Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Rau]

I keep reading how gay couples entering into a civil marriage is “destroying society from within” and how it is somehow harming “**traditional **marriage”. Here’s the thing…it’s not.
… I keep hearing how allowing gay people to marry each other is going to somehow have an effect on “Jack and Lisa”, but no one has provided a single bit of evidence that it ever has or ever will. **“Traditional” marriage isn’t changing. **It’s not as if it is no longer going to be available. Jack and Lisa can still get married.

But how odd that we now need to speak of “traditional marriage” and “civil marriage” as though there were a gaping difference. Who decided that “marriage” was to be bifurcated?

…Now, we can go on and on until the sun don’t shine about “morality”, but morality is subjective. Sure, there are some moral views that we all agree on…rape is wrong, murder is wrong, …

Curiously, we don’t “all” agree that abortion (murder of the unborn) is wrong. That would not suit some individuals.

But allowing homosexuals to enter into a civil marriage? …

Oh, is that not Marriage??

I think it’s silly to imply that giving a homosexual couple a piece of paper that states that their relationship is legally recognized by the government…

State recognition of a relationship is NOT the problem. The State recognises all sorts of relationships. It is that the State recognises the relationship in question as “Marriage” that many find objectionable. Were the State to establish a framework that facilitated those civil benefits that befit a couple who wish to share assets, provide mutual care, visitation and inheritance rights and the like - great! But this is not marriage, the sexual union of man and woman which is the building block of the society.

 

[Rau]

…Bill and Tom for love. Tom proposals to Bill. They get married six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country. They go on to have children of their own.

I missed that bit. Have you left the mother(s) of the children out of the story for some reason?

 

[JimG]

I was planning on reading your entire post, but at this point it seemed to become entirely incoherent.

I couldn’t see past this last sentence.

Well, that’s just it. Bill and Tom are entirely incapable of “having children of their own.”

Forget natural law for the moment. Does anyone understand human anatomy? Why are there men and women?

 

[Finite]

I was planning on reading your entire post, but at this point it seemed to become entirely incoherent.

I couldn’t see past this last sentence.

There lies the difference between you and I. I actually read all of your posts, then I disagreed. You disregarded my statement right from the beginning, at your own admission.

And this is why same-sex marriage is becoming legalized state-by-state.

 

[Finite]

But how odd that we now need to speak of “traditional marriage” and “civil marriage” as though there were a gaping difference. Who decided that “marriage” was to be bifurcated?

Curiously, we don’t “all” agree that abortion (murder of the unborn) is wrong. That would not suit some individuals.

Oh, is that not Marriage??

State recognition of a relationship is NOT the problem. The State recognises all sorts of relationships. It is that the State recognises the relationship in question as “Marriage” that many find objectionable. Were the State to establish a framework that facilitated those civil benefits that befit a couple who wish to share assets, provide mutual care, visitation and inheritance rights and the like - great! But this is not marriage, the sexual union of man and woman which is the building block of the society.

So, are you implying that the legalization of same-sex marriage is going to somehow stop a man and a woman from procreating? I don’t foresee a national sexuality conversion.

 

[Thorolfr]

Well, that’s just it. Bill and Tom are entirely incapable of “having children of their own.”

Forget natural law for the moment. Does anyone understand human anatomy? Why are there men and women?

I have some married gay friends who have a daughter who was conceived using the sperm of one of the men while the sister of the other acted as surrogate. So it’s true that the sister of one is the biological mother, the child is still related to both same-sex parents who are the legal parents.

 

[Finite]

I missed that bit. Have you left the mother(s) of the children out of the story for some reason?

Forgive me. I assumed you knew where babies came from.

The fact that a man and a woman are required to make a baby proves…what exactly? That two men and two women can’t? Everyone already knows that. But they’re certainly capable of raising children to be good, caring and kind individuals. Again, show me evidence that says otherwise. The only credible evidence out there says the opposite.

I remain confused. Why do I keep seeing “a baby is only born if a mother and a father create it. Therefore, same-sex marriage is wrong.” …okay?

 

[Rau]

So, are you implying that the legalization of same-sex marriage is going to somehow stop a man and a woman from procreating? I don’t foresee a national sexuality conversion.

No. I am not addressing that aspect of your post at all. I thought that by quoting just the parts I was addressing, that would be clear.

 

[Finite]

Well, that’s just it. Bill and Tom are entirely incapable of “having children of their own.”

Forget natural law for the moment. Does anyone understand human anatomy? Why are there men and women?

Again, what exactly is your point? No one is arguing against the fact that a male and a female are required to make a baby. The fact that a male and a female CAN create a baby, however, doesn’t somehow “prove”, without question, that homosexuality or same sex marriage is wrong. This is very odd reasoning.

 

[Finite]

No. I am not addressing that aspect of your post at all. I thought that by quoting just the parts I was addressing, that would be clear.

Replying to every on of your statements would be beating a dead horse. You gave your reasoning…which consisted of all the things I’ve read before and don’t actually make any kind of logical case against gay people entering into a civil marriage.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There lies the difference between you and I. I actually read all of your posts, then I disagreed. You disregarded my statement right from the beginning, at your own admission.

And this is why same-sex marriage is becoming legalized state-by-state.

So, it’s becoming legalized because I fail to read the entirety of your posts???

Now you really do have me worried about the state of law-making in the USA.

 

[Rau]

Forgive me. I assumed you knew where babies came from.

It’s because I do that I wondered how Bill and Tom were able to “have them”. I wondered whether you had in mind the cooperation of a surrogate (who you’d think might get a mention in the story). Bill and Tom “having children” does not normally evoke the idea of adoption, if that’s what you had in mind.

The fact that a man and a woman are required to make a baby proves…

It suggests that there might be something special about the union of man+woman; it hints at the merits of the mutual promises made in marriage, and possibly indicates the way the society is naturally equipped to build itself.

But they’re certainly capable of raising children to be good, caring and kind individuals.

Was this in debate? Two sisters may be capable of doing the same. A gay couple, or any couple, in receipt of a marriage certificate is capable of hosting a very nice party too. But I’m not sure that either of these facts supports a claim to marry.

I remain confused. Why do I keep seeing “a baby is only born if a mother and a father create it. Therefore, same-sex marriage is wrong.” …okay?

I don’t know - why do some people see “reds under the beds”.

 

[Finite]

So, it’s becoming legalized because I fail to read the entirety of your posts???

Now you really do have me worried about the state of law-making in the USA.

I think you know exactly what I meant. But that’s okay.

 

[Thorolfr]

So, it’s becoming legalized because I fail to read the entirety of your posts???

Now you really do have me worried about the state of law-making in the USA.

You should be worried about the state of law-making in the USA. I think that lots of bills that are passed by Congress have not been read by the congresspeople who vote for them.

 

[Rau]

Replying to every on of your statements would be beating a dead horse. You gave your reasoning…which consisted of all the things I’ve read before and don’t actually make any kind of logical case against gay people entering into a civil marriage.

It’s easy to post when you feel your responses need be nothing more than a wave of the hand…“Seen that before - why waste my time responding…”

You were raised Christian - do you draw on your Christian upbringing, on the Scriptures, at all in formulating your position on sexual relations and marriage? Or are they now a fiction to you?

 

[Finite]

It’s because I do that I wondered how Bill and Tom were able to “have them”. I wondered whether you had in mind the cooperation of a surrogate (who you’d think might get a mention in the story). Bill and Tom “having children” does not normally evoke the idea of adoption, if that’s what you had in mind…

Considering we know that two people of the same gender can’t “create a baby together”, saying a gay couple “had a baby”, at least to most people, WOULD evoke the idea of surrogacy or adoption.

It suggests that there might be something special about the union of man+woman; it hints at the merits of the mutual promises made in marriage, and possibly indicates the way the society is naturally equipped to build itself. .

Who said the union of a man and a woman wasn’t special? No one is saying otherwise. The legalization of same sex marriage doesn’t change that. Men and women will continue as they always have.

Was this in debate? Two sisters may be capable of doing the same. A gay couple, or any couple, in receipt of a marriage certificate is capable of hosting a very nice party too. But I’m not sure that either of these facts supports a claim to marry.

See, there’s the problem. Gay couples don’t HAVE to “prove” to you that they deserve civil marriage. Frankly, their marriage isn’t really your business.

None of your statements have supported banning same sex couples from entering into a civil marriage. You talk about how wonderful a man+woman union is as if that’s supposed to somehow tell us something. No ones saying “quick! Stop heterosexuals from marrying!”

But many are saying “Quick! Stop homosexuals from marrying!” I join the OP in asking “Why?”.

The OP asked to be told why gay marriage was wrong. I’d say this thread failed to do so.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There have been no serious repercussions anywhere. The sky hasn’t fallen.

So your metric for “serious repercussions” is whether or not the sky has fallen?

That formally places into doubt your capacity to appropriately assess the possible ill effects of redefining marriage.

Tell you what, I will “seriously" engage with your post if you “seriously" address the “serious repercussions” raised by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson and Robert George in these three videos.

winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/what-is-marriage-a-lecture-with-sherif-girgis-ryan-t-anderson-and-robert-p-george/

You can even choose to limit your comments to the points made by Mr. Anderson because he specifically identifies three harms to traditional marriage which will result from the redefinition.

If you can articulate what those three harms are and attempt to answer them, that would restore some credibility in terms of your ability to recognize potential harms to marriage as identified by those who seriously defend a traditional view of marriage.

 

[Finite]

It’s easy to post when you feel your responses need be nothing more than a wave of the hand…“Seen that before - why waste my time responding…”

You were raised Christian - do you draw on your Christian upbringing, on the Scriptures, at all in formulating your position on sexual relations and marriage? Or are they now a fiction to you?

My Christian values remain intact. It is my Catholic upbringing that is now in question.

And yes, you’re right. It IS easy to say I’ve seen it all before. Because I have. And seeing it again and again isn’t proving anything to me.

If you want my personal opinion, I think that the bible was written at a time before homosexuality was well understood. That is why there is hardly any emphasis put on it, and when it is brought up, the response to it is questionably harsh. Humanity just wasn’t there yet.

I don’t put my marriage on a higher pedestal than I put my sons marriage to his husband.

 

[Rau]

None of your statements have supported banning same sex couples from entering into a civil marriage. But many are saying “Quick! Stop homosexuals from marrying!” I join the OP in asking “Why?”.

It’s not question of banning - rather a question of eligibility. My question from the start is “why marriage”? And related to that - why a sexual relationship?

 

[Finite]

The burden of proof now lies with the opposition. Gay couples have already successfully proven how civil marriage benefits them. The opposition has yet to prove how a gay couples civil marriage harms them. The ball remains in your court.