Non-christian defense of marriage btn man and woman

[ave_mom]

I need an answer to defend the fight against same sex marriage that has as little to do with God as possible. Ugh! Some of my liberal family members are not Christian and just do not understand why anyone would think it wrong for homosexuals to marry. I am weak on defending the historical tradition of marriage except from Scripture and Tradition. They are anti-Catholic so could care less about the Church’s stance, unless I slip some of JPII’s teaching on human dignity and marriage in the back door! (Then they get something they will accept without labeling it Church teaching)

Mind you, I will argue Church teaching with some people but I use a more gentle approach with my family, and a more secular response.
Thanks

 

[dylanschrader]

Ask them what the purpose of human sexuality is.

Is the sexual faculty only for entertainment or does it have to do with love? If it has to do with love, what is the nature of this love?

Is the love which is expressed sexually something which implies a permanent commitment? Is there a purpose to marriage at all? Why shouldn’t people just have sexual relations with whomever they choose with no commitment required? (If they think that people should do this, then there are more fundamental things to explain)

Is there a difference between men and women? Is this difference merely an accidental one or is its origin in human nature?

Is the love that is expressed sexually supposed to be between persons or is it simply about pleasure? If it is between persons, then it must respect each person totally; it can’t try to separate the person from his body. Sexual expression shouldn’t be opposed to the body because the body is not something foreign to the person–it’s part of who he is.

We can’t say that “as long as two people love each other it doesn’t matter what sex they are” because there are different types of love, and sexual love has to respect the sexual identity of each person in his body.

Is the soul the form of the body or are the body and soul opposed to one another? If what sex a person is doesn’t have anything to do with who he is, then the body is only a vehicle or a prison for the soul and nothing more. In that case, sexual love is degrading since it no longer involves an expression between persons but only the physical activity of their bodies.

Those are some of my thoughts, anyway.

Good luck!

 

[Black_Jaque]

Tell them it has to do with freedom of religion.

To legalize marriage, a couple needs a marriage license. A license is, by definition, an approval.

Approval is not the same thing as tolerance. Tolerance means we don’t do anything to stop an evil, usually so that a greater good may flourish. We tolerate evil speech so that we can be free to speak the truth. We are not saying that the evil speech is now good - that would be approval. In the Christian religion, we are obliged to never approve of evil, we can tolerate it, but we can’t approve of it. The Bible says, “Woe to ye who call evil, good, and good, evil…”

We live in a country where the government is “…of the people, by the people…” That means what the government approves, the people approve.

So to force Christians to approve of something they believe is evil would be infringing on their 1st Amendment Rights.

Then turn the tables on them. Ask them to explain why we, as a nation, should officially approve of homosexual sex.

Tolerance is when we don’t do anything about a man living with another man. We tolerate this because we respect the privacy of good people. We don’t need cops peeping into bedroom windows to make sure what we are doing is OK. Sure, some people will be doing bad things, but peeping cops will prevent a lot of people from doing **good **things.

Approval is when the government issues a document saying that it acknowledges and approves of a sexual relationship between a couple. And a sexual relationship is presumed in a marriage license - that is precisely why first cousins would get denied a license.

Incidentally I wonder what homosexual marriage advocates think of issuing licenses for brother-sister or cousin-cousin marriages?

 

[emily47017]

i’ve never seen a secular argument that was persuasive to me. i’m bisexual, and it’s only through spiritual awakening that i’ve come to reject same-sex behavior.

the AMA and APA don’t really have anything to say for or against… there’s no conclusive evidence that children raised by two moms or two dads are harmed emotionally or developmentally. the idea that gay people commit more sexual abuse than straight people is false. the idea that it’s unnatural or unknown in the animal kingdom is also false.

We live in a country where the government is “…of the people, by the people…” That means what the government approves, the people approve.

this is a pretty weak argument. the job of the government is to balance reflecting the will of the majority and preventing the oppression of the minority by the majority. as more and more americans support at least civil marriage for everyone, the more the balancing of majority/minority is becoming moot.

same-sex couples can already get the legal rights and benefits of marriage through individual contracts (a power of attorney, a power of attorney for health care, a really carefully worded will and living will, etc.). what they aren’t allowed to do, currently, is get it all taken care of automatically by signing a single contract: a marriage license. the only thing that opponents of marriage for everyone are really saying is, “if you want to get married, you have to shell out $200 an hour for a lawyer.”

so, unfortunately, i don’t think there’s a satisfactory answer to your question. at least, there isn’t one that i find satisfactory. your relatives might be easier targets.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I need an answer to defend the fight against same sex marriage that has as little to do with God as possible. …

Setting aside any moral arguments, you could try the approach of arguing simply for the definition of the word “marriage” from a standpoint of language use. Instead of arguing against homosexual unions, ask why some want to use the word “marriage”, which has always been understood to refer to a specific type of relationship between members of the opposite sex. Issues between same sex couples about hospital visits and wills and property rights, etc. could be addressed without needing to change meaning of the word “marriage”. Try explaining it as a sort of “copy-right infringement”. For example Coke and Pepsi might be alike in many ways, yet if Pepsi started calling its product “Coke”, lawyers from the Coca-cola company would be all over it. Commited relationships have some similarities, but that doesn’t mean every committed relationship should use the name “marriage.”

Now after writing that, I notice in the original post you used the term “same sex marriage”. You might want to start working on your own language use first.