marriage or insist on the Scarlet Letter? You don’t see any difference at all between tolerating a sexual sin and giving it legal recognition and sanction as being the equivalent to virtue?

BTW, homosexual acts are not illegal, either.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to society and to children.

Gay marriage is a detriment to…marriage!

Seriously, with the way legal marriage is defined, why get married? From the secularist POV, the only reason to get married is for some tax benefits. Otherwise, it’s simply meaningless. Isn’t it simply easier not to sign a meaningless legal contract than to actually sign it?

 

[UnCatholicBride]

Gay marriage is a detriment to…marriage!

Seriously, with the way legal marriage is defined, why get married? From the secularist POV, the only reason to get married is for some tax benefits. Otherwise, it’s simply meaningless. Isn’t it simply easier not to sign a meaningless legal contract than to actually sign it?

Not just tax benefits, but medical decisions, hospital visitation, and survivorship/next of kin rights.