Y
YankeeRC
Guest
For the record, that except is from Dennis Prager.
- Status
J
John21652
Guest
When mounting an argument, one should attempt to diagnose one’s biases and then mount arguments for what is true, not for what one wants to be true.
That really is an open question that even science can’t answer. Notwithstanding that fact, homosexuality is outside the normative human behaviours as witnessed and studied down through history. To excuse it because it exists is the same as excusing any sort of human behaviour simply because it exists. Man has free will and that, ultimately, decides how people behave. Behaviour that is immoral, dangerous and not normal is ultimately a choice individuals make. Behaving morally is how people live according to the likeness of God.
Perhaps, but you made certain assertions and they are not correct.
There is a difference between accepting something and actively oppressing something. The proponents of homosexuality bring condemnation on themselves by actively espousing utter nonsense. The Catholic Church does not condone oppression, but tolerance. That does not give licence to the pro-homosexuals to seek an equality where there can be none and by re-writing history. The advancement of the human race has always depended on a shared morality as being the ‘glue’ that holds societies together. A trashing of, or a re-writing of morality will not ‘advance’ the human race. In fact, quite the opposite. History is full of such examples.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
catmando
**So: Is there any argument from a secular point of view that can defend our Catholic position in a country where the separation of church and state is a must? **
The opinion of the entire human race. Never before in history has marriage been contemplated for homosexuals. The opinion of the human race is that not only are homosexuals acts perverse, but common sense is against them, not just the teachings of the Church. We know from Plato and Aristotle that sodomy was considered perverse even by the Greeks, who did not enact laws allowing marriage between members of the same sex. The rule of common sense should be sufficient, never mind the rule separating Church and State.
But I think the case could more easily be made that the modern world has lost common sense morality than that there is a good secular argument against homosexual marriage.
How the modern world gets back its common sense is beyond me.
**So: Is there any argument from a secular point of view that can defend our Catholic position in a country where the separation of church and state is a must? **
The opinion of the entire human race. Never before in history has marriage been contemplated for homosexuals. The opinion of the human race is that not only are homosexuals acts perverse, but common sense is against them, not just the teachings of the Church. We know from Plato and Aristotle that sodomy was considered perverse even by the Greeks, who did not enact laws allowing marriage between members of the same sex. The rule of common sense should be sufficient, never mind the rule separating Church and State.
But I think the case could more easily be made that the modern world has lost common sense morality than that there is a good secular argument against homosexual marriage.
How the modern world gets back its common sense is beyond me.
Y
YankeeRC
Guest
I’m going off topic, but my personal take on that is by a loss of affluence. Affluence got us where we are in half a century which is a far way from where we have ever been in history. Some believe we have changed and will never go back, I think of it rather like a market resetting itself.But I think the case could more easily be made that the modern world has lost common sense morality than that there is a good secular argument against homosexual marriage.
How the modern world gets back its common sense is beyond me.
J
jimjack
Guest
What a HORRIBLE argument. Slavery has been accepted through out history and many notable historical figures agreed with slavery. Not having slaves is perverse and common sense is with slavery. Guys, lets bring slaves back…its common sense!!!catmando
**So: Is there any argument from a secular point of view that can defend our Catholic position in a country where the separation of church and state is a must? **
The opinion of the entire human race. Never before in history has marriage been contemplated for homosexuals. The opinion of the human race is that not only are homosexuals acts perverse, but common sense is against them, not just the teachings of the Church. We know from Plato and Aristotle that sodomy was considered perverse even by the Greeks, who did not enact laws allowing marriage between members of the same sex. The rule of common sense should be sufficient, never mind the rule separating Church and State.
But I think the case could more easily be made that the modern world has lost common sense morality than that there is a good secular argument against homosexual marriage.
How the modern world gets back its common sense is beyond me.
lol, reading some of your comments about homosexuality and gay marriage makes me happy that no matter what you think or what you do gay marriage will be legalized in all of the western world very soon.
K
Kouyate42
Guest
Also add this:
Depression, suicide and mental problems are statistically higher in the homosexual population than in the heterosexual population. A homosexual is something like 2.8 times more likely to need treatment for mental problems than a heterosexual person. Treatments in this population generally take longer (in the case of counselling and other non-drug measures) and require longer periods of medication and stronger drugs (in the case of any anti-depressant treatment).
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jimjack
**What a HORRIBLE argument. Slavery has been accepted through out history and many notable historical figures agreed with slavery. Not having slaves is perverse and common sense is with slavery. Guys, lets bring slaves back…its common sense!!! **
Slavery, like sodomy, is as old as the world. It has had its defenders … the ones who owned slaves, just as sodomites have defended their practice. That doesn’t mean that it is supported by common sense any more than sodomy is.
Certainly slaves never thought it was common sense that they should be slaves.
You could use a Basic Intro to Logic course at your nearest Community College!
**What a HORRIBLE argument. Slavery has been accepted through out history and many notable historical figures agreed with slavery. Not having slaves is perverse and common sense is with slavery. Guys, lets bring slaves back…its common sense!!! **
Slavery, like sodomy, is as old as the world. It has had its defenders … the ones who owned slaves, just as sodomites have defended their practice. That doesn’t mean that it is supported by common sense any more than sodomy is.
Certainly slaves never thought it was common sense that they should be slaves.
You could use a Basic Intro to Logic course at your nearest Community College!
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
Correlation does not constitute causation. Perhaps this is rooted in society rejecting them and telling them that they are “disordered”, say they cannot marry those whom they love, outright rejection from family and friends, and crude jokes made about them? Just a guess. Evidence also shows that how well a homosexual adjusts and presence of depression is related to if they are accepted or rejected by close family and friends.
E
exoflare
Guest
If you see the term “gay marriage” as anything but the contradiction of terms that it is, then you’ve already been desensitized to some extent.
The long and short of it all is that government doesn’t need to be in the business of marriage in the first place. Originally the point of incentivizing real marriages was to promote the creation of families. The counterfeit institution being pushed on us today has no such effect and therefore has no reason to be incentivized even from a purely utilitarian perspective. The only reason it is being pushed on us is because of our decadent culture’s irrational fear of offending anybody (in most cases
).
The long and short of it all is that government doesn’t need to be in the business of marriage in the first place. Originally the point of incentivizing real marriages was to promote the creation of families. The counterfeit institution being pushed on us today has no such effect and therefore has no reason to be incentivized even from a purely utilitarian perspective. The only reason it is being pushed on us is because of our decadent culture’s irrational fear of offending anybody (in most cases
).
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
Yes, but his point I think is that for the majority of human history, slavery was accepted and practiced across many civilizations. Majority opinion cannot be used as a gauge fto judge the proper morality of something. In that respect, slavery and homosexuality cannot be compared.jimjack
**What a HORRIBLE argument. Slavery has been accepted through out history and many notable historical figures agreed with slavery. Not having slaves is perverse and common sense is with slavery. Guys, lets bring slaves back…its common sense!!! **
Slavery, like sodomy, is as old as the world. It has had its defenders … the ones who owned slaves, just as sodomites have defended their practice. That doesn’t mean that it is supported by common sense any more than sodomy is.
Certainly slaves never thought it was common sense that they should be slaves.
You could use a Basic Intro to Logic course at your nearest Community College!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
JohnnyReb
**Yes, but his point I think is that for the majority of human history, slavery was accepted and practiced across many civilizations. Majority opinion cannot be used as a gauge fto judge the proper morality of something. In that respect, slavery and homosexuality cannot be compared. **
The Founders hotly debated slavery as a justifiable institution. Slavery could never have been viewed as a common sense philosophy except by those who owned slaves and sinned against nature by buying and selling human beings for profit.
Who with any common sense would want to be a slave?
Even among slaves sodomy was doubtless viewed as contrary to nature and common sense. Thomas Jefferson viewed homosexuality as a crime and advocated punishment of it in men by castration. Do you think Jefferson was lacking in common sense, or do you think he was mightily offended by an outrage against our human nature? Jefferson also viewed slavery as a bad institution, and against nature, even though he participated in it.
There’s no evidence that Jefferson was a sodomite.
So I think the comparison of sodomy with slavery as common sense fails miserably.
**Yes, but his point I think is that for the majority of human history, slavery was accepted and practiced across many civilizations. Majority opinion cannot be used as a gauge fto judge the proper morality of something. In that respect, slavery and homosexuality cannot be compared. **
The Founders hotly debated slavery as a justifiable institution. Slavery could never have been viewed as a common sense philosophy except by those who owned slaves and sinned against nature by buying and selling human beings for profit.
Who with any common sense would want to be a slave?
Even among slaves sodomy was doubtless viewed as contrary to nature and common sense. Thomas Jefferson viewed homosexuality as a crime and advocated punishment of it in men by castration. Do you think Jefferson was lacking in common sense, or do you think he was mightily offended by an outrage against our human nature? Jefferson also viewed slavery as a bad institution, and against nature, even though he participated in it.
There’s no evidence that Jefferson was a sodomite.
So I think the comparison of sodomy with slavery as common sense fails miserably.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Personally, I love this argument.
If times change, then we can change them to decide that homosexuality is not only morally wrong, but psychologically disordered. It’s an illness, or it’s antisocial, or any negative word that a changing world chooses to put on it.
Let the pogrom begin.
H
Hail_Linus
Guest
Absolutely!
First we should ask if the State should be involved in marriage at all?
Most would agree the answer is “yes” because not only do we need to replenish our population but we also need to encourage the formation of families.
Second question: Why does the state need to encourage the formation of families?
a) It helps women with financial support (either full or shared)
b) It helps women by not putting all of the parenting responsibility on her alone.
c) Single-parent households very often need financial assistance from the State. Marriage usually removes that burden from the State.
d) We need to raise boys to understand that they have a responsibility for their offspring as well as the mother of their children. Same-sex marriages with children really undermine this. Imagine you are a boy being raised by two lesbians. Aren’t you being taught that you when you become an adult you are not necessary in a family.
e) If Same-Sex marriage is made legal then nothing will prevent it from being taught to children in public school. The affects of this are the same as I listed in d (above).
Third question: Is there a legitimate state interest in making same-sex marriage legal? No. And for the reasons stated above, there is a legitimate state interest in not making same-sex marriage legal.
When you start to look at the issue in this manner you can begin to see more and more problems that will result if same-sex marriage is made legal that have nothing to do with religion.
Additionally, I would like to respond to the argument that the same-sex marriage controversy is similar to the old laws that prevented inter-racial marriage. The difference is that the laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages were a novel idea at the time. Western Society’s definition of marriage from Christianity and Christianity never had a prohibition on inter-racial marriage. One could also say that our laws are influenced by ancient Roman law. The fact is that even prior to Christ, Roman Law had no prohibition against inter-racial marriage and further more, while homosexuality was tolerated they did not permit homosexual marriage.
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
This is true, but the founding of America is actually a recent event in terms of human history. I speaking more on the level of entire human existence. For the majority of our history, we (humanity) have not view slavery as against nature. The Holy Scriptures don’t even advocate for an explicitly abolitionist stance. Now we see it as immoral, contrary to loving your neighbor as yourself. Would you agree that it is immoral?
That depends. In ancient Rome and other civilizations, some people sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. That was a different animal than the American experience, however.
Neither, just lacking in understanding. We still don’t understand the causes of homosexuality fully. If by any chance there is a biologically rooted element to it (geneitc, hormonal or anything like that), Jefferson is wrong-but he was making an observation without the benefit of such knowledge.
Maybe, but I’m not the one who brought it up, just making an argument within that context.So I think the comparison of sodomy with slavery as common sense fails miserably.
M
MC_taters
Guest
That could be a possible change. However, opposition to homosexuality is not the growing aspect of society today. Tolerance and acceptance is growing, so trying to assert that homosexuality is a pyschological disorder of some sort would most likely not survive as a popular idea. In fact, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. So that would suggest that society is going in the reverse direction (In America at least).
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Against Same Sex Marriage - The Six Point Case
*]Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilized society.
*]Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive.
*]The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior.
*]Government-backed same-sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.
*]The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.
*]Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Michael Coren on Canada’s biggest mistake: Gay marriage [read full document]
Last two paragraphs of article:
For the first time not only in Canadian but in world history we are purposefully creating and legitimizing families where there will be either no male or no female role model and parent. Anyone who speaks of uncles, aunts, communities and villages raising children has no real understanding of family life. Single-parent families exist and are sometimes excellent and, obviously, not every mother/father family is a success. But to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering.
We made a terrible mistake, and may not appreciate the full consequences for a generation. We allowed emotion to obscure logic and belittled anyone who appeared out of step with the current fashion. To marry without good reason in regrettable, to divorce good reasoning from public policy is a disgrace.
Last two paragraphs of article:
For the first time not only in Canadian but in world history we are purposefully creating and legitimizing families where there will be either no male or no female role model and parent. Anyone who speaks of uncles, aunts, communities and villages raising children has no real understanding of family life. Single-parent families exist and are sometimes excellent and, obviously, not every mother/father family is a success. But to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering.
We made a terrible mistake, and may not appreciate the full consequences for a generation. We allowed emotion to obscure logic and belittled anyone who appeared out of step with the current fashion. To marry without good reason in regrettable, to divorce good reasoning from public policy is a disgrace.
M
mardukm
Guest
The state has no authority to redefine something that is under the purview of the Church according to the principle of separation of Church and State.
Marriage has always been under the purview of the Church/religion, not the State.
Marriage has always been, by common law, between man and woman, and nothing else.
For the State to redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and woman, it must first undermine the premise that marriage has always been under the purview of religion.
As this is impossible, it has no authority to say that marriage can be between two persons of the same sex.
Blessings,
Marduk
Marriage has always been under the purview of the Church/religion, not the State.
Marriage has always been, by common law, between man and woman, and nothing else.
For the State to redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and woman, it must first undermine the premise that marriage has always been under the purview of religion.
As this is impossible, it has no authority to say that marriage can be between two persons of the same sex.
Blessings,
Marduk
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
The gay crowd, buoyed by media, homosexualist professionals and people in business, activist judges and legislators, may have momentum at this time. But it will always have a problem in claiming truth and wisdom. Agnostics and atheists insist that the sense of right and wrong, or morality, is independent from faith and belief in God. Gay ‘marriage’ will never obtain the moral approval of the bulk of society that believes in traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Gays have freedom and practical rights in America right now. To push for gay ‘marriage’ is superfluous, among other reasons already raised
,
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
MC
In fact, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. So that would suggest that society is going in the reverse direction (In America at least).
The American Psychiatric Association is not society or America.
The nuclear scientists of the 1940s promoted nuclear weapons by cooperating in the invention and proliferation of them. They also were not society or America. Ever since then the world has been trying to figure out a way to undo the damage done by all those hot-shot scientists.
The APA are also a lot of hot-shot scientists, but mostly hot-air I would say.
We no doubt sooner or later will have to undo the damage they have done by validating sodomites as living a “normal” life style.
In fact, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. So that would suggest that society is going in the reverse direction (In America at least).
The American Psychiatric Association is not society or America.
The nuclear scientists of the 1940s promoted nuclear weapons by cooperating in the invention and proliferation of them. They also were not society or America. Ever since then the world has been trying to figure out a way to undo the damage done by all those hot-shot scientists.
The APA are also a lot of hot-shot scientists, but mostly hot-air I would say.
We no doubt sooner or later will have to undo the damage they have done by validating sodomites as living a “normal” life style.
- Status