Non-religous arguments against gay marriage

[RyanL]

Karen,

My above challenge to you was hastily written, a bit sloppy and not very well thought out. Thank you for responding in kind.

By your own argument:
“My argument is about making sure baby making activity happens in a responsible way, not the formation of a stable family unit to tend to already existing children.”

If you want to rely on my argument, you have to take the whole thing. That excludes same sex couples.

Your earlier hypothetical brother and sister were stipulated to be in a nonsexual relationship (unless you mean something else by the word “chaste”). If that is the case, your own argument stands against them receiving any benefits, as it would be “forming a stable family unit to tend to already existing children”. If they are not in a sexual relationship, there is no “baby making activity” going on and presumably, therefore, the child already exists, is not their joint biological child and deserves no consideration from the state at all in your view.

You’re right. The chaste bro/sis is more appropriate for the analogy since they don’t engage in baby making activity (as would any human/non-human coupling – which is probably why the examples thrown out there so much). I see no reason to ban such a relationship by your logic – further, you still haven’t given a reason (other than “they’re currently not legal so they should stay that way”).

KarenNC:

However, then the state should also not be in the business of providing benefits to those heterosexual couples who are also not “involved in babymaking activity” (ie those where the man is permanently impotent, where the woman has had a hysterectomy or those where the woman is postmenopausal as these folks are not going to make babies regardless of their activities—see biology 101 ).

You either didn’t read or completely ignored my first post:

Me:

Now…the rejoinder may be that we allow infertile couples to marry and so this invalidates the argument. I would say that’s a cute attempt at logic, but wrong. Even infertile couples can engage in sexual intercourse, i.e., baby making activity, even if babies don’t result. They’re still engaging in the type of activity which makes babies, and the government’s interest is in ensuring that this occurs in the most responsible way. Second, even “infertile” couples occasionally conceive. Third, making couples take a fertility test would violate the Democrat-beloved Constitutional right to privacy. Fourth, the law favors bright line rules, and one man / one woman is a pretty bright line.

So there are four independent reasons why you’re thinking isn’t very good on this point. Refute them all, in addition to the availability of infertility treatments (reversals, viagra, etc.) and we’ll talk.

KarenNC:

If you have now changed your argument to discuss a sexual relationship between the brother and sister, that is easily addressed by the fact that such sexual activity is currently illegal. If it is made legal at some point, I will be happy to revisit the discussion with you.

Like I said, you’re right – the analogy isn’t as good as the celibate bro/sis; they can still make babies. Same sex couples can’t. That said, you are doing exceedingly little to assuage the fears that same sex advocates are going to turn marriage into an “anything-goes” kind of thing.

Incest taboos have never been exclusively Christian or even Jewish. In fact, there are societies which have wider ranging taboos than Christian ones do. Incest laws are not exclusively applicable to children, though certainly children do benefit.

Homosexual taboos have never been exclusively Christian or even Jewish. In fact, there are societies which have wider ranging taboos than Christian ones do. Point being?

And are you suggesting it’s right and proper to criminally punish two consenting adults for their sexual behavior because of your taboos?

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

KarenNC:

Alternatively, Ryan, what you can do is to show me in detail exactly how making any specific same sex marriage legal rather than merely religiously valid, much less the existence of same sex marriage in general, is a threat in any way to my heterosexual monogamous marriage. I know of no way that it would be such.
…
To know that two women or two men married would not have dissuaded me from marrying my husband. To see a couple who are indeed in a longterm, monogamous, supportive and sacrificial marriage that has weathered rough spots would have been (and is) just as inspiring to me whether they were the same or opposite sexes and regardless of what particular actions they take in the bedroom (which is none of my business regardless of their sexual orientation).

In part, you’re correct. If Larry and Bob get married, I’m not going to divorce my wife.

However, you’re ignoring several points.

First, the law is a teacher. By recognizing same sex unions on a par with traditional marriage the state is teaching us that there’s no difference – marriage is only about romantic love and not in the slightest about begetting children (or doing that which does) responsibly. See the majority of my argument already posted above.

Moreover, religious expression will be threatened as religious views will be held as discriminatory – e.g., what will happen when various religious groups withhold same sex partner benefits on religious grounds? Answer: (1) they may be forceably compelled to do so by the state (in violation of their religious beliefs and as has happened regarding contraception) and/or (2) they will lose tax exempt status (making continued expression of their beliefs far more difficult while permitting expression of gay-friendly religious groups – a government endorsement of a particular religious view if I’ve ever seen one!).

Additionally, given the statistics previously cited regarding longevity of same sex unions, it’s likely that in the long run this will only increase divorces. And what of the children and stability of marriage then?

Finally, my tax dollars are going to go to pay subsidies for Larry when Bob dies, pay for the tax benefits afforded them while Bob is alive, and pay for public school sensitivity/non-discrimination/homosexual normalization training for my kids which I don’t support.

Now, seriously, do you really think that it doesn’t matter what people do in the privacy of their home? Do you really think there are no social costs to a person’s “private sexual activity”, even in light of the (dare I say it) AIDS/HIV/STD epidemic we’re currently living in? I’m not saying same sex folks are solely responsible (they’re not), but rather that this “whatever you do in your bedroom is your business and doesn’t hurt me” mentality most certainly is. The social and financial costs from this mentality have been disasterous – and you want to further the mentality?!?

Religiously valid same sex marriage has been widely available to many groups for years.

Um…no they haven’t? There’s no such thing as a “religiously valid same sex marriage”. If you want to discuss religion, we can – but I thought that wasn’t the point of the thread.

KarenNC:

I see much more of an argument for potential threat from never married, cohabiting or divorced heterosexuals, heterosexuals who are married but not monogamous and media blasting sex as a casual encounter with no consequences (by that I mean sex of any kind with anyone). Frankly, I only see possible improvement of the view of the institution of marriage in such a situation.

Again with the “heterosexual marriage is already in bad shape” argument. Oy vey.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[urban-hermit]

**Whenever you argue with somebody in a non-religious setting about “gay marriage”, ask your discussion partner why we, as a society, could possibly need “gay marriage”?

When they cook up some reasons, ask them if those reasons are important enough to make a radical, qualitative change in the most important institution of human civilization.

When they belittle (as they probably will) the importance of marriage as a building-block for society, educate them (and yourself first, of course) about current population trends in every single western country, and the implications of these trends. (Human - including economic - survival)

Also, buy this book and READ it: The Future of Marriage**, by David Blankenhorn. Mr. Blankenhorn is a liberal, not a religious Christian. All his arguments and long experience with the reality of marriage’s importance come from a non-religious perspective.

There are many reasons not to re-define marriage to encompass homosexuality. But the onus should be placed on the person suggesting such a foolhardy move to justify it.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, My above challenge to you was hastily written, a bit sloppy and not very well thought out. Thank you for responding in kind.

Ryan, I am attempting to keep this on a civil basis, as is required by the forum rules. I would appreciate you also attempting to follow those rules.

If you want to rely on my argument, you have to take the whole thing. That excludes same sex couples.

You specified “baby making activities” which I presume also excludes your chaste brother and sister. My argument stands.

You’re right. The chaste bro/sis is more appropriate for the analogy since they don’t engage in baby making activity (as would any human/non-human coupling – which is probably why the examples thrown out there so much).

Thrown out by whom? I am frankly not interested in taking this discussion into the realm of the absurd, so if you want to talk about “human/non-human couplings” in other countries, you’ll be on your own with that one. If you are interested in chaste brothers and sisters having a legal marriage available to them (though how you plan to make sure that they stay chaste, I do not know), go campaign for it. I am interested in talking about US law and the potential for legal civil marriage for same sex couples. It is not a matter of “they’re illegal so they should stay that way” but “they are illegal, what we are actually supposed to be discussing is not”.

Simply put, unless the criteria is used as a barrier to civil marriage among heterosexuals, I see no reason to say that it should be a barrier to homosexuals.

You either didn’t read or completely ignored my first post:

So there are four independent reasons why you’re thinking isn’t very good on this point. Refute them all, in addition to the availability of infertility treatments (reversals, viagra, etc.) and we’ll talk.

I read it. It simply doesn’t apply to my actual statements. Your argument appears to be that the state has a vested interest in supporting couples who engage in heterosexual intercourse that might potentially lead to the possibility of a child but has no interest in actually providing a stable home for the child after it’s born. Therefore the state would have no vested interest in allowing a marriage to a woman who has had a hysterectomy, as, regardless of the activity in which she engages, she is not going to produce a child. Neither is the woman who is 85. Neither is the man who is permanently and irreversibly impotent.

There are men for whom no amount of Viagra is going to be sufficient (and men who cannot use Viagra) and no amount of currently available infertility treatments is going to replace a missing uterus (but thanks for the chance to quote “Life of Brian”—“Where’s the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?”). This does not mean that they may not and do not still engage in sexual activity, just that it is not going to result, even possibly, in “baby-making”.

I would hope that Republicans love the Constitutional right to privacy just as much as the Democrats, unless you are implying that Republicans would like to be able to freely ignore the US Constitution? I would be surprised if that were actually the case.
Several states still require blood tests for STDs (particularly syphillis) and other issues before issuing a marriage license, which is not seen as unconstitutional.
nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/5/objectId/EB95C264-54FF-4D07-A89342705EE7133F/catId/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825/118/304/192/FAQ/

That said, you are doing exceedingly little to assuage the fears that same sex advocates are going to turn marriage into an “anything-goes” kind of thing.

Why? Because I am pointing out that incest and bestiality are illegal and that I don’t see a lot of purpose in discussing the possibility of legal marriage based on illegal activities?

And are you suggesting it’s right and proper to criminally punish two consenting adults for their sexual behavior because of your taboos?

Personally, I don’t care a fig what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom as long as they are not asking me or my family to participate. However, I reiterate that I see no point in discussing civil same sex marriage between unrelated consenting adults as being equivalent to these examples. You are equating a possible marriage based on legal sexual activity with one based on illegal sexual activity. Apples and oranges.

 

[KarenNC]

First, the law is a teacher. By recognizing same sex unions on a par with traditional marriage the state is teaching us that there’s no difference – marriage is only about romantic love and not in the slightest about begetting children (or doing that which does) responsibly.

I have no problem with the law teaching that homosexual marriage is subject to exactly the same standards and expectations as heterosexual marriage, that two people who plan to engage in sexual activity should best do so within the context of a monogamous committed lifelong relationship that carries legal responsibilities or that families who have legal responsibilities and commitments to each other and to their children are a more stable model than those that do not.

Unless you plan to outlaw heterosexual marriage, adoption, and various medical means for conception at the same time you allow same sex marriage, to claim that it will remove the idea that marriages include raising children is simply not applicable.

Moreover, religious expression will be threatened as religious views will be held as discriminatory – e.g., what will happen when various religious groups withhold same sex partner benefits on religious grounds?

If they are also willing to forego any federal or state support while they do so, I don’t see the problem. If they plan to accept government funding, then they need to be prepared to accept government requirements.

Answer: (1) they may be forceably compelled to do so by the state (in violation of their religious beliefs and as has happened regarding contraception) and/or (2) they will lose tax exempt status (making continued expression of their beliefs far more difficult while permitting expression of gay-friendly religious groups – a government endorsement of a particular religious view if I’ve ever seen one!).

“In their original appeal the groups argued that the statute’s exemption for “religious employers” was too narrow, since it restricted the exemption only to those organizations that were non-profit, faith-promoting, serving a specific faith community and employing primarily members of that community.”

I don’t see the issue.

I also don’t see a problem with religious groups that are willing to abide by the US laws governing tax-exemption and use of public funds having access to those funds. I do see a problem with groups seeking public funds and declaring that they can then do whatever they want with them.

I suppose it could be seen as a government endorsement of the religious view that one has to actually follow the laws governing use of public funds if one wants to receive public funds.

Additionally, given the statistics previously cited regarding longevity of same sex unions, it’s likely that in the long run this will only increase divorces. And what of the children and stability of marriage then?

Unless it’s a barrier to heterosexual marriage, I see no reason it should be a barrier to same sex marriage.

Finally, my tax dollars are going to go to pay subsidies for Larry when Bob dies, pay for the tax benefits afforded them while Bob is alive, and pay for public school sensitivity/non-discrimination/homosexual normalization training for my kids which I don’t support.

So you are fully in support of every single thing that your current tax dollars fund? I have to admit that I have never before met anyone who could say that. You are perfectly free to exercise your right to vote for candidates who support your views.

Now, seriously, do you really think that it doesn’t matter what people do in the privacy of their home?

There is no way we can reasonably legislate what goes on between consenting adults in their bedrooms. There is almost nothing out there that same sex partners engage in sexually that heterosexual partners do not also engage in (I can think of possibly one or two exceptions, but that’s about it).

We are bearing the costs of a society that encourages the view of sex as a casual, commitment-free activity with no consequences either legal or in any other way. That is not what civil same sex marriage entails.

Um…no they haven’t? There’s no such thing as a “religiously valid same sex marriage”. If you want to discuss religion, we can – but I thought that wasn’t the point of the thread.

The religious groups that have performed Holy Unions and other religious same sex marriages certainly consider them religiously valid. My point was exactly that we are not talking about religious marriage here, we are talking about civil marriage, and that they are separate institutions.

Again with the “heterosexual marriage is already in bad shape” argument.

No. “Again with the equal treatment under the law” argument.

 

[urban-hermit]

I suggest that you do the same. The ‘Catholic Answers Forums’ is exactly what the title suggests - about religion - catholicism. Also it is hardly possible to discuss without including one’s beliefs. Since my beliefs are all coloured by my faith as a catholic, I cannot discuss well without referring to them.

Why don’t you discuss without referring to your beliefs!

Hi Shiphrae - you know, I think this is a really important point that we all need to keep in mind. And that is that even when we are discussing or debating an issue such as this with somebody who does not know/love/serve God, we have to remember that we do! So I thank you for bringing this out.

I think what it amounts to is a tactic by the person who refuses to acknowledge God: “Talk to me as if your god does not exist, because that is the only thing that I can understand…”

Well, if we oblige them in that, this can really tempt us toward a subtle sin on our part, we can begin to think like the unbeliever! At least it is putting us in a weakened arguing position where the most important realities are being implicitly denied in the conversation.

I feel we all need to be aware of this, and make a conscious effort, even while we are making purely natural arguments against the various perversions currently being proposed, to never deny our God - even implicitly. And ALWAYS to keep in mind that He will be the Victor, and that His truth will continue to be verified again and again, even in the merely natural world, and that those who are not blinded to it will see that, even through merely natural arguments.

 

[urban-hermit]

This whole argument can be simplified, and we can be spared the tedious and pointless over-complication of the matter by our non-Christian sister, Karen, who seems to have nothing else to do with her time.

There is no such thing as “gay marriage”.

The biggest and most important divide in society is not, as we would be told by some, the tragic divide between the homosexual and the rest of the world. The biggest and most important divide in society, the one that most needs to be bridged, the one that HAS ALWAYS needed to be bridged, for a variety of reasons, is the divide between the sexes: MALE and FEMALE.

Marriage is the time-tested way humans have met this need. It has been the most important part of human culture. Without it society as we know it could never have evolved - and will not continue.

Marriage is many things, and one of them - an intrinsic part of what the word has always meant - is that it is a means of bringing the opposite sexes together in a cohesive way that benefits society in various ways, one of them being children, the continuation of our race and culture.

Yes, even infertile couples can adopt children and provide them with a MALE and FEMALE parent.

Yes, even those couples who choose not to adopt can still model the ideal environment for that most important thing to happen.

Yes, we do need to see those models, the young especially need to see it, so that the norm which the family depends upon remains in practice by the next generation.

Same sex couples can not fulfill the requirements of marriage for many reasons, but the most glaringly obvious is because both of the members of the couple are of the SSAAMMEE SSEEXX !

It’s really very simple, Karen. Now why don’t you go kick up some horse-manure on the world’s largest Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist on-line forum? And give us a break. … oh, that’s right, you can’t. Because there’s no such thing. Because your religion is a big fat zero in terms of ever having contributed anything to human society. And you get your kicks nit-picking us to death with your endless substance-less excrutiatingly LONG posts.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Was this link posted already?

catholicaudio.blogspot.com/search/label/Same%20Sex%20Issues

---

The following lecture is from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which is not a Catholic organization despite working with world-renowned Catholic scholars and writers like William J. Bennett, Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., Robert P. George, Mary Ann Glendon, Russell Hittinger, Richard John Neuhaus, and Michael Novak.

The Question of Marriage
A Lecture by Hadley Arkes

In this lecture, Professor Hadley Arkes explained how the most serious challenge in principle to the traditional laws governing marriage in fact reveals the deeper flaws in the argument for same-sex marriage.

---

 

[Elric]

Whenever you argue with somebody in a non-religious setting about “gay marriage”, ask your discussion partner why we, as a society, could possibly need “gay marriage”?

We dont “need” gay marriage at all.

Then again we dont “need” hetrosexual marriage either.

When they cook up some reasons, ask them if those reasons are important enough to make a radical, qualitative change in the most important institution of human civilization.

No you have it backwards, this thread is about arguments for not allowing gay marriage. You cant change the rules just because they dont suit you, it would probably be better not to enter the discussion if you dont like the parameters.

But by your use of terms like “the person suggesting such a foolhardy move”, “When they cook up some reasons” and “When they belittle (as they probably will)”, I can see that you are open minded and open to discussion over the issue.

 

[KarenNC]

It’s really very simple, Karen. Now why don’t you go kick up some horse-manure on the world’s largest Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist on-line forum? And give us a break. … oh, that’s right, you can’t. Because there’s no such thing. Because your religion is a big fat zero in terms of ever having contributed anything to human society. And you get your kicks nit-picking us to death with your endless substance-less excrutiatingly LONG posts.

Thank you for a shining example of a “Christian” behavior which I thankfully do not often encounter on this forum.

Nice to know that the Greek civilization and religion has never contributed anything to human society.

Debate is precisely about what you deride as “nitpicking us to death”. If you have cogent points to contribute in a civil fashion, I will be glad to discuss them. Resorting to personal attack is certainly not something that indicates the strength of your position. I would suggest you revisit your forum rules.

 

[Bennie_P]

Thank you for a shining example of a “Christian” behavior which I thankfully do not often encounter on this forum.

Nice to know that the Greek civilization and religion has never contributed anything to human society.

Debate is precisely about what you deride as “nitpicking us to death”. If you have cogent points to contribute in a civil fashion, I will be glad to discuss them. Resorting to personal attack is certainly not something that indicates the strength of your position. I would suggest you revisit your forum rules.

You are so correct in chastising urban-hermit for making a personal attack on you. But he does have sense on one part of the debate about and for same sex marriage, that is all about nit picking away at Christinity. It really comes down to that “gay” appoligist main argument - “hetersexuals have failed to live up to the Christian idea of morality so there is no proof that homosexuals will do worse.” Which is really a very lame argument. People can continue to try sound like they are making “educated” and “enlighten” arguments that it is basically a “rights” issue and tell Christians they should just shut up. but once again I like to point out Christianity is not about one group being perfect and all others are wrong. It is about stiving for what is better for society as whole, recognizing we are defective, we need God’s help, submit to Him, and seeking to glorify God for we are not gods and are prone to screw everything up. As to Greek civilization contributing to society there should be no argument that it hadn’t, but it is just one small part of a mosaic of influences that shapes our society. Its lasting influence has been asorbed, yet the bad parts of it are like a thorn in society’s side. Mainly some of the ideas on sexuality based in some of its pagan religions. Those religions died out, not because of the sword of conquest, but because they are more imperfect then the religion that replaced them, for they were and are false. The growth of all neo-paganism in our modern times, is just the same continous attack against God’s Church, a last ditch effort to bring down what is good, either you see it or you don’t.
You do nit pick, but to your credit you are a very intellegent women. Hopefully one of these days you use that intellect to argue for truth.

Same Sex Marriage is a bad idea because homosexuality is a bad idea. Only foolishness and ignoring the destruction it causes can justify it.

Rom 1:22 **For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. **
Rom 1:23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
Rom 1:27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
Rom 1:28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
Rom 1:32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
1899 Douay-Rheims Public Domain

 

[urban-hermit]

Thank you for a shining example of a “Christian” behavior which I thankfully do not often encounter on this forum.

Nice to know that the Greek civilization and religion has never contributed anything to human society.

Debate is precisely about what you deride as “nitpicking us to death”. If you have cogent points to contribute in a civil fashion, I will be glad to discuss them. Resorting to personal attack is certainly not something that indicates the strength of your position. I would suggest you revisit your forum rules.

Hi Karen,

It’s true. Somebody got cross with you. But did it escape your notice that this very response of yours is exactly what I am complaining to you about?

I DID make several points in the argument. You ignored them all, and focused on poor polytheistic Karen being bluntly rebuked.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM. You are not an honest seeker. You are here to discuss your agenda. You are here to waste our time, because you only listen with an ear to argumentation and how you can best put forth your unCatholic agenda. To pull apart your tirelessly composed posts, and address each point, is extremely labor-intensive.

Let me give you some perspective. This is not only a debating forum. It is called CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUMS. It is paid for by us Catholics. It is kept going by us Catholics, who spend our time contributing to it. Do you contribute “catholic answers”? No. Do you give the catholic answers you receive a fair shake - ie., at least TRY to hear what people are saying? No. What you do is interpret everything you hear in such a way to further your position, even when it is often easily seen what is meant by the poster. In this very thread you have told one poster her Catholic viewpoint was “not applicable”, and at least twice now you have complained about how you were not treated kindly enough with regard to the forum rules, even as you continue to bulldoze through every answer you are offered. As a result, many people, Catholic and non-Catholic seekers alike, who really do want to participate in a Catholic conversation, and may be still learning their own faith, are marginalized. For a pagan you really do a LOT of pontificating.

You have been treated very patiently and indulgently here. You have been here quite a while. I don’t think you would find this much patience for your irritating tactics on any other board so opposed to your viewpoint, religious or “secular”. A little humility please?

Not everyone is a professional debater here. Most of us are just regular common people trying to learn more about our faith. I realize you are not a Christian, but at least try to show some gratefulness for the vast amount of patience and indulgence which continues to be extended to you, a guest, here. I think this falls within the realm of common courtesy.

Obviously I cannot stop you from coming here. But I do not think expressing these sentiments violates the forum rules. Perhaps I am wrong about that? At any rate, I am not confident this will make any sense whatsoever to you. You have shown time and again a dogged obstinacy to anything Catholic that actually makes sense in a natural sense. I post partially in the hope that it will make sense to one of the other people for whom this forum exists: Catholics and honest non-Catholic seekers.

 

[urban-hermit]

We dont “need” gay marriage at all.

Then again we dont “need” hetrosexual marriage either.

Well, for many centuries marriage has not included same-sex couples. In fact, marriage has NEVER included same-sex couples.

Marriage has only ever included male-female pairings.

There has never been a civilization that I know of that does not have marriage with this attribute.

So I would say, based on that, that we DO need marriage. Or, what you refer to as “heterosexual marriage”, which I find redundant.

Radical change?

To re-define a word in such a way that you take away one of the most central attributes of what the word describes (i.e., marriage has always been understood to be between male and female, not same-sex), then I would say that is a radical change.

Most important institution of human civilization?

I think it is. If it is not, help me to see which institution is more important to human civilization.

That is only one persons opinion that they chose to publish and get money for.

In The Future of Marriage author David Blankenhorn has a lot to say about what, by the urgency of the debate, many people consider to be an issue of vital social and political import. His credentials with regard to marriage are impressive in that he has worked to better society and the lives of children by studying and promoting marriage for 20 years.

And just as importantly I would point out that he does not have an axe to grind against gays. And he does not make his arguments in any explicit way based on religion.

So with regard to the topic of this thread, the book is a perfect resource.

If marriage and its importance to the next generations of human beings is of concern to you, take a look at what he has to say.

No you have it backwards, this thread is about arguments for not allowing gay marriage. You cant change the rules just because they dont suit you, it would probably be better not to enter the discussion if you dont like the parameters.

But by your use of terms like “the person suggesting such a foolhardy move”, “When they cook up some reasons” and “When they belittle (as they probably will)”, I can see that you are open minded and open to discussion over the issue.

My bias is showing. I feel passionately that “gay marriage” is bad for marriage, bad for society in that it will lead people into relational dead-ends, and unnecessary for gays, the majority of whom have little or no interest in getting married or staying married.

As far as challenging somebody to come up with reasons FOR gay marriage, I think that is a fair tactic, given the importance of the issue at hand.

 

[blessedtoo]

You are not an honest seeker. You are here to discuss your agenda. You are here to waste our time, because you only listen with an ear to argumentation and how you can best put forth your unCatholic agenda. To pull apart your tirelessly composed posts, and address each point, is extremely labor-intensive.

Completely agree.

Months ago, a similar thread was monopolized by tedious and endless “nit-picking” about ssm. I suggested the book dismissed here (without the poster reading said book)

Also, buy this book and READ it: The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn. Mr. Blankenhorn is a liberal, not a religious Christian. All his arguments and long experience with the reality of marriage’s importance come from a non-religious perspective.

That is only one persons opinion that they chose to publish and get money for.

Unlike the posters who come onto CAF with the hope of advancing their irrational support of ssm, those of us who remain unafraid and open-minded about this issue actually READ the links provided by the gay marriage advocates. We read them in order to LEARN what new and “clever” arguments are being “cooked up” to defend their desire to completely dismantle an institution which is essential to a civilized human society. The cavalier dismissal of the above book only illustrates the deep rooted fear some have that their apology for ssm is built on nothing but sand. In fact, as Urban pointed out, this book is written by a Lib who is looking for ways to defend ssm. And guess what? He can’t find one! It is filled with research and studies compiled by completely secular organizations. The author, unlike some of the posters here, is actually seeking an answer and the truth. In his case, it turns out to be an “inconvenient” truth, but truth nonetheless.

This book, along with the countless cogent and proof-based arguments presented here, answers the OP question. This issue has been beaten into the ground by the same posters time after time. Those of us who really wish to help our brothers and sisters understand the danger of legalizing ssm are exhausted by the willful refusal of the other side to even entertain the validity of our claims. Even when framed from a “secular” perspective, and presented with endless facts (RyanL couldn’t have made it easier), the obstinance displayed here raises the question; “what’s the point?”

No you have it backwards, this thread is about arguments for not allowing gay marriage. You cant change the rules just because they dont suit you, it would probably be better not to enter the discussion if you dont like the parameters.

Ah, I don’t think so. Go back and read the OP. It’s about 50,000 posts back. He asked for arguments against ssm. Your contribution has been to atttempt to dismantle these arguments. Perhaps you could start a new thread and invite those who believe they have a defense FOR ssm to participate.

 

[blessedtoo]

Debate is precisely about what you deride as “nitpicking us to death”. If you have cogent points to contribute in a civil fashion, I will be glad to discuss them. Resorting to personal attack is certainly not something that indicates the strength of your position. I would suggest you revisit your forum rules.

I would suggest you revisit Merriam Webster. “Nit picking” was not included in the definition of debate.
de·bate

1. 
   *]To consider something; deliberate.
   *]To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.

 

[Flatlander]

I have recently gotten into a few debates with friends over whether or not gay marriage should be legal or illegal. I of course oppose same sex marriage, but most of my friends are for it, and theyre challenging me to come up with a reason against it leaving out my Catholic values. To say the least ive been stumped, and need some help coming up with a few points on why gay marriage should be illegal.

I believe that, as Catholic’s, we should hold, as a basic premise, that God’s will trumps all. If someone does not believe this, as a basic premise, then any discussion with them is, at the very least, futile. I believe it is also **morally wrong **because to leave God’s will out of the discussion implies that His will is not sufficient reason for doing or not doing something. I think you should pray for your friends to see the Truth, but inform them that you cannot discuss a matter of morals without reference to God.

 

[Shiphrae]

*I feel we all need to be aware of this, and make a conscious effort, even while we are making purely natural arguments against the various perversions currently being proposed, to never deny our God - even implicitly. And ALWAYS to keep in mind that He will be the Victor, and that His truth will continue to be verified again and again, even in the merely natural world, and that those who are not blinded to it will see that, even through merely natural arguments.

---

Laudetur Jesus Christus! ( Praised be Jesus Christ! ) urban-hermit
In eternum. Amen! ( Now and forever! ) *

Yes, I think that you’re exactly right! We should refuse to debate in a secular way by leaving God out of it. If we let ourselves get drawn into that type of a discussion, it will go nowhere for us. A non-catholic or even non-christian will never be satisfied with our objections. They want validation. They want us to say that they are right. And it is an insult to God! If I were Satan, I would use this very method of getting people to leave God out of discussions. This is the very reason that our world is in such a mess -abortions,suicides,euthanasia. **God IS being left out! ** Our children are not being taught about God. As a result they have little concept of right and wrong.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[urban-hermit]

Amen, Shiphrae. And your last sentences remind me of another aspect of this argument which never seems to get mentioned:

How do young people learn about relationships?

Basically, they need to be taught what is good and what is bad. They see it modeled, and they follow the model. We have troubled marriages today, we want to put forth BETTER, more CLEAR role models, not worse more confusing ones. So I just want to re-post a link from somebody else that I just finished reading. It is a little long, and although it is not specifically Catholic, he does make some non-religious arguments that I think are compatible with our Faith I think:
gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107

 

[urban-hermit]

… although it is not specifically Catholic, he does make some non-religious arguments that I think are compatible with our Faith I think:
gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107

OOPS - i didn’t actually finish reading it before i posted. There is some kind of offensive language in there! Sorry ! He still makes some good points, i just wish he would’ve skipped that one comment - even i find it unnecessarily offensive. Sorry!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I recall rewading some years ago an article in First Things where the authors (name and title I cannot remember) pretty much advanced the notion that “You can’t expand marriage, only abolish it”

His (or her?) thinking being that it would be far more honest to simply disestablish any legal protections given to heterosexual pair bonding than to juxtapose that relationship type onto other relationships and intereactions that are not the same.

Of course in the West we have very successfully gotten away from the concept of lifelong pro-creative marriages (in it for the long haul, let’s make some babies) and replaced it with a largely utilitarian proposition (I like having sex with you, the wedding would be awesome, we will enjoy a better lifestyle of we are double-income - maybe no kids - and if it does not work out we signed a pre-nup and we will marry other people.…)

Once the latter has become the predominate accepted notion of “marriage” (I believe it already has) the arguments against two guys or gals entering into legal partnership to create an entity that better protects their property rights and ability to get beniftis or retirement incomes start to sound hollow.

As one stand up comedian put it*** “Its unfair that lesbians don’t have to pay divorce lawyers when they split up, they just rent a U-haul!”***

Indeed.

Divorce for everyone.