Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZooGirl2002
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
Why? It is, by definition, a disordered situation, especially sexually. What’s next? Brothers and sisters getting married or those claiming to be gay getting that benefits package when both are actually heterosexual? I was on a stretcher in an emergency room and my male friend sat by me for some hours. Nobody asked about our relationship. Gay lover? Brother? Cousin? Nothing. Nobody needs to sign a piece of paper proving they are gay. Two straight male roommates could sign up, get the benefits and no one would have to know.

Ed
Click to expand...
I don’t think I included brother & sister MARRIAGE in my statements. That’s incest.
There have been straight guys in Australia who claimed to be homosexual partners in order to win a trip to the World’s Cup (soccer)

“Two straight male roommates could sign up, get the benefits and no one would have to know.”

Come on Ed…there is no such thing as “straight” male roommates anymore. 🙂
 
Rau said:
The homosexual Union element is not relevant to what the State should recognize. Persons wishing to share assets, provide mutual care, file joint tax returns and so forth might have a reasonable case for appropriate State recognition and enabling legal arrangements. Sexuality is not relevant to this; it is not relevant to civil unions.
Click to expand...
Good point. We wouldn’t want the state endorsing or promoting homosexuality by recognizing sexuality.
 
edwest2 said:
According to a few things I’ve read on sites I cannot link to, civil unions, even though all the benefits could be added in, create a “separate but equal status” for gay couples, turning them into second-class citizens. They must be approved, accepted and regarded as any married heterosexual couple. Again, if benefits are all that are being asked for, then it need not be called marriage, and is, in fact, not what marriage is recognized as biologically appropriate across cultures. It’s enshrining gay sex as the equivalent of the biological complementary of the man and woman. A contradiction that should be obvious to the religious and non-religious.

Ed
Click to expand...
The LGBT community would accept legal marriage being done away with and only civil unions/domestic partnerships being legal for everyone, with marriage being a purely religious concept. The argument isn’t so much about marriage and civil unions being called a different name so much as marriage having way more rights and benefits associated with it than civil unions or domestic partnerships. So what was “equal” wasn’t really equal; there were still all kinds of financial, medical, and legal issues that were not protected vis-a-vis a civil union. And no, none of these differences had anything to do with children or procreation.

But if marriage didn’t exist and everyone had to get civil unions, it would be guaranteed that civil unions would retain all those rights and privileges, because heterosexual wishes (contraception, etc.) are granted at the drop of a hat, whereas homosexual needs (employment protection, etc.) are only granted through constant visibility and political pressure, and still only sometimes.
 
SMGS127 said:
The LGBT community would accept legal marriage being done away with and only civil unions/domestic partnerships being legal for everyone, with marriage being a purely religious concept. The argument isn’t so much about marriage and civil unions being called a different name so much as marriage having way more rights and benefits associated with it than civil unions or domestic partnerships. So what was “equal” wasn’t really equal; there were still all kinds of financial, medical, and legal issues that were not protected vis-a-vis a civil union. And no, none of these differences had anything to do with children or procreation.

But if marriage didn’t exist and everyone had to get civil unions, it would be guaranteed that civil unions would retain all those rights and privileges, because heterosexual wishes (contraception, etc.) are granted at the drop of a hat, whereas homosexual needs (employment protection, etc.) are only granted through constant visibility and political pressure, and still only sometimes.
Click to expand...
However, I don’t agree that the State must deny the special place of Marriage in society by declining to recognise any unions as sexual.
 
that’s the fault of liberal politicians, judges and activist’s who decided it was more important to push for homosexual marriage than change the laws to create equality.
 
Rau said:
However, I don’t agree that the State must deny the special place of Marriage in society by declining to recognise any unions as sexual.
Click to expand...
Sure, but based on court rulings and Constitutional scrutiny, our three options are:

A. Every couple gets access to civil marriage, gay and straight.

B. Every couple gets access to a civil union, gay and straight.

C. No couple can get benefits from the government for any reason, gay or straight.

I am merely suggesting that B is the most Catholic option.
 
Rau said:
The homosexual Union element is not relevant to what the State should recognize. Persons wishing to share assets, provide mutual care, file joint tax returns and so forth might have a reasonable case for appropriate State recognition and enabling legal arrangements. Sexuality is not relevant to this; it is not relevant to civil unions.
Click to expand...
Two gay men who have engaged in sexual behavior means gay marriage is not about sexual behavior? I’m totally not convinced.

Ed
 
SMGS127 said:
I am merely suggesting that B is the most Catholic option.
Click to expand...
Can you make a logical argument that there should be a Catholic option? I really do not know but if you can I strongly encourage everyone on here that is for opposed to gay marriage and for civil unions that they form the necessary lobbying committees and go for it.Taking action is better than complaining and doing nothing.
 
It’s wrong from a biological standpoint and from that the fact that it will and is causing confusion about the true meaning of marriage. All the long-winded arguments are simply: the Church is wrong.

So continue saying the same thing over and over, it doesn’t change reality or create a new reality. It denies reality by judicial fiat. What’s next? Pedophile rights? And yes, they feel discriminating against as well. In fact, the purpose of most laws is to discriminate against certain behaviors. And no, my example is not meant to insult homosexual persons, but to point out that it’s primarily about accepting certain sexual behaviors between members of the same sex.

Don’t argue with anyone here. Talk to a lawyer. Because it’s lawyers and judges who are forcing this phenomenon on everyone.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Two gay men who have engaged in sexual behavior means gay marriage is not about sexual behavior? I’m totally not convinced.

Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not advocated gay marriage ever (in my life).

What I have said is that persons not eligible to marry, but seeking the legal “benefits” typically associated with it should seek a different kind of State accommodation. Such an accommodation would carry no implication that their relationship is sexual, but provide for asset sharing, etc. egc. If the relationship is sexual, that is a matter between (among) the individuals concerned, but is of no relevance to the State provided legal provisions.

Such an arrangement may be beneficial for a couple of elderly spinsters.
 
Rau said:
Ed, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not advocated gay marriage ever (in my life).

What I have said is that persons not eligible to marry, but seeking the legal “benefits” typically associated with it should seek a different kind of State accommodation. Such an accommodation would carry no implication that their relationship is sexual, but provide for asset sharing, etc. egc. If the relationship is sexual, that is a matter between (among) the individuals concerned, but is of no relevance to the State provided legal provisions.

Such an arrangement may be beneficial for a couple of elderly spinsters.
Click to expand...
So it’s all about the benefits. Me and a relative live together, shouldn’t we get benefits? How about an elderly mother living with her son, shouldn’t they get benefits? I should get benefits just because my medical bills are high. The sex doesn’t matter? Have you read anything about men who have sex with men on the CDC web site? They have a lot more partners than straight guys do, and there is an STD epidemic in this country right now because too many have been led to believe that their genitals are the most important part of their body. Standards? What standards? Just give everybody benefits.

Sounds like Socialism to me. Who pays for of these benefits?

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Pedophile rights? And yes, they feel discriminating against as well. In fact, the purpose of most laws is to discriminate against certain behaviors. And no, my example is not meant to insult homosexual persons, but to point out that it’s primarily about accepting certain sexual behaviors between members of the same sex.

Ed
Click to expand...
Actually you should thank Lawyers and judges for all the rights that you have as a Catholic in this country because guess what, the Protestants who founded this country absolutely did not want Catholics here and Catholics were widely discriminated against. It was courts, judges and lawyers that made sure that Catholics obtained and enjoyed all the same rights as Protestants. Read a few history books about discrimination against Catholics, especially about the “Know Nothing” Party.

The pedophilia argument is not valid because we are talking about consensual conduct between consenting adults.
 
edwest2 said:
So it’s all about the benefits. Me and a relative live together, shouldn’t we get benefits? How about an elderly mother living with her son, shouldn’t they get benefits? I should get benefits just because my medical bills are high. The sex doesn’t matter? Have you read anything about men who have sex with men on the CDC web site? They have a lot more partners than straight guys do, and there is an STD epidemic in this country right now because too many have been led to believe that their genitals are the most important part of their body. Standards? What standards? Just give everybody benefits.

Sounds like Socialism to me. Who pays for of these benefits?
Click to expand...
:confused: have you followed the conversation Ed? It does not seem so from your comments.
 
SMGS127 said:
Sure, but based on court rulings and Constitutional scrutiny, our three options are:

A. Every couple gets access to civil marriage, gay and straight.

B. Every couple gets access to a civil union, gay and straight.

C. No couple can get benefits from the government for any reason, gay or straight.

I am merely suggesting that B is the most Catholic option.
Click to expand...
Fine. I didn’t view the conversation as limited by legal status quo.

PS. Constitutional change is hard in most countries. But I am always amused at how “perfect” and thus unchangeable Americans seem to view their Constitution. The right to bear arms is the real standout. Folks point to that as though it were the 11th commandment! 😃
 
tomberg said:
Actually you should thank Lawyers and judges for all the rights that you have as a Catholic in this country because guess what, the Protestants who founded this country absolutely did not want Catholics here and Catholics were widely discriminated against. It was courts, judges and lawyers that made sure that Catholics obtained and enjoyed all the same rights as Protestants. Read a few history books about discrimination against Catholics, especially about the “Know Nothing” Party.

The pedophilia argument is not valid because we are talking about consensual conduct between consenting adults.
Click to expand...
I can’t provide a link to the NAMBLA web site but they are trying to educate the public that it’s OK.

Consenting adults. One of the top three fake reasons to justify immoral sexual behavior.

Ed
 
hey the nambla people around here have a lot of legislative support from you know who.:rolleyes:
 
40.png
bisco1:
popcorn popcorn popcorn

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top