Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZooGirl2002
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zackly. this guy has been hanging out here, just waiting to get his bomb sites aligned.:eek:
 
There were only a few places in the bible where God called something an abomination, homosexuality is an abomination. He despises the act of it, it is contrary to the natural law that he made. If you go against what God made why would he accept that. We live in a society where nothing is wrong and everything is right as long as your not hurting anyone, we’ll guess what, there is a right and a wrong. Why wage the salvation of your soul on what society says, go with what God says. Pray the 15 decades of the original rosary everyday and pray to the blessed Mother to show you the truth and it will be granted to you.
 
Ositokc said:
Yes, Mr. George is a very militant anti-gay bigot. Do you agree with his views? Which ones? Please elaborate. Do you agree with some or all of his views?
Click to expand...
All of them, actually. HIS views that is, not the views purported to be his by the slanderous petition you quoted.

I hope he takes the organizers to court.

Are you going to send the thought police after us?

Start another petition vilifying and detracting the reputations of everyone who opposes your views?

I would much rather side with someone reasonable and tolerant than with the methods of bullying and forced compliance you are advocating.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17304

I only hope there are enough living, thoughtful and beautiful minds left in the world to counter what can only be called the zombification of the intellect by the ilk behind that petition against Professor George.

Truly INSANE!
 
Ositokc said:
Yes, Mr. George is a very militant anti-gay bigot. Do you agree with his views? Which ones? Please elaborate. Do you agree with some or all of his views?
Click to expand...
I looked into your “petition” on Change.org, by the way. It was closed in 2011 and with good reason - it was slanderous and a gross misrepresentation of the character and work of Professor George.

By the way, he, Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson have been invited to speak and defend their views at many law schools all over the United States and internationally since their book “What is Marriage?” was published.

Your little petition ruse, which I presumed to be current, BECAUSE I presumed you claimed to be a “medical professional” (See this post) shows that as a “medical professional” your professional ethics could use some fine tuning.

Posting the cited petition as if it was current and solely in order to detract from the reputation of a superb and well-respected academic such as Professor George instead of answering his points is unconscionable.

Your credibility has :blackeye:

By the way, your comment that…
Princeton is petitioning to severe all ties with him.
Click to expand...
…was a blatant lie.

Princeton is NOT petitioning anything with regard to Professor George.
 
Yes, the petition against Robert George was one which was posted on Change.org, not my idea of a valid petition. For a moment I supposed that academic freedom was dead at Princeton, that the professors there were wishing to oust him simply because of his views. Apparently not.

This consists of argument by shouting down the opponent.

Thousands of years of marriage based on the fact that there are men and women. And only in the last few decades has anyone thought to make marriage include non-marital unions.

Still, the madness will ultimately end, because it is based on nothing but emotion. The fad of orientation essentialism will fade, probably sooner rather than later.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I think you are missing the argument.

It isn’t a question of whether gay sexual encounters or cohabitation will stop procreation, it is a question of protecting the unique conjugal relationship that is the only means by which new human beings can be created, nurtured and raised in a loving, caring, nurturing, long term family relationship supported by society and both their mother and father.

To redefine that relationship to include any long term “friendship” means essentially that the uniqueness of parenthood as an institution will be eroded and trivialized. The natural parent - child bond and relationship will have absolutely NO support from our culture nor the legal system because the institution of marriage as the ground for family as a unique entity will no longer exist.

I would challenge you to come up with a revised definition of “marriage” that includes gay couples but does not exclude – on non-arbitrary grounds – a host of “friendships,” sibling relationships, polyamourous groupings and aging parent-child relationships to name a few.

Go ahead, draft a definition that you believe ought to be a legally binding definition of ”marriage” and we’ll put it to a legal test. We’ll see if it doesn’t also “discriminate” against those it excludes. You have no idea the Pandora’s Box you are opening.

There are many right now getting in line to challenge the revision before it even gets entered into the books.

My argument is that marriage is a coherent and unique entity.

The rights and benefits gay couples are requesting need to be argued on their own merit, not by attacking an already vulnerable institution – the health of which is absolutely necessary for the survival of any culture.
Click to expand...
I agree. Keep in mind that babies are still being born and families still exist. Creating confusion is the primary issue and aside from benefits, any other type of “family” will be argued as possible. In my view, the only secular sin, or burden, is boredom.

When this life is all there is, then rearranging the social furniture is a dramatic experiment.

Ed
 
JimG said:
Yes, the petition against Robert George was one which was posted on Change.org, not my idea of a valid petition. For a moment I supposed that academic freedom was dead at Princeton, that the professors there were wishing to oust him simply because of his views. Apparently not.
Click to expand...
Yup, I got suckered in on that one. I keep forgetting to never assume that “claims” are true, no matter how plausible they seem on the surface.

That one should have triggered red flags and loud horns all over the place. It caught me off guard, I guess.
JimG said:
This consists of argument by shouting down the opponent.

Thousands of years of marriage based on the fact that there are men and women. And only in the last few decades has anyone thought to make marriage include non-marital unions.

Still, the madness will ultimately end, because it is based on nothing but emotion. The fad of orientation essentialism will fade, probably sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope you are correct.
 
Finite said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem with the gay marriage agenda isn’t that a gay couple can’t create a baby, per se. I can’t create a baby with my brother either. 🤷 So?

The problem is
you admit they can’t create a baby,
yet you claim the sameness of a gay union and a marriage, when you already admit they are not the same. :whacky:
What is wrong with this thinking? It’s nonsensical. You keep asking for proof etc…Must the nonsensical be disproven?

The only way your thought experiment works is if you diminish the value of human existence to just another facet of human relationships among many.
If your very existence is on par with the bundle of emotions, finances, inheritances, medical decisions, and good sexual compatibility, then your thinking can work. (All of these things are important, but they are not nearly as important as human existence)And that is a frightening society you are proposing. Think for a minute of societies that proposed this lie…The 20th century is littered with societies that exalted feelings, ideas, concepts, finances…above human beings.

Congrats. Rather than a unique human being made in the image of God through the union of a man and woman, you are just another relationship element.
 
Ositokc said:
I will seriously address Robert George, as Princeton is petitioning to severe all ties with him. From the petition:
"
Princeton Professor Robert George is a malicious anti-gay bigot. …"
Click to expand...
In taking the views of Scott Rose who penned what you posted above, whatever ground you gained in arguing for gay “marriage” you just lost, and your standing even went in the negative scale. Scott Rosensweig, also known as Scott Rose, is a rabid gay bully who writes for Gay Voices in HuffPo and hates the Catholic Church, as if the Church is the only spiritual leader opposing gay “marriage.”

In case you did not know, Rose’s record includes:
  1. Calling Cardinal Dolan a hard core gay basher who does not care for the welfare of children.
  2. Accusing Maggie Gallagher of NOM for having blood on her hands in speaking against gay “marriage”
  3. Writing the University of Texas to fire Professor Mark Regnerus because he did not like the results of his New Family Structures study on children raised by straight and gay parents
  4. Harassing and intimidating Janna Darnelle (just goodgle the name) for her article Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me—and Our Children in Public Discourse.
  5. Threatening Rivka Edelman, another writer who submitted an essay on the above Darnelle story, also threatening Ryan T. Anderson, the editor. See here.
By the way, Ryan T. Anderson co-wrote with Robert George and Sherif Girgis What is Marriage? Man and Woman, A Defense. It is an excellent book.

As for your intention to seriously address Robert George’s points, along with the snarky and untrue comment about Princeton removing him, let me say his position with Princeton is more than likely very intact. Your Mr. Rose seems to favor the smear tactic, having used the same with Professor Regnerus with U of T.

I reckon Mr. George’s record and respectability are intact. If anyone is a bigoted and hateful, it would be Scott Rose.

Speaking of books, Mr. George wrote his latest, Conscience and Its Enemies, my next order from Amazon. Excellent title. I understand he devoted pages to the clash of orthodoxies, natural law (hated by gay apologists, of course), abortion and homosexual marriage.

From the NYT (mind, not exactly a conservative rag), a book review on George’s book:
George rejects the idea of marriage as an emotional union, but not because of the way that ideal has weakened the institution. He believes that conjugal (or traditional) marriage unites husband and wife across all levels of being, physical, emotional and spiritual. Male and female complementarity allows them to unite “organically” as “a single procreative principle.” Note the word “principle”: whether they actually procreate or not, men and women are engaging in “one flesh unity.”
Click to expand...
To chalk this up to homophobia is to miss something crucial; George is relying on philosophical ideas that predate the modern concept of sexual identity and that lead him to reject all extramarital — and even some kinds of marital — sex. The more pertinent philosophical objection is that his reasoning about the nature of marriage, however well pedigreed, is so far removed from most people’s lived experience that it will be inconsistent with their intuitions about the human good. George might counter that contemporary liberal secularists have no coherent philosophy of marriage, reasoned or intuited. About that, he is almost certainly right.
Click to expand...
If Rose were to read George’s book, he would just be critical again. Better that he avoids it, though, as it could lead to frothing around the mouth. Or worse.
 
Rau said:
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?
Click to expand...
It’s hardly just now:

Pope Leo XIII said:
20. Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.
Click to expand...

(w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html, my emphasis)

Throughout the entire encyclical, the Pope describes civil marriage as radically different from sacramental marriage, even as diametrically opposed. He clearly asserts that any support of any form of civil marriage is irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. Additionally, civil marriage is not endorsed even for non-Catholics, even though it could sometimes be valid for the unbaptized (he doesn’t however bother to mention the latter, as far as I can see).

The modern defense of civil marriage in its current (now semi-past) form is simply not in accordance with Tradition. We should fight against civil marriage as such, not just gay marriage; much like we should fight against IVF as such, not just between lesbian couples. Choosing the latter would be implicit approval of IVF, just like the current fixation on same-sex civil marriage is implicit approval of civil marriage.

Sadly, our continued fight against only same-sex civil marriage has made such a shift difficult publicity-wise. It will probably be seen as just something to make it look like we’re not obsessing over gay couples, and that our opposition is still tailored to “hit” gay couples. We’ve really driven ourself into a corner.
 
InSearchofGrace said:
In taking the views of Scott Rose who penned what you posted above, whatever ground you gained in arguing for gay “marriage” you just lost, and your standing even went in the negative scale. Scott Rosensweig, also known as Scott Rose, is a rabid gay bully who writes for Gay Voices in HuffPo and hates the Catholic Church, as if the Church is the only spiritual leader opposing gay “marriage.”

In case you did not know, Rose’s record includes:
  1. Calling Cardinal Dolan a hard core gay basher who does not care for the welfare of children.
  2. Accusing Maggie Gallagher of NOM for having blood on her hands in speaking against gay “marriage”
  3. Writing the University of Texas to fire Professor Mark Regnerus because he did not like the results of his New Family Structures study on children raised by straight and gay parents
  4. Harassing and intimidating Janna Darnelle (just goodgle the name) for her article Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me—and Our Children in Public Discourse.
  5. Threatening Rivka Edelman, another writer who submitted an essay on the above Darnelle story, also threatening Ryan T. Anderson, the editor. See here.
By the way, Ryan T. Anderson co-wrote with Robert George and Sherif Girgis What is Marriage? Man and Woman, A Defense. It is an excellent book.

As for your intention to seriously address Robert George’s points, along with the snarky and untrue comment about Princeton removing him, let me say his position with Princeton is more than likely very intact. Your Mr. Rose seems to favor the smear tactic, having used the same with Professor Regnerus with U of T.

I reckon Mr. George’s record and respectability are intact. If anyone is a bigoted and hateful, it would be Scott Rose.

Speaking of books, Mr. George wrote his latest, Conscience and Its Enemies, my next order from Amazon. Excellent title. I understand he devoted pages to the clash of orthodoxies, natural law (hated by gay apologists, of course), abortion and homosexual marriage.

From the NYT (mind, not exactly a conservative rag), a book review on George’s book:

If Rose were to read George’s book, he would just be critical again. Better that he avoids it, though, as it could lead to frothing around the mouth. Or worse.
Click to expand...
Thank you for doing the background work.

Your points are right on.

What is interesting here is that the defenders of the revisionist view seem to rely on impugning motives and attacking character BEFORE or INSTEAD OF defending their view rationally. Whereas, as you show above, the side defending traditional marriage “goes there” only when it is forced to in order to defend itself and to show that the motives behind the personal attacks were not grounded in a desire for the truth in the matter, but merely to force compliance. “Accept what we say or we will destroy your character and your reputation,” is the underlying message.

In modern times, it seems that those whose character has been / is being assassinated are very likely the ones who had/have crucial things to say. Not always, but very often.
 
Rin said:
We should fight against civil marriage as such, not just gay marriage; much like we should fight against IVF as such, not just between lesbian couples. Choosing the latter would be implicit approval of IVF, just like the current fixation on same-sex civil marriage is implicit approval of civil marriage.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make sense. It makes the natural human state of conjugal marriage out to be NOT a part of God’s plan, contrary to “In the beginning, he made them male and female…”

Christ made the natural state of marriage into a sacrament, he did not order up something completely new. Grace perfects nature, it does not act contrary to it. Marriage as a sacrament infuses supernatural grace into a very human, very important endeavor, which is why it was made a sacrament by Christ.

There’s something amiss in your reasoning.
 
Rin said:
It’s hardly just now:

(w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html, my emphasis)

Throughout the entire encyclical, the Pope describes civil marriage as radically different from sacramental marriage, even as diametrically opposed. He clearly asserts that any support of any form of civil marriage is irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. Additionally, civil marriage is not endorsed even for non-Catholics, even though it could sometimes be valid for the unbaptized (he doesn’t however bother to mention the latter, as far as I can see).

The modern defense of civil marriage in its current (now semi-past) form is simply not in accordance with Tradition. We should fight against civil marriage as such, not just gay marriage; much like we should fight against IVF as such, not just between lesbian couples. Choosing the latter would be implicit approval of IVF, just like the current fixation on same-sex civil marriage is implicit approval of civil marriage.

Sadly, our continued fight against only same-sex civil marriage has made such a shift difficult publicity-wise. It will probably be seen as just something to make it look like we’re not obsessing over gay couples, and that our opposition is still tailored to “hit” gay couples. We’ve really driven ourself into a corner.
Click to expand...
Yes. Agree with this.
Marriage is not a civil right, it is a vocation, a call from God. It is a participation in the Trinitarian life of God, which is the creation of existence itself. Marriage is a cooperation in the “I Am” of God. It is singularly unique in that call.
Our society can have procedures, laws, and customs in place that reinforce and recognize that vocation, but marriage is not based in any civil construct. It is much deeper than that.

(The standard objection is that if marriage is not a right, then black people, for example, can be excluded, or interracial or interreligious marriage can be excluded. But, the denial of marriage in these cases does not violate a right to be married, it violates a right to pursue a basic human vocation that perpetuates the very existence of human beings, and the flourishing of human beings. If a white man and a black woman want to be married, it should be supported because marriage is a good vocation, not because one person is black and the other is white and simply wants it. Or in the case of gay “marriage”, should not be supported because the underlying good is not present.
A person does not have a right to pursue anything that he pleases for the sake of his own “good pleasure”, otherwise anything could be construed to be a civil right).
1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.
Click to expand...
I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON
Click to expand...
1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:
(You can see the obvious problem that gay “marriage” presents in this context.)
What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35
1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.
Click to expand...
 
Finite said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it your assertion then that popular opinion determines what is good? So then if popular opinion declares something to be “good”, objective morality needs to be proved to defend itself?

If popular opinion declares the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, does it need to be proven otherwise? Or does one simply need to say “look, there it is” and “look, there it goes”.

How about what was once a very popular sentiment:
“It is good for our society that Jews are not part of it” (I am not equivocating the two issues, merely illustrating the swiss cheese logic).
This was at one time a very popular idea in Germany and elsewhere. In fact so popular that civil procedures were put in place to codify the popular idea that society is better off if Jews are not part of it. The idea is self-evidently false and the consequences of that lie were horrific. Jewish persons self evidently have souls, minds, bodies like everyone else.

So, by your logic and standard of morality, the self-evident revelation that a Jewish person is a human being needs to be proven? How do you convince those that have accepted an irrational deception of the self evident truth?
 
Rin said:
It’s hardly just now:

(w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html, my emphasis)

Throughout the entire encyclical, the Pope describes civil marriage as radically different from sacramental marriage, even as diametrically opposed. He clearly asserts that any support of any form of civil marriage is irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. Additionally, civil marriage is not endorsed even for non-Catholics, even though it could sometimes be valid for the unbaptized (he doesn’t however bother to mention the latter, as far as I can see).

The modern defense of civil marriage in its current (now semi-past) form is simply not in accordance with Tradition. We should fight against civil marriage as such, not just gay marriage; much like we should fight against IVF as such, not just between lesbian couples. Choosing the latter would be implicit approval of IVF, just like the current fixation on same-sex civil marriage is implicit approval of civil marriage.

Sadly, our continued fight against only same-sex civil marriage has made such a shift difficult publicity-wise. It will probably be seen as just something to make it look like we’re not obsessing over gay couples, and that our opposition is still tailored to “hit” gay couples. We’ve really driven ourself into a corner.
Click to expand...
Count me out of the “we” category. Catholics invented gay marriage? Catholics are calling anyone who disagrees with it a “homophobe,” among other names?

Publicity has nothing over the truth. Same-sex marriage is not a product but a redefinition of the basic building block of any society.

Ed
 
i’m not concerned about so called ‘homosexual marriage’ hurting me, i’m concerned for the souls of those individuals. and the scandal and influence on others. the problem is, these couples are only concerned about themselves.
 
I fail to see allowing gay couples to marry does any damage to marriages between others. Marriage as they know it remains intact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top