Long term consequences of same-sex marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

David_B

Guest
I often try to defend traditional church teaching when it comes to same-sex marriage, but I often have a difficult time giving concrete reasons why it will create so many problems, and open the door to more problems. What points can I use in future conversations on this subject?
 
David B:
I often try to defend traditional church teaching when it comes to same-sex marriage, but I often have a difficult time giving concrete reasons why it will create so many problems, and open the door to more problems. What points can I use in future conversations on this subject?
Click to expand...
There are many other threads on this. Just remember that it promotes a general mentality of “if it’s legal there must be nothing wrong with it”, leading to dangerous public policy decisions for children. A couple of my more serious concerns are:
(1) It opens the door to adoption of children by homosexuals. Do we really want to hand innocent children over to people with mental disorders? This opens the door to sexual abuse, etc.
(2) It opens the door to intimidation, accusations of bigotry, and other forms of religious persecution against churches that will refuse to go along (i.e., perform weddings, etc).

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOP.HTM

frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35#WA03I35
 
40.png
miguel:
There are many other threads on this. Just remember that it promotes a general mentality of “if it’s legal there must be nothing wrong with it”, leading to dangerous public policy decisions for children. A couple of my more serious concerns are:
(1) It opens the door to adoption of children by homosexuals. Do we really want to hand innocent children over to people with mental disorders? This opens the door to sexual abuse, etc.
(2) It opens the door to intimidation, accusations of bigotry, and other forms of religious persecution against churches that will refuse to go along (i.e., perform weddings, etc).

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOP.HTM

frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35#WA03I35
Click to expand...
For the most part, I agree. I wouldn’t say “mental disorder” since it will motivate opponents of your perspective to accuse you of hating gays, then they’ll just insult you instead of making intellectual arguments.

Here is my arguments against gay marriage:
  1. Children do much better with mother’s and fathers. This is undeniable. Gay marriage would deprive children of a mother or father. There are many reasons people end up without a mother or without a father, but gay marriage would guarantee it by design.
  2. Society would announce (even more than its already has) that fathers are unnecessary, since two mothers are equivalent to a mother and father. Fatherlessness has been a disaster this past generation–do we really want to encourage it more?
  3. Society would announce that mothers are unnecessary, since two fathers are equivalent to a father and mother. Fatherlessness has been a disaster this past generation–do we really want to experiment with motherlessness too?
  4. Gay relations spread disease much greater than heterosexual relationships. We can concede that this may argue in favor of gay marriage–after all, if gays are more faithfully committed, they may not have as many partners to spread disease. That conceded, we must acknowledge that it may actually increase gay promiscuity–after all, societies that esteem gay relations have more of it, more children will grow up considering the same sex as partners (after all, it’s equal, they’re married), and consequently have more premarital gay sex than societies that did not hold gay relations on the same level as heterosexual ones.
  5. Once we break the “man-woman” definition that is as old as the earth, the number of people is what is important rather than the specialness of the man-woman bond. That number would be 2, for now–on what moral grounds could it be left at 2 if we cross that line?
  6. As with #5, if it is a personal decision and attraction, and not the specialness of man-woman relations, what about incest? If that disgusts you, they would answer “Well, then don’t do it but don’t impose your will on others?” like they do now.
People often say “oh, that’s just a slippery slope argument” to discredit us, but the sad thing is that it really is a slippery slope.

Gay marriage is a pandora’s box we don’t want to open.

With that said, though–I must say with great sadness that before we blame gays for trying to ruin marriage, we must acknowledge the damage done to marriage by heterosexuals. The marriage situation won’t improve unless we have a spiritual renewal.
 
40.png
Jay74:
For the most part, I agree. I wouldn’t say “mental disorder” since it will motivate opponents of your perspective to accuse you of hating gays, then they’ll just insult you instead of making intellectual arguments.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying. Cardinal Ratzinger, in the link I provided, used the word disorder, not mental disorder, to refer to the homosexual inclination. I realize that he avoided doing that himself, probably for the very reason you suggest and also because we do not really know for sure if it is a physical disorder or a mental disorder or a combination. So I accept your correction. I do not hate gays. Like the Church, I see them as having a difficult cross to bear. That said, I don’t believe in catering to a small, disordered percentage of the population at the risk of harming children. I also realize that the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970’s took homosexuality off of its list of mental disorders in response to political pressure from gays who understandably did not want the stigma. Since when does politics determine science? Not all psychiatrists agreed with that move. After all, if the pros deny it’s a disorder, where do homosexuals go for help if they want to be cured? In spite of this, the Church maintains that the inclination (not just the act) is a disorder. If we ignore that, we let our guard down. And then things like the clergy sexual abuse scandal happen with 81% male victims.
40.png
Jay74:
With that said, though–I must say with great sadness that before we blame gays for trying to ruin marriage, we must acknowledge the damage done to marriage by heterosexuals. The marriage situation won’t improve unless we have a spiritual renewal.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. The prevalence of divorce has been a pandora’s box as well. It has to go back to what our Lord wanted for marriage, indissolubility.
 
Homosexuals are already adopting children. But the legalization of same sex marriage would make it even more prevalent. In many cases it would accomplish the ends of NAMBLA without all the fuss. The next step would be to legalize Adult / Adolescent marriage.
 
I borrowed Marriage Under Fire by Dr. James Dobson from the library a few months ago, and read the whole book in one night. It’s not a long read, and it’s very informative. 🙂
 
Gays are not pedophiles. When will people learn? It’s crazy how many times it has to be repeated because people do not listen.
 
40.png
Ghostgirl:
Gays are not pedophiles. When will people learn? It’s crazy how many times it has to be repeated because people do not listen.
Click to expand...
I agree. Most gays aren’t, just like most heterosexuals aren’t child molesters.

There were 2 gay men involved in my wedding. I don’t have gays, nor do I think most of them would harm children. I do think gay marriage would harm children, since it would deprive them of a mother and father by design.

Blessings.
 
 
Now that it has been established that same-sex marriages are detrimental to our society, what can be done to prevent it from happening in the U.S.? Unless something is done, the minority gay society will push their agenda through, even here. Same-sex mariages are recognized now by Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and soon in Canada. I would like to recommend and propose three steps to counteract the legalization of same-sex marriages in the U.S., as follows:

  1. *]Pray a lot - Nothing goes unnoticed by God!
    *]Contact congressional leaders to propose a constitutional amendment that the only marriages that the U.S. will recognize, are those marriages between one man and one woman. [It needs to be a constitutional amend to prevent the Supreme Court from declaring it unconstitutional.] This amendment also prevents same-sex marriages in Canada or elsewhere, from being recognized as valid in the U.S.
    *]Always standup for the truth of one’s faith.
 
The longest term consequence is this: If genital homosexuality becomes widely accepted such that heterosexuals engage in it, as was the case in Sparta, then birthrates will plummet further. Birthrates are already below replacement in most 1st world nations. Sparta had great difficulty maintaining its population levels.

This means that societies with higher birthrates will replace those with low ones. In Europe, this arrangement heavily favors Islam. Europe is projected to become an Islamic continent in this century.

frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13340
 
The long term consequence of same-sex marriage?

Same-sex marriages will contribute to destroy the family unit in the very same way divorce and any promiscuous sex has. It blows another hole into the very fabric of society. Motherhood and fatherhood of heterosexual marriages will be devalued as will key interpretations of God some Christians hold as valuable today.
 
Saw this on another website, www.throwback.blogspot.com, and I’d cut and paste, but I don’t know how.

Original definition of marriage: The permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman for the begetting and raising of children.

Enter contraception and marriage=The permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman.

Enter divorce and marriage=The exclusive union between one man and one woman.

Enter same sex marriage and marriage=The exclusive union of two people.

Enter polygamy and marriage=A union of persons.

Every time we redefine marriage, it not only means less and less, but it opens the door to other redefinitions.
 
S.J.RES.1 Marriage Protection Amendment authored by Senator Wayne Allard, Colorado, has been in committee since January. This joint resolution, if adopted, will solidify that marriage in the U.S. is between one man and one woman and make any same-sex marriages granted by any state in the U.S. null and void. Please contact your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative to support S.J. RES.1.
 
This is the message I sent through a legislative action center:
Dear Congressman:
I am writing to urge you to support S.J.RES.1, the Marriage Protection Amendment authored by Senator Wayne Allard, Colorado.
It is important that we give married couples and families all the support we can, as they are the crucial foundation of our society.
We must be careful not to give in to the demands of a small segment of society which seeks to undermine the strength of the family by redefining it.

The legislative action website is:
www.congressweb.com.
 
Jay74 said:
6. As with #5, if it is a personal decision and attraction, and not the specialness of man-woman relations, what about incest? If that disgusts you, they would answer “Well, then don’t do it but don’t impose your will on others?” like they do now.

People often say “oh, that’s just a slippery slope argument” to discredit us, but the sad thing is that it really is a slippery slope.

Gay marriage is a pandora’s box we don’t want to open.
Click to expand...

This is the one that worries me the most. Legally speaking, if gay “marriage” is allowed by law, it would seem to be unjust discrimination by comparison to not allow polygamy, incest (the term would obviously change to be politically correct), and basically anything that any person or group of people want to recognize as “marriage”.

Seriously, what legal basis would there be to restrict the age or number of participants in a marriage? If gay marriage is allowed because it isn’t any worse than some defective heterosexual marriages, then by the same reasoning any type of “marriage” should be allowed by law.

And all this is worrisome not only because it weakens the definition, meaning, and attitudes towards marriage, but especially because it is reckless social experimentation on children who would be adopted in such marriages. Again, wouldn’t it be discrimination in the eyes of the law to prefer one form of marriage to adopt children over another form?

It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a cliff.
 
40.png
Ghostgirl:
Gays are not pedophiles. When will people learn? It’s crazy how many times it has to be repeated because people do not listen.
Click to expand...
I don’t know whether gays in general or more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals. But in the cases of child molestation involving priests, by far the vast majority involved molestation of adolescent boys. That’s not heterosexual pedophilia.

And NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association) is all about men and boys. Again, not a heterosexual organization.
 
Orginally posted by JimG:

I don’t know whether gays in general or more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals. But in the cases of child molestation involving priests, by far the vast majority involved molestation of adolescent boys. That’s not heterosexual pedophilia.

I agree. 👍
 
First of all, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, so we do have it here in the US. Second, gay couples often adopt children that have been tossed from foster home to foster home because it is not a perfect little white baby. They give a loving home to a child who would otherwise not have one. It may not be a Man/Woman household, but any loving family is much better then none. I guess I just never will understand why people are so against gay marriage. I do not fell my marriage is worth any less because gays are allowed to marry, a marriage is only as strong as the two people in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top