Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[BrassAnkles]

According to the Relationships Indicators Survey conducted by Relationships Australia and CUA in 2008, the reasons why people get married are:

Love

Companionship

To signify a life-long commitment

Security for children

To make a public commitment to each other

For legal status or for financial security

Because of religious beliefs

Response to Family pressure

Desire for a special occasion

Seems like a pretty good list, and any couple gay or straight should be able to get married for any of the above reasons, don’t you think?

Homosexuality undermines society and will cause it’s fall because it undermines same sex camaraderie and the family. Ancient Rome and Greece are perfect examples. the cracks are already appearing in Western society with so many mentally ill people and random violence.

 

[Jon_S_1]

According to the Relationships Indicators Survey conducted by Relationships Australia and CUA in 2008, the reasons why people get married are:

Love

Companionship

To signify a life-long commitment

Security for children

To make a public commitment to each other

For legal status or for financial security

Because of religious beliefs

Response to Family pressure

Desire for a special occasion

Seems like a pretty good list, and any couple gay or straight should be able to get married for any of the above reasons, don’t you think?

So again, answer me why the state should be involved in this at all?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Homosexuality undermines society and will cause it’s fall because it undermines same sex camaraderie and the family. Ancient Rome and Greece are perfect examples. the cracks are already appearing in Western society with so many mentally ill people and random violence.

Same sex camaraderie was undermined before stone wall.

The increased number of “mentally ill people and random violence” is actually a result of the dismantling of the mental health system under the guise of compassion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Gays being allowed to marry won’t destroy the institution of marriage because heterosexuals already beat them to it.

Interesting. You tacitly admit that the institution of marriage is not what it is supposed to be and from there argue that gays have some kind of claim to the altered and disfigured caricature of marriage.

So no attempt ought to be made to resurrect marriage, merely to let it die because YOU see no value or purpose to it.

I suppose this same view could be taken with regard to humanity. Jesus should just let us flounder in our sin and allow evil to get the better of us because evil “beat” Jesus to humanity. Is that your final word on the subject?

Making all things new is out of the question and not worth our time once things start to go sour?

I thought HOPE, as in "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1) was a supernatural virtue in the sense that God’s power rather than human caprice will ultimately rule.

I also suppose you think the Church ought to give up and God, himself, give up on the Church because the sinners within the Church have already beat the secularists to its demise. No room for God or his grace to make a difference, then?

Ah, yes, it does seem clear now where your faith is.

 

[cena]

Thank you. Thank you for saying it doesn’t affect you. This is quite the opposite from Brass saying gay marriage will “destroy society from within.” Live and let live, very wise words. This is exactly what many people want, let the couples get that marriage certificate and live however they want to. Amen.

Well things like adultery and divorce do not affect me. That does not mean it will not affect other people.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Same sex camaraderie was undermined before stone wall.

The increased number of “mentally ill people and random violence” is actually a result of the dismantling of the mental health system under the guise of compassion.

And dismantling marriage under the guise of compassion follows the same ideological pattern, does it not?

 

[cena]

According to the Relationships Indicators Survey conducted by Relationships Australia and CUA in 2008, the reasons why people get married are:

Love

Companionship

To signify a life-long commitment

Security for children

To make a public commitment to each other

For legal status or for financial security

Because of religious beliefs

Response to Family pressure

Desire for a special occasion

Seems like a pretty good list, and any couple gay or straight should be able to get married for any of the above reasons, don’t you think?

According to the law you cannot marry a close relative, a child (someone under 18), or someone who is already married. Are we discriminating against the people who want to do these things? Please explain why not.
What if two brothers want to get married? What if a child wanted to marry an adult? What if someone fell in love with someone who is already married? Should we let polygamy, incest, etc. be okay to not exclude these people? Please explain why homosexuals can get “married” but these people can not

 

[cena]

My good sir, my grandparents were married and in love for over 60 years and raised 10 children! My good friends, John and David have been together for 18 years, married for 10 and are raising 3 children together! I see love and joy in both relationships. The latter is not destroying society in any way. It’s sad you cannot see that.

So I agree that love will indeed prevail. It’s not about agendas or popular media corrupting children, in fact it’s the opposite. As a child I was taught homosexuality is a sin and wrong, but now after becoming an adult it’s quite clear love, whether gay or straight, is prevailing.

So after hearing this, do you still believe John and David should not be able to get married? How about raising children? Where do you draw the line, may I ask, since you believe it is destroying society from within? Again I ask, what is your endgame? Criminalize homosexual acts? Gay Marriage? What do you want seen if you could snap your fingers? Please tell me your solution. Thank you.

thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

This is from the perspective of a gay man whose opinion was not based on religion but his own experience

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would rather be engaged in my own sexuality than to worry about others.

Well, of course you would.

But don’t, then, claim it is because you have any concern whatsoever for their well-being.

As long as you are, to put it crudely, “getting some” what does it matter in the least where “others” end up with their sexuality? You are too preoccupied to care, correct?

And claiming that staying out of their business is the height of morality certainly reassures you that your attitude towards “others” is the enlightened view.

Who cares if others become addicted to sex, become mentally unbalanced or morally oblivious to the world as long as you are “engaged,” correct?

Yes, I see now. Egoism with the added assurance of high moral certitude. No need to question the attitude, either, since THAT would be venturing beyond your “concerns” into what amounts to the domain of others.

It isn’t, in your view, so much that no man is an island entire unto itself, but that all men ARE islands and bugger off. End of story.

 

[bisco1]

why don’t people just stand on a mountaintop and shout to the world, ‘we’re committing ourselves to each other, forever! or at least until one of us gets bored.’

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

In American society marriage has become little more than in institution for two people to express to society how much they love each other with children being an optional accessory, under such a societal definition it is being inconsistent to deny gay people the institution of marriage. Marriage used to be when a man came together with a woman for the production and rearing of offspring and under such a societal definition it is perfect consistent to deny gay couple the institution of marriage.

Gays being allowed to marry won’t destroy the institution of marriage because heterosexuals already beat them to it.

That is a sad commentary.

I agree… " In American society marriage has become little more than in institution for two people to express to society how much they love each other with children being an optional accessory, "

Therein lies the danger to society.

The Catholic Church did not invent marriage as an institution limited to heterosexual couples. Neither did the state.

Marriage is a pre-political and natural phenomenon that arises out of the nature of human beings. Every society in the world recognizes and supports this natural institution
because without it, no society will exist.

The purpose of marriage is procreation. If young people today are marrying without that in mind and homosexual relationships are being defined as marriage…there won’t be a society in the future.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

That is a sad commentary.

I agree… " In American society marriage has become little more than in institution for two people to express to society how much they love each other with children being an optional accessory, "

Therein lies the danger to society.

The Catholic Church did not invent marriage as an institution limited to heterosexual couples. Neither did the state.

Marriage is a pre-political and natural phenomenon that arises out of the nature of human beings. Every society in the world recognizes and supports this natural institution
because without it, no society will exist.

The purpose of marriage is procreation. If young people today are marrying without that in mind and homosexual relationships are being defined as marriage…there won’t be a society in the future.

Most people don’t marry with procreation as the primary purpose in the West.

 

[edwest2]

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

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.

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 …

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/

Well said. From Pope Benedict:

"The Holy Father says:

"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

This is not the death knell of marriage as it has been. It is a concerted effort based on a desire for novelty. Nothing more. There are people that I love but I would never have sex with them. This anarchist thinking lives because ‘radical individualism’ calls for it, and one aspect of the issue which puzzles me is that everyone should just go along with it? People are not and will not. People have never asked for my permission or approval for what was once called “alternative lifestyles.” Funny, but all of it appears to be based on a desire for sexual experiences. And while some of these people have lived together for a long time - What do they want from me? I’ve never harmed or insulted a gay person. In the past, gay marriage was never mentioned.

An old saying comes to mind: “Everything is everything.” Followed by “It is forbidden to forbid.” Really? By what authority aside from that of the writer?

What is happening now is social fragmentation which is leading toward a form of tribalism. I don’t hang out with people who use illegal drugs or get drunk because I hate them but because I refuse to use illegal drugs or get drunk. Those who fully understand the ramifications of gay marriage will not lose that understanding regardless of how often messages to the contrary appear.

Speak the truth in season and out of season. I don’t care if half my neighbors are gay couples. It’s none of my business. Just don’t let anyone confuse you.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

God always leaves a faithful remnant. Those who live out their lives with faith and knowing the truth. Though none are perfect, this experiment will pass.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

And dismantling marriage under the guise of compassion follows the same ideological pattern, does it not?

I’m not in favor of dismantling marriage, I’m merely saying people should be consistent. I am actually in favor of restoring celibacy to its rightful place above marriage, legally make marriage counseling mandatory before divorce, etc.

 

[JimG]

That is a sad commentary.

I agree… " In American society marriage has become little more than in institution for two people to express to society how much they love each other with children being an optional accessory, "

Therein lies the danger to society.

The Catholic Church did not invent marriage as an institution limited to heterosexual couples. Neither did the state.

Marriage is a pre-political and natural phenomenon that arises out of the nature of human beings. Every society in the world recognizes and supports this natural institution
because without it, no society will exist.

The purpose of marriage is procreation. If young people today are marrying without that in mind and homosexual relationships are being defined as marriage…there won’t be a society in the future.

It’s true, marriage arises from the nature of man and woman. Human beings come in two and only two sexually complementary types—male and female. It takes one of each to accomplish the marital act which is the only natural human act that can lead to procreation.

Two men can’t make a baby. Neither can two women. Infertile couples can’t make a baby but they can complete the marital act. Two put it bluntly, same sex partners can’t have marital sex. It’s impossible to them, and thus marriage is also impossible for them.

I agree with Joie that the institution has already been largely destroyed, and not by same sex couples. It’s destruction began with the widespread acceptance of contraception.

But I don’t agree that since the institution has largely been destroyed, we might as well push it the rest of the way over the cliff. Same sex marriage completes the disintegration of marriage by paradoxically making marriage non-marital, even in potential.

The Church didn’t invent marriage, nor did the State. It arises from the way our bodies are designed. As a result, the family unit of mother, father, and children is inevitably the basic building block of society.

It doesn’t matter whether or not couples marry with procreation in mind. Once the basic family unit is sufficiently destabilized, so is the culture and society. It will collapse. It will right itself eventually, but only after enduring a period of terrible social chaos.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not in favor of dismantling marriage, I’m merely saying people should be consistent. I am actually in favor of restoring celibacy to its rightful place above marriage, legally make marriage counseling mandatory before divorce, etc.

Okay, I have been married over thirty years, been entirely faithful all that time and raised three wonderful children. Am I not being consistent?

Your attacks on “heterosexuals” who have ruined marriage seem to include me since you refer to heterosexuals without qualification as if “we” SHOULD have done something to save marriage that “we” as a class have FAILED to do.

Show where and how I have “ruined” the institution of marriage by my behaviour. Perhaps then I can take your generalizations about the ruination of the institution of marriage seriously.

Why does celibacy have a rightful place ABOVE marriage? Or did you mean chastity?

What about restoring marriage to ITS “rightful place?” I noticed you didn’t specifically mention that.

 

[Catholic13]

I am not here to argue just for the sake of causing trouble or chaos, I am expressing my personal opinion. This is an opinion that many Catholics actually agree with me on.

No practicing Catholics agree with you on this matter.

 

[BrassAnkles]

No practicing Catholics agree with you on this matter.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It’s true, marriage arises from the nature of man and woman. Human beings come in two and only two sexually complementary types—male and female. It takes one of each to accomplish the marital act which is the only natural human act that can lead to procreation.

Two men can’t make a baby. Neither can two women. Infertile couples can’t make a baby but they can complete the marital act. Two put it bluntly, same sex partners can’t have marital sex. It’s impossible to them, and thus marriage is also impossible for them.

I agree with Joie that the institution has already been largely destroyed, and not by same sex couples. It’s destruction began with the widespread acceptance of contraception.

**But I don’t agree that since the institution has largely been destroyed, we might as well push it the rest of the way over the cliff. Same sex marriage completes the disintegration of marriage by paradoxically making marriage non-marital, even in potential.
**
The Church didn’t invent marriage, nor did the State. It arises from the way our bodies are designed. As a result, the family unit of mother, father, and children is inevitably the basic building block of society.

It doesn’t matter whether or not couples marry with procreation in mind. Once the basic family unit is sufficiently destabilized, so is the culture and society. It will collapse. It will right itself eventually, but only after enduring a period of terrible social chaos.

I’m not arguing that, I’m arguing that unless we try to do more than merely hold the line we will inevitably fail.

Okay, I have been married over thirty years, been entirely faithful all that time and raised three wonderful children. Am I not being consistent?

I am not talking about you.

Your attacks on “heterosexuals” who have ruined marriage seem to include me since you refer to heterosexuals without qualification as if “we” SHOULD have done something to save marriage that “we” as a class have FAILED to do.

Oh heterosexuals didn’t fail to save it, they destroyed it. Contraception and then abortion made children an optional accessory to marriage and divorce sunder that which God has brought togeth.

Show where and how I have “ruined” the institution of marriage by my behaviour. Perhaps then I can take your generalizations about the ruination of the institution of marriage seriously.

Do you understand how generalizations work? They don’t necessarily to every single person, merely the group overall.

Why does celibacy have a rightful place ABOVE marriage? Or did you mean chastity?

Because the Bible and Church teaching?

[6]
But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. [8] But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. [10] But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.
…
[31] And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. [32] But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. [34] And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [35] And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.

What about restoring marriage to ITS “rightful place?” I noticed you didn’t specifically mention that.

The proper place of marriage is below celibacy, it is necessary to have a healthy view of celibacy to have a healthy view of marriage.

 

[cena]

No practicing Catholics agree with you on this matter.

There are “Catholics” who pick and choose what they want to believe(like about contraception and other things) of the Catholic religion but I guess we can’t really call them practicing