Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Ositokc]

Your use of ad hominem indicates your inability to argue using reason. If you are interested in having a legitimate and charitable discussion you can drop the insults. If you continue to call names it will detract for your own intellectual value as it certainly seems that you are running out of intellectual things to say.

I request that you do not take this as a personal attack, it isn’t.

I don’t take anything on these boards personally, thank you for your opinion. I absolutely would love to have a legitimate and charitable discussion. Let me paraphrase one of my favorite posts that I agree with completely.

I would suggest that Gay marriage primarily hurts heterosexual people who spend what little time they have on this earth worrying about the sexuality of other people. Worrying about who else gets married. Things like that. I would rather be engaged in my own sexuality than to worry about others. Now, this is just my opinion, but I’m pretty certain that I’m not being hurt by Gay People getting married. As to what makes Gay marriage “wrong”, I think it’s ignorance about risks and ignorance about managing ones sexual activities in a safe manner. (and keeping their noses out of people’s bedrooms.

cheers.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A Denying gay couples marriage is discrimination. Really? Other legal remedies exist.

This is precisely why the redefinition of marriage should be resisted.

If gay couples merit equal rights or treatment in the eyes of the law, then those rights or treatment ought to be argued on their own merits not by redefining what is a clear, unique and distinct biologically and spiritually grounded reality.

The redefinition of marriage argument comes down to a muddying of the waters.

We ought to think about it with much more precision before being carried off by faddish notions.

Proponents of same sex marriage claim that marriage rights are discriminatory because they don’t apply to same sex couples, but at the same time they are arguing that the definition of marriage must, therefore, be revised to include them.

Why would a redefinition be necessary, however, if the reasons those rights are endowed to married couples are independent determinations based upon the importance of marriage to the state. The tax law, for example, allows certain benefits to married couples because of reasons x, y and z, not merely BECAUSE they are married couples.

Now if those reasons for granting tax benefits are, indeed, discriminatory to the unfair advantage of married couples, then the issue is with tax laws, not with the definition of marriage. Why should same sex couple be granted rights or benefits equal to married couples unless they equally deserve those rights or benefits?

Redefinition implies that conjugal marriages are nothing but long term loving commitments. Hello? There is much MORE to conjugal marriage than that. Conjugal marriages involve the physical, spiritual, psychological, emotional and social bonding of a complementary pair of human beings with the intention of biologically extending their relationship in space and time into the future through their offspring.

This is not essentially what a gay union is.

Now, it may be a legitimate question to ask whether a gay couple ought to be accorded some or all of the rights that are currently allowed married couples. However, that determination should be made on the merits of those unions, not by severely reducing the meaning of conjugal marriage to merely a “loving commitment.” That is a false equivalence.

Legally speaking, such a reduction of the definition is untenable on other grounds since it then allows a myriad of “long term loving commitments” to be included without prejudice within this new definition, including aging spinster sisters, father-son relationships, mother-daughters, non-sexual father-daughter and mother-son relationships, polyandrous relationships and committed golf-buddies.

I have never seen a cogent revision of the definition of marriage that does not, on non-arbitrary grounds, preclude a host of rather odd relationships from being called “marriages.” The redefinition of marriage is susceptible to a reductio ad absurdum and, legally speaking, that sounds the death knell to the legal entity currently called a “marriage.”

Again, if gay couples want to argue that particular rights and benefits ought to be extended to them, then those couples need to make a case for each right or benefit on the merits of their unique relationship, not by piggy-backing on what constitutes conjugal marriage as a clearly understood entity.

This move on behalf of same sex couples is clearly a muddying of the waters that will not benefit anyone, especially not our social order and definitely not the future stability of potential new long-term conjugal family relationships.

Again, this talk by Sherif Girgis lays down the philosophical argument.

winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/44697/

 

[LJN21]

I don’t take anything on these boards personally, thank you for your opinion. I absolutely would love to have a legitimate and charitable discussion. Let me paraphrase one of my favorite posts that I agree with completely.

I would suggest that Gay marriage primarily hurts heterosexual people who spend what little time they have on this earth worrying about the sexuality of other people. Worrying about who else gets married. Things like that. I would rather be engaged in my own sexuality than to worry about others. Now, this is just my opinion, but I’m pretty certain that I’m not being hurt by Gay People getting married.

The question of who an action hurts has no relevance on if an action is moral or not. I’m certainly not hurt by my neighbors wife having an affair, he may not be hurt by his wife affair either, but that doesn’t make a moral thing to do.

As to what makes Gay marriage “wrong”, I think it’s ignorance about risks and ignorance about managing ones sexual activities in a safe manner. (and keeping their noses out of people’s bedrooms.

cheers.

Has any one person here talking about gay ‘marriage’ talked about the risk of managing ones sexual activities? The main argument is that people of the same sex do not have the basic biological functions required to marry. To claim that homosexual acts are intrinsically the same as heterosexual acts is the height of ignorance. One is capable of producing offspring the and in the other offspring is impossible.

 

[JackieO123]

There is no such thing as gay “marriage.” Gay “marriage,” is sodomy, and a mockery of true marriage.

 

[cena]

I don’t take anything on these boards personally, thank you for your opinion. I absolutely would love to have a legitimate and charitable discussion. Let me paraphrase one of my favorite posts that I agree with completely.

I would suggest that Gay marriage primarily hurts heterosexual people who spend what little time they have on this earth worrying about the sexuality of other people. Worrying about who else gets married. Things like that. I would rather be engaged in my own sexuality than to worry about others. Now, this is just my opinion, but I’m pretty certain that I’m not being hurt by Gay People getting married. As to what makes Gay marriage “wrong”, I think it’s ignorance about risks and ignorance about managing ones sexual activities in a safe manner. (and keeping their noses out of people’s bedrooms.

cheers.

What is “safe” manner? If you are referring to contraception, the Catholic Church is also against that.

 

[LJN21]

There is no such thing as gay “marriage.” Gay “marriage,” is sodomy, and a mockery of true marriage.

See, that is the kind thing that really doesn’t help our position. For the most part everyone knows that is what us bigot Catholics think about the poor gays. If we really want to have some effect we need to be able to argue WHY its not marriage, in non religious terms. Everything that is a Sin is so not because some old guys threw a darts at a lists of things we can do and decided those were the sins, but because the volatile in same way natural or Divine Law. Marriage is a pretty fundamental thing in natural law and easy to defend without need to resort to “God said so”.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The Dalai Lama actually CHANGED his mind! Wow, there’s hope for the world. Maybe you will too some day.
____ from abcnews:

The Dalai Lama has joined the growing chorus of people who support gay marriage, the exiled Tibetan religious leader said during his latest visit to the United States.

“If two people — a couple — really feel that way is more practical, more sort of satisfaction, both sides fully agree, then OK,” he said during an online interview with talk show host Larry King.

This seems to be a change for the celibate Dalai Lama, who previously has made remarks more critical of homosexuality, including denouncing anal and oral sex.

You fail to appreciate his nuanced replies in his interviews by Western media. He expects Buddhists to follow Buddhist teaching against homosexual conduct and gay “marriage.” See here and here.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How Christian and smart of you to compare Gay Marriage to murder, theft, stealing and rape!

Hmmm, which one of these is not like the other? The reason: Gay Marriage, contrary to what you may think, does not HARM anyone, in fact it’s the opposite. It brings love and happiness to the world. Ironic that many hardcore fundamentalists are so quick to deny.

Ah, yes, but that was not your argument, now was it?

And for all the haters out there: If you don’t like gay marriage, or think it’s wrong, don’t marry a gay person. Thank you very much.

Your argument seems to have been that a moral issue such as “gay marriage” is purely to be decided by whether it affects you personally. This assertion that if it doesn’t affect you personally or you wouldn’t choose it, then you have no say in the matter is simply a poor argument against any moral position. Yet, you gave the impression that you promote that view, purely as such.

Now you assert that gay marriage does no harm to society. Again, you don’t present a case for believing that to be true except that you, personally, do and that it is the current view in modern society.

So, others don’t have a right to personal perspectives about gay marriage without being called “haters” by you, yet you purely make personal assertions as if those sufficiently make the case. Something wrong with this picture, no?

To call others “haters” merely because they disagree with you, though they may have independent reasons for thinking gay marriage is not acceptable, is not very charitable nor much of an argument, now is it?

Gay marriage, like rape, murder, theft or lying is a moral issue. My point was that moral arguments are not settled by telling others to bugger off. An assertion by you that the moral argument in the case of gay marriage is settled in that manner does not amount to making a case beyond a presumption of being right and appropriating to yourself the moral high ground.

 

[JackieO123]

See, that is the kind thing that really doesn’t help our position. For the most part everyone knows that is what us bigot Catholics think about the poor gays. If we really want to have some effect we need to be able to argue WHY its not marriage, in non religious terms. Everything that is a Sin is so not because some old guys threw a darts at a lists of things we can do and decided those were the sins, but because the volatile in same way natural or Divine Law. Marriage is a pretty fundamental thing in natural law and easy to defend without need to resort to “God said so”.

You have a point; but in my experience, those of the opposition rarely listen.

 

[Ositokc]

Ah, yes, but that was not your argument, now was it?

Your argument seems to have been that a moral issue such as “gay marriage” is purely to be decided by whether it affects you personally. This assertion that if it doesn’t affect you personally or you wouldn’t choose it, then you have no say in the matter is simply a poor argument against any moral position. Yet, you gave the impression that you promote that view, purely as such.

Now you assert that gay marriage does no harm to society. Again, you don’t present a case for believing that to be true except that you, personally, do and that it is the current view in modern society.

So, others don’t have a right to personal perspectives about gay marriage without being called “haters” by you, yet you purely make personal assertions as if those sufficiently make the case. Something wrong with this picture, no?

To call others “haters” merely because they disagree with you, though they may have independent reasons for thinking gay marriage is not acceptable, is not very charitable nor much of an argument, now is it?

Gay marriage, like rape, murder, theft or lying is a moral issue. My point was that moral arguments are not settled by telling others to bugger off. An assertion by you that the moral argument in the case of gay marriage is settled in that manner does not amount to making a case beyond a presumption of being right and appropriating to yourself the moral high ground.

Once again to equate gay marriage in any way to rape, murder, theft or lying is offensive.
This is the same tired argument peppered with misdirection and red herrings that we’ve been hearing for decades, and the American people are too well informed in 2014 to keep buying it – which is why gay marriage is now passing all over the country, and why most younger people (including people of faith) support equality. Thus, it would behoove you to stop comparing homosexuality to the above. I know it makes a great headline for the faithful, but really – that horse has been beaten to death and many of us, young people, LGBT, friends of LGBT, Catholic LGBT, we are not buying it any more.

 

[Rau]

Once again to equate gay marriage in any way to rape, murder, theft or lying is offensive.
This is the same tired argument peppered with misdirection and red herrings that we’ve been hearing for decades, and the American people are too well informed in 2014 to keep buying it – which is why gay marriage is now passing all over the country, and why most younger people (including people of faith) support equality. Thus, it would behoove you to stop comparing homosexuality to the above. I know it makes a great headline for the faithful, but really – that horse has been beaten to death and many of us, young people, LGBT, friends of LGBT, Catholic LGBT, we are not buying it any more.

He compares them to the extent of declaring them all moral issues. If you disagree with that, you need only say so, and hold the embellishments.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Once again to equate gay marriage in any way to rape, murder, theft or lying is offensive.
This is the same tired argument peppered with misdirection and red herrings that we’ve been hearing for decades, and the American people are too well informed in 2014 to keep buying it – which is why gay marriage is now passing all over the country, and why most younger people (including people of faith) support equality. Thus, it would behoove you to stop comparing homosexuality to the above. I know it makes a great headline for the faithful, but really – that horse has been beaten to death and many of us, young people, LGBT, friends of LGBT, Catholic LGBT, we are not buying it any more.

Actually, it would be the misconception that moral issues can only involve serious, overt and direct harm that is the problem.

It has been the disconnection of morality away from good ends to a view that morality merely means avoiding egregious harm that has hardened and disfigured moral sensibility such that the moral good would not be recognized except in contrast to serious physical trauma.

Well, either that or hurting someone’s feelings of specialness.

 

[cena]

Once again to equate gay marriage in any way to rape, murder, theft or lying is offensive.
This is the same tired argument peppered with misdirection and red herrings that we’ve been hearing for decades, and the American people are too well informed in 2014 to keep buying it – which is why gay marriage is now passing all over the country, and why most younger people (including people of faith) support equality. Thus, it would behoove you to stop comparing homosexuality to the above. I know it makes a great headline for the faithful, but really – that horse has been beaten to death and many of us, young people, LGBT, friends of LGBT, Catholic LGBT, we are not buying it any more.

I have same sex attraction and I think homosexual acts are wrong. Homosexual acts are worse than lying, (murder and rape are worse). I am not offended by it being compared to other immoral things. I do not engage in my temptations, and I go to an all girls schools so it is not that easy. Gay marriage is not marriage. It is not equality.

 

[cena]

Once again to equate gay marriage in any way to rape, murder, theft or lying is offensive.
This is the same tired argument peppered with misdirection and red herrings that we’ve been hearing for decades, and the American people are too well informed in 2014 to keep buying it – which is why gay marriage is now passing all over the country, and why most younger people (including people of faith) support equality. Thus, it would behoove you to stop comparing homosexuality to the above. I know it makes a great headline for the faithful, but really – that horse has been beaten to death and many of us, young people, LGBT, friends of LGBT, Catholic LGBT, we are not buying it any more.

Most of the country used to believe slavery was fine. They did not see black people equal to white people. The Jim Crow Laws made segregation legal. Just because a majority of people believe something is equality does not make that so.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Most of the country used to believe slavery was fine. They did not see black people equal to white people. The Jim Crow Laws made segregation legal. Just because a majority of people believe something is equality does not make that so.

Excellent posting, Cena!

 

[BrassAnkles]

being against homosexual marriage is not ‘hateful’, it’s helpful.

 

[Ositokc]

Most of the country used to believe slavery was fine. They did not see black people equal to white people. The Jim Crow Laws made segregation legal. Just because a majority of people believe something is equality does not make that so.

Thank you for inadvertently proving my point, exactly! Brilliant actually. I agree with you!

1. Most of the country used to believe slavery, the oppression of colored people, to be fine and that they were not equal to white people. Just because a majority of people believe something does not make that so!
2. Most of the religious right in this country believe homosexuality is wrong, and that the oppression of gay people, denying them the right to get married, is fine, and that they were not equal to straight people. Just because you and a majority of people believe something does not make that so!

You are correct sir. Just in the opposite of what you think. Thank you again for proving my point.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thank you for inadvertently proving my point, exactly! Brilliant actually. I agree with you!

1. Most of the country used to believe slavery, the oppression of colored people, to be fine and that they were not equal to white people. Just because a majority of people believe something does not make that so!
2. Most of the religious right in this country believe homosexuality is wrong, and that the oppression of gay people, denying them the right to get married, is fine, and that they were not equal to straight people. Just because you and a majority of people believe something does not make that so!

You are correct sir. Just in the opposite of what you think. Thank you again for proving my point.

I’m not sure what polls your looking at but,

The majority of Americans approve of gay marriage. (Doesn’t mean it’s right)

The majority of Christians do not want the oppression of gay people
The majority of Christians believe homosexuals are rqual in value to heterosexuals.

This is all straw man ad hominem nonsense.

As for “the right to marry”. Why is a marriage a right? Who says its a right?

More importantly, if marriage is a right, why does it need to be redefined to mean something it never has before.

As another poster put, if the government was not involved in marriage and did not provide money to married couples in the form of tax breaks, then homosexuals wouldn’t care at all about redefining it.

They would just cohabitate.

That is their right. To live a free life how they want.

They don’t have a right to redefine what marriage mesns for the purposes of financial compensation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are correct sir. Just in the opposite of what you think. Thank you again for proving my point.

Proving, once again, that you missed her larger point. Even if the majority of people in a country agree that same sex marriage is morally licit and believe it should be legal does not mean it has, thereby, been made morally licit.

The legality of any issue hinges upon its morality and that hinges upon moral considerations and sound ethical reasoning. It has nothing to do with consensus, unless the consensus is among a group of perfect moral thinkers who are also impeccable moral agents.

Looking around our world, I think there is a case to be made that sound moral thinking is not an attribute of most voters, nor is it held in high regard. In fact, it could be argued that most voters attempt to assuage their own moral failures - especially in the areas of sexuality - by promoting laxity regarding laws pertaining to sexuality.

Sure, most people like to think of themselves as virtuous and flawless, and THAT view of themselves is CERTAINLY made much easier by reducing moral standards to their absolutely lowest level, which is, coincidentally, the level set by modern social progressives.

As long as you don’t directly cause physical trauma or death to someone, you are perfect, at least according to the modern notions of morality. Try to question those notions, however, and see if the vocal advocates of those notions don’t try to cause you physical trauma or death :doh2:

Oh, yes, and don’t forget NOT to say anything that might hurt someone’s feelings, no matter how supercilious those feelings might be - that, too, is important! A little well-aimed flattery goes a long way to bolstering your feelings of moral superiority!

“See, I complemented you on the shade of eye shadow you are wearing. What a good person I am! Being “moral” is no big deal, really AND I didn’t kill or rape anyone today. For sure, I didn’t make anyone feel bad for expressing their sexuality in any way they want to. Not like those ‘haters’ who impose their views on everyone. Man, do I hate those haters!”

The moral territory between those two extremes appears simply to be “up for grabs” and of no real consequence, in any case. Who needs moral formation when the matter is so simple and clear?

 

[Ositokc]

With all due respect, for many many people, Gay Marriage is a CIVIL issue and not a moral one. Those, like myself, who do not see homosexuality as a sin, see many many parallels, and exactly the same type of arguments, that were used to justify discrimination towards mixed race couples getting married, voting rights for women, etc. While you may say there is no similarities, the arguments are virtually identical. Talk about strawmen and ad hominem.

So while the religious right may never accept Gay marriage, their kids will, and it is happening and will happen. Sorry about that. Love will prevail, always.