Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[bisco1]

didn’t i just say that?

 

[edwest2]

Here’s what the Church tells us:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I fail to see allowing gay couples to marry does any damage to marriages between others. Marriage as they know it remains intact.

On the contrary. Little kids are being given story books in public school that tell them gay marriage is good. Leave the kids alone. They do not have the mental or emotional capacity to understand such propaganda. Who provides these books? Why? And why aren’t their parents told? Confusing kids that will become confused adults is a bad thing.

Ed

 

[clem456]

I fail to see allowing gay couples to marry does any damage to marriages between others. Marriage as they know it remains intact.

It’s contradictory to say that “marriage as they know it remains intact”. You already admit that marriage between a man and woman is not the same as for a gay couple, right? Are they two fundamentally different things, or are they not? If you equate two things that are different, you deny the truth. How does that leave the truth about marriage intact?

Marriage “as they know it” is the key phrase. If you deceive someone, how can they know the truth? If you deceive enough people, how can a society protect something which is good? If you do not protect something good, aren’t you in fact doing harm? The obvious answer for any moral person is a hearty “YES”. Otherwise, I am ok to walk by any person laying in the street without helping them, because I am “not doing any harm”. It’s a minimalist and immoral way of behaving.

As I said earlier, this idea only works if you devalue human existence and flourishing to just another relationship element, like emotions, feelings, finances, inheritances, sexuality. Do you believe the creation of human life precedes any of these things, or is it just another “thing” among many?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I fail to see allowing gay couples to marry does any damage to marriages between others. Marriage as they know it remains intact.

Have you viewed the Ryan Anderson video where he explicitly details three harms?

If you haven’t then your “failure” to see is a failure to look.

If you have seen the video why do his points not convince you?

Marriage hasn’t remained “intact.”

Since the first redefinition of marriage by the courts from permanency to “no fault” dissolution, family breakups went from single digits to over 50% ending in divorce.

Marriage has not remained “intact” after that redefinition, how will doubling down on impermanency by making it even less restrictive, and the commitment more ill-defined, keep marriages intact?

Your logic baffles me.

Yes, I know you FAIL to see it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Again…same-sex couples have already successfully argued why and how they benefit from civil marriage. The burden of proof lies with the opposition, and the opposition has yet to prove anything

No…quite the contrary.

While same sex couples may have PERSONALLY benefited from civil marriage…the burden of proof that same sex marriage is necessary and beneficial to the common good… is still in your court.

Through natural law, reasoning, reflection on human nature, including our embodied biological nature, human experience, as well as the lessons that come from various
cultures, religions, traditions, history, and the social sciences…we see that a true marriage consists of a man and a woman.

Society has an important and vital interest in preserving, promoting and defending marriage and families as composed of exclusively by heterosexuals. At the same time, given the fact that society itself would be endangered if families based on heterosexual relations were threatened, the state is warranted in refusing to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage.

If the state, nonetheless, redefines marriage in order to further the political or social agendas of those who cannot establish that same sex marriage is necessary and beneficial to the common good, the state would be acting illegitimately, and in opposition to reason.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finite View Post
I fail to see allowing gay couples to marry does any damage to marriages between others. Marriage as they know it remains intact.

On the contrary. Little kids are being given story books in public school that tell them gay marriage is good. Leave the kids alone. They do not have the mental or emotional capacity to understand such propaganda. Who provides these books? Why? And why aren’t their parents told? Confusing kids that will become confused adults is a bad thing.
Ed

ALSO:

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant benefits or status that make homosexual relationships appear more socially acceptable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No…quite the contrary.

While same sex couples may have PERSONALLY benefited from civil marriage…the burden of proof that same sex marriage is necessary and beneficial to the common good… is still in your court.

Good point.

The argument proposed by Finite is something like “thieves personally benefit from robbing others,” so the burden of proof is on those who oppose thievery to show to show it is harmful. Clearly, thievery is harmful to those who are its victims.

That, I suspect, is what Finite is getting at. The burden of proof is on those opposing same sex marriage to demonstrate the direct harm it would do.

Anderson addresses that “burden” in his talk.

What YOU are getting at, however, is that harm need not be the standard. Marriage clearly and determinably benefits the common good. Redefining marriage reduces the good of marriage by making marriages less likely to succeed.

In other words, the harm of same sex marriage need not be the burden, but the reduced overall good or benefit to society that a redefinition of marriage would bring about is sufficient to argue against redefining it.

I wonder if Finite will fail also to get this point and insist that direct harm MUST be shown?

 

[cena]

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.

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.

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.

Let’s apply your logic to a different scenario.

A sister and a brother want to get married. They know having kids could bring birth defects so they adopt. Their marriage is none of our business so we can’t object to it. They should not have to prove why they should get married. The only objection one would have is that incest is wrong. If you say that it’s fine, but somehow saying homosexuality is wrong is somehow close minded. Please explain the difference between homosexuality and other disordered acts like incest.

 

[cena]

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.

Let’s take two scenarios. Both are occurring at the same time. However, one is occurring in a United States where civil marriage for homosexuals is banned. The other is occurring in a United States where it is legal.

US - Banned:

Jack and Lisa fall in love. Jack proposes to Lisa, and she accepts. The couple marries six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country and go on to have four children, two boys and two girls.

Bill and Tom fall in love. They cannot legally marry each other. They just decide to live together.

U.S. - Legal:

Jack and Lisa fall in love. Jack proposes to Lisa, and she accepts. The couple marries six months later. They buy a beautiful home in the country and go on to have four children, two boys and two girls.

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 also think it’s important to remember that there is a difference between a civil marriage and, say, a Catholic marriage. If there is one thing we can all agree on, I think it is that the Catholic Church is NEVER going to allow same sex couples to get married in the church. The Catholic church will continue to not consider these unions a marriage, and I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of homosexual couples who seek a civil marriage or have already entered into one care what ANY church thinks, let alone the Catholic Church. They don’t need a church’s blessing for their marriage to be legally recognized.

Now, as I’ve been an avid “spectator” of sorts for a long while on this forum, I already sense some of the replies I might get. “Well, it’s only a matter of time before they sue churches! Just like they sued the baker, the florist, and the photographer!”.

1. Let’s entertain the idea that there is a couple who would actually try and sue the church, or any church for that matter. First of all, they have a snowballs chance in hell of winning a lawsuit that demanded a church marry them. Also, the “couple” in question is not the rule, it is the exception. Most gay couples aren’t interested in suing a church because 1) if they really want a church wedding, there are churches already out there willing to marry them and 2) they just…don’t…care.
2. As for the lawsuits that many love to point at and scream “Religious Freedom!”, I agree with you. As do most people that are homosexual. Again, these stories are not the rule, they are the exception. There’s a reason they made the news, after all.

We can’t take the actions of some random gay couple with a vendetta and then generously apply our anger onto the gay population as a whole. That would be hypocritical, because lord knows we don’t like being prematurely judged as “the Catholics” when we are all individuals. The same goes for gay people. They are individuals.

I’ve read every single post on this thread, and many, MANY others involving this topic. I have yet to see any rational, solid evidence that would justify banning two people of the same gender from entering into a civil marriage. Religious arguments are useless, morality arguments usually stem from religion anyway, and what little secular “evidence” i’ve seen provided here falls short, as it never actually proves anything.

No one here is going to change their mind. If you are against same-sex marriage, you likely will always be that way. Likewise, I am unlikely to ever suddenly decide I’m against it. The only point I’m trying to make here is that the reason that these marriages are becoming legal at such an astonishing rate is glaringly obvious - no harm has been proven.

Not everyone agrees rape is wrong. There are Muslims in the Middle East using the Qu’ran to justify raping Christain girls. In their minds rape is justified. When in reality it isn’t because there are moral truths that exist outside of the individual’s head.

In order to be wrong someone has to be a victim? What about beastiality or (with consent) incest?

In a Scandinavian country (don’t know which one) if a Catholic church says they won’t marry a gay couple, they can sue for discrimination. It’s already happening and that violates religious freedom.
Also, the idea that something is good or bad depending on its consequences is not always the case and it is a debate fallacy.
Why can’t people marry their close relative or an animal, it doesn’t affect me?

Also as far as I know rape, adultery, etc have been around as long as heterosexual relationships have. Just because it has been around awhile does not justify it

 

[Thorolfr]

Let’s allow people to judge for themselves, shall we?

youtube.com/watch?v=-DH1zvuZOY0#t=847

Slate has an interesting analysis of what Robert George et al. have to say in their article on marriage:

The article argues for common procreation as the sole basis for a “real” or “conjugal” marriage by asserting that only a man and a woman can create a “comprehensive union.” In defining that special status, the authors begin by drawing a distinction between “sexual” exclusivity and “tennis” exclusivity: “Suppose that Michael and Michelle build their relationship not on sexual exclusivity, but on tennis exclusivity. They pledge to play tennis with each other, and only with each other, until death do them part. Are they thereby married? No.” While the purpose of this distinction is initially mystifying, the authors are making a serious point. They are contending that sexual activity has been privileged over other kinds of bonding activities in determining who gets to marry.

George and his co-authors continue, however, to observe that not all sexual activity counts as a basis for marriage—what is required is sexual activity capable of producing a child. The article infers this requirement from the physical makeup of men and women. Because same-sex couples cannot create this child-producing combination by themselves, their relationship is a recreational activity more like tennis than like marriage.

But mark the sequel—if a prerequisite of marriage is procreative capacity, then are the marriages of infertile opposite-sex couples not called into question? George and his co-authors are quick to reassure with another sports analogy: “A baseball team has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to winning games; it involves developing and sharing one’s athletic skills in the way best suited for honorably winning. … But such development and sharing are possible and inherently valuable for teammates even when they lose their games.” In other words, infertile couples are still playing ball, even if they never win a game. They are the Phillies, except that they have no hope of ever improving.

I suspect it will be cold comfort to many infertile opposite-sex couples to hear that while their marriage is still “real,” it is a “losing” marriage as opposed to a “winning” one. Ideally, most of them view their marriages as something more than honorable defeats and would despise the contention that they had not fulfilled the central purpose of the institution. Moreover, the article says nothing of straight people who choose not to procreate. It is unclear why they would have “true marriages,” as they are not even trying to win.

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/12/the_best_argument_against_gay_marriage.html

 

[bisco1]

straight couples who choose not to procreate, are not following catholic teaching. and couples who are unable to have children usually feel something missing in their lives and look for medical help as well as adoption. they may also try to fulfill that desire by helping others in so many possible ways.

 

[Rau]

Slate has an interesting analysis of what Robert George et al. have to say in their article on marriage:

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/12/the_best_argument_against_gay_marriage.html

Other than corny analogies, with what do you take issue?

 

[edwest2]

It’s contradictory to say that “marriage as they know it remains intact”. You already admit that marriage between a man and woman is not the same as for a gay couple, right? Are they two fundamentally different things, or are they not? If you equate two things that are different, you deny the truth. How does that leave the truth about marriage intact?

Marriage “as they know it” is the key phrase. If you deceive someone, how can they know the truth? If you deceive enough people, how can a society protect something which is good? If you do not protect something good, aren’t you in fact doing harm? The obvious answer for any moral person is a hearty “YES”. Otherwise, I am ok to walk by any person laying in the street without helping them, because I am “not doing any harm”. It’s a minimalist and immoral way of behaving.

As I said earlier, this idea only works if you devalue human existence and flourishing to just another relationship element, like emotions, feelings, finances, inheritances, sexuality. Do you believe the creation of human life precedes any of these things, or is it just another “thing” among many?

Too much about life has been reduced to things for some. Be it money, sex or benefits, or preferred body parts. Marriage involves work and sacrifice and a real commitment. Stable marriages provide the two necessary people to raise their children: a mom and a dad. Their mom and dad. Any other definition is just an ‘alternative lifestyle’ made legal by judicial fiat.

Protecting the good is paramount. Police officers protect and serve due to some people going beyond the bounds of good and right behavior.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

Robert George says that same-sex couples are only interested in sex and are trying “to win official approbation for sodomy”. He also implies that it was proper for same-sex sexual conduct to be “discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy” because it’s immoral:

It’s about sex. Those seeking to redefine marriage began by insisting that what they were fundamentally interested in was gaining needed benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships was necessary, they said, so that partners could visit each other in hospitals, extend employer-provided health insurance and other benefits to each other, and so forth. Some people who said this were, I’m sure, being sincere. Most, however, were not telling the truth. Their goal was to win official approbation for sodomy and other forms of sexual conduct that historically have been condemned as immoral and discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy. The clear evidence for this is the refusal of most same-sex “marriage” activists to accept civil unions and domestic partnership programs under which the benefits of marriage are extended, but which do not use the label “marriage” or (and this is very important) predicate these benefits on the existence or presumption of a sexual relationship between the partners. So, it is not really about benefits. It is about sex. The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.

thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/07/381/

 

[clem456]

Slate has an interesting analysis of what Robert George et al. have to say in their article on marriage:

But mark the sequel—if a prerequisite of marriage is procreative capacity, then are the marriages of infertile opposite-sex couples not called into question? George and his co-authors are quick to reassure with another sports analogy: “A baseball team has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to winning games; it involves developing and sharing one’s athletic skills in the way best suited for honorably winning. … But such development and sharing are possible and inherently valuable for teammates even when they lose their games.” In other words, infertile couples are still playing ball, even if they never win a game. They are the Phillies, except that they have no hope of ever improving.

Continually evading the very simple issue. The issue isn’t that some hetero couples can’t have children due to infertility, the issue is deception. It is deceptive to claim the institution and vocation of marriage is not unique. It is deception to claim a gay union is the same as marriage and should be treated the same, when it is not the same.

One does not even have to get tied up in a knot about sodomy and men kissing one another to see the problem.

That issue goes forever evaded. Some will agree that only men and women can produce children, but then reduce that profound reality to the level of feelings, emotions, finances, inheritances, and sexual practices, all the other things of a relationship.

But, I can have all those things with my brother, my dog, my best friends grandmother, and Barack Obama, and still not create a human being with them.

Reducing human existence to damn near nothing.

 

[Rau]

Robert George says that same-sex couples are only interested in sex and are trying “to win official approbation for sodomy”. He also implies that it was proper for same-sex sexual conduct to be “discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy” because it’s immoral:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/07/381/

Of more interest, what do you think about the morality of same sex sexual acts and why do you hold that they are good in the absence of support in scripture or from your Church?

 

[cena]

Of more interest, what do you think about the morality of same sex sexual a**cts and why do you hold that they are good in the absence of support in scripture or from you Church?

Yes why is same sex acts moral but other immoral acts done with consent On both sides are not?

 

[Rau]

Robert George says that same-sex couples are only interested in sex and are trying “to win official approbation for sodomy”. He also implies that it was proper for same-sex sexual conduct to be “discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy” because it’s immoral:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/07/381/

Though I don’t agree that sex is the only goal, George makes an excellent point regarding the rejection of civil unions. That is about an insistence that their relationship is “naturally” sexual (by insisting it is ‘marriage’).

 

[clem456]

Robert George says that same-sex couples are only interested in sex and are trying “to win official approbation for sodomy”. He also implies that it was proper for same-sex sexual conduct to be “discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy” because it’s immoral:

It’s about sex. Those seeking to redefine marriage began by insisting that what they were fundamentally interested in was gaining needed benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships was necessary, they said, so that partners could visit each other in hospitals, extend employer-provided health insurance and other benefits to each other, and so forth. Some people who said this were, I’m sure, being sincere. Most, however, were not telling the truth. Their goal was to win official approbation for sodomy and other forms of sexual conduct that historically have been condemned as immoral and discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy. The clear evidence for this is the refusal of most same-sex “marriage” activists to accept civil unions and domestic partnership programs under which the benefits of marriage are extended, but which do not use the label “marriage” or (and this is very important) predicate these benefits on the existence or presumption of a sexual relationship between the partners. So, it is not really about benefits. It is about sex. The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.

I disagree with George.
I give gay couples the benefit of the doubt. I think most of them who have long term relationships genuinely care for one another and want the stuff of relationships, more than just sex.

While not endorsing gay relationships as a good thing, I can understand that people care deeply for one another and can have many of the elements of loving relationship.

But, it does no one any good to propose the fundamental instrument of human existence and flourishing (aka marriage) as just another thing among the rest. No one benefits from that deception.