Question for those who argue for so-called "same-sex marriage"

[CrimsonThorn]

Because that is how things work. What does this have to do with marriage though?

Im glad you understand “thats the how things work.”

SSM supporters need to stop kicking and screaming “discrimination!” and realize that not everything in life is fair and “thats the how things work.”

Its not fair that I am unable to impregnate a man, but, “thats how things work” etc.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

What state? When did the state get interested in marriage because of children?

Do two people have to be married to have children?

You understand the difference between requirement and raison d’être, don’t you?
,

 

[Slavonic]

What state? When did the state get interested in marriage because of children?

Marriage was, in the past, important for making sure children were ‘legitimate.’ Marriage contracts today are very much for the spouses. Nearly all rights and privileges in a marriage are those relating to the other spouse, not the children. The state has other means of ensuring children are properly cared for.

 

[livingwordunity]

Do two people have to be married to have children?

Do homosexuals need to be married?

 

[fix]

honestly the Catholic reaction against civil gay marriages is ludicrous.
there is simply not one good argument why society shouldnt legalise same sex marriage. there is a separation of church and state, therefore any change in marriage laws within the state will not have any impact on religous marriage laws or customs.
i think the catholic church will eventually realise the error with their current stance on civil gay marriages, just like they did with separation of church and state.
there was a time when the catholic church stated that it was the moral responsibiity of catholic voters to vote for a catholic theocracy but eventually the church abandoned such a stance. i believe a similar concession will occur with civil gay marriages.
simply speaking its out of the church’s jurisdiction.
(however abortion is a different matter since it involves murder of an innocent child)

Really?

For one thing there is not one valid argument why two, or more, people of the same sex should be “married”. Not only is it contrary to reason but children have a right not to be raised by two same sex persons pretending to be mother and father.

 

[interestedman]

Really?

For one thing there is not one valid argument why two, or more, people of the same sex should be “married”. Not only is it contrary to reason but children have a right not to be raised by two same sex persons pretending to be mother and father.

Children have the right to not be raised by two people of the same sex? Is foster care preferable? If this is a “right” for children then why do millions of children in America live without both a mother and father?

 

[fix]

Children have the right to not be raised by two people of the same sex? Is foster care preferable? If this is a “right” for children then why do millions of children in America live without both a mother and father?

Living without one parent is vastly different from two same sex persons pretending to be a mother and father. Is foster care better, yes.

 

[thewanderer]

So you can’t marry if you can’t have children? If you’re gay, just cause you can’t get married doesn’t mean you’ll turn straight and start having babies.

You are missing the point of marriage. The purpose is not to have children. The purpose is to commit to someone you love.

Also, the government does not need to encourage people to have children. There is NOT a population crisis in the US.

If the point is simply to love eacch other then why in the world are people trying to get the government to step in??? Honestly, I don’t understand why anybody cares about whether or not the government recognizes the fact that they love someone. I am being quite serious, I have never understood that. I intend to get married, and I am going to do so religiously. I will get married legally, but only because of the postitive incentives the government has given me to do so. I really don’t care whether or not the government knows that I love my FH and I don’t understand why other people care about that either. Which is why when we’re talking about legal marraige, you have to look at the reason why it exists as a governmentally recognized union. I’m gonna be quite honest here, there are only two things I can think of that would make any difference to the government, 1 the ability to settle property disputes justly when people break up, and 2 encouraging a stable atmosphere for the procreation and upbringing of children. Both of these are very valid concerns for a government and because of that it makes sense to have legally recognized states for each of these. If people want to comit to each other without any possibility of conceiving children they should fall into the former category, if they want to have a comitted relationship which involves children then they should fall into the latter legal category. This way everyone can have some sort of legal recognition for those matters which pertain to the government, and the important aspect of begetting and raising well-adjusted citizens for the continuation of the state will not get lost or mixed up with everything else.

 

[livingwordunity]

Children have the right to not be raised by two people of the same sex? Is foster care preferable? If this is a “right” for children then why do millions of children in America live without both a mother and father?

As a child, I experienced being homeless, being in and out of foster care and staying temporarily in the Children’s Receiving Home (basically an orphanage). It was better than if I had been raised in a household of gender confusion and hedonistic sodomy. So called “same-sex marriage” is a doctrine of demons. Satan makes himself appear as an angel of light. Don’t give in to his lies and seduction. He uses people, and when they end up in Hell with him he tortures them forever. He is not your friend. A short time of physical pleasure isn’t worth an eternity in Hell. Repent so that God may forgive you.

 

[RiverTam51]

Do homosexuals need to be married?

It would easily be possible to survive without being allowed to marry, if that is what you mean. But it would not be fair from a legal standpoint, just as it was not fair to deny women the right to vote. The fact that people could get by without it does not mean the situation should go on unchanged.
It is true that in humans and most complex animals, a male and a female are required to reproduce. By the Catholics’ religious definition of marriage, gay marriage is invalidated by the relative infertility of the couple. So far as I know, few are arguing this point. As someone who argues for same-sex marriage, I concede this point.
But the government of the US is not a religious institution. Other religions have differing definitions of marriage: some say that infertility or direct prevention of children is acceptable, others do not. Some say that divorce is possible, but others forbid it. Because the government does not have an official religion, it cannot choose one religion’s definition over another. The US government was created as an administrative authority only, and does not have the right or the authority to decide matters of sexual morality.
As an administrative authority, the government has a legal institution which, like the Catholic sacrament, is called “marriage.” This is a legal status which has been created to assist individuals who want to live together for long periods of time in doing so. It makes some things easier, such as co-ownership of property, visiting rights, and the legal requirements of the married towards children concieved by the two or by only one of the two. Because it is an administrative status only, there is no need for the non-religious authority in charge of it to concern itself with the fertility of the couple, their attitude towards raising children, or their present attitude towards ending their union. So, the government has no administrative reason to deny this status to same-sex couples.
So we gays could live without this status, sure. And if for whatever reason a straight couple was denied civil marriage, the same would apply to them. But Uncle Sam has no reason to make life harder on any one group by denying them this status.
In short, while the original argument shows why Catholic marriage is impossible for gay couples, it says nothing about whether a non-religious institution should allow gays the civil status of marriage.

 

[RiverTam51]

As a child, I experienced being homeless, being in and out of foster care and staying temporarily in the Children’s Receiving Home (basically an orphanage). It was better than if I had been raised in a household of gender confusion and hedonistic sodomy.

Straw men aside, can you really say this for certain, never having lived in a household with same-sex parents? It seems to me that you are making a lot of assumptions about the ability of gays and lesbeans to raise children which are not backed by the statistics so far.

So called “same-sex marriage” is a doctrine of demons. Satan makes himself appear as an angel of light. Don’t give in to his lies and seduction.

I know this is your thread, but I would like to politely request that you don’t dismiss arguments you disagree with as demonic lies or delete them. Both sides must be heard if a rational discussion is to take place.

 

[CopticChristian]

Children have the right to not be raised by two people of the same sex? Is foster care preferable? If this is a “right” for children then why do millions of children in America live without both a mother and father?

Interested,

The rationale that courts use in deciding issues for children is

“The best Interest of the Child”

Decisions for children are made in their best interest.

 

[CopticChristian]

Straw men aside, can you really say this for certain, never having lived in a household with same-sex parents? It seems to me that you are making a lot of assumptions about the ability of gays and lesbeans to raise children which are not backed by the statistics so far.

I know this is your thread, but I would like to politely request that you don’t dismiss arguments you disagree with as demonic lies or delete them. Both sides must be heard if a rational discussion is to take place.

River,

What does your proposition about the ability of gays and lesbians ability to raise children have to do with “The Best Interest of The Child”

Let us say that those with Paraphelias want special rights and are asking for special rights to adopt children as they openly profess and practice their paraphelias. Is it in the best interest of the children?

What about NAMBLA? There are men that adore young men. Let us say that a married couple agree that the spouse can express their sexual orientation, the husband belongs to NAMBLA, and stay married and then want to raise children via adoption. Is this in the best interest of the child?

 

[someperson555]

Really?

For one thing there is not one valid argument why two, or more, people of the same sex should be “married”. Not only is it contrary to reason but children have a right not to be raised by two same sex persons pretending to be mother and father.

pope john paul 1 would disagree with you. (the man is one of my personal catholic heroes by the way)

it was thanks to him that gay couples were allowed to adopt children, it was also due to his efforts that single people could adopt too!
in a letter to explian his reasoning for allowing homosexual couples to adopt children, he said this:

“that we have found that homosexuals will take handicapped and less than healthy and attractive children. Most importantly they will take bastards.”

homosexuals are people too, they can love and hate just as we do. its completely wrong to judge them based on their sexual orientation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Gregoire, a biographer of JP 1, is the one to whom is attributed the supposed statement by the same Pope. However,

“Gregoire’s account of Luciani’s [JP1’s] views on gay and lesbian issues has been challenged by other writers, who have argued that the thesis Strategy of a Strange War is nonexistent and that Luciani’s actual thesis for his licentiate in theology (corresponding to Gregoire’s “intermediate thesis”) was about the custom of judicial ordeals in the Middle Ages.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_theology_of_John_Paul_I

When reading the fuller segment of the wikipedia article (not always a reliable source for doctrine, but a good source for biography, such as this) note that the comments attributed this biographer to JP1 are very difficult to believe.

 

[ett]

A search on the Internet I just did finds mostly pro-gay-marriage points of view, but I kept searching and actually found this “against” view that is actually a way more intelligent view than we mostly hear in the media.

patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/12/why-gay-marriage-is-a-bad-idea.html

 

[Elizabeth502]

I love the patheos blog. I find it very uplifting and inspiring.

 

[Irishgal49]

Living without one parent is vastly different from two same sex persons pretending to be a mother and father. Is foster care better, yes.

Foster care can mean death, sexual torture, abuse, starvation and other things. I know some amazingly loving foster parents, but I also have seen horror stories. Its NOT better. Whatever your position on gays being allowed to legally marry, being in a loving home that’s permanent makes a HUGE difference. I think it’s nervy for people who have had stable homes all their lives and loving parents to say children are better off shipped from house to house. I assure you, my son (who is gay) would be loving, caring, and respectful as a parent. Not all who are gay are promiscuous and not all who are gay are bad people or would be bad parents.

I would rather see a child raised with my son than a bigoted over religious home where they are taught to hate.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Foster care can mean death, sexual torture, abuse, starvation and other things. I know some amazingly loving foster parents, but I also have seen horror stories. Its NOT better. Whatever your position on gays being allowed to legally marry, being in a loving home that’s permanent makes a HUGE difference. I think it’s nervy for people who have had stable homes all their lives and loving parents to say children are better off shipped from house to house. I assure you, my son (who is gay) would be loving, caring, and respectful as a parent. Not all who are gay are promiscuous and not all who are gay are bad people or would be bad parents.

I would rather see a child raised with my son than a bigoted over religious home where they are taught to hate.

You actually had me there, up until your last inflammatory sentence, which for some reason you threw out there gratuitously. Just FYI, religion does not equal “hate” or even “bigotry.” There is nothing in Catholicism that recommends hatred.

Regarding the rational part of your argument, I do not disagree (there was a much earlier this, possibly two years ago, but certainly before you registered) that in some cases, a particular person with SSA could make an excellent foster parent by any standard, including Catholic standards. However, that would assume that parent not be actively pursuing homosexual relationships, including of the cohabiting variety, and not be importing any “gay subculture” into the home. It would assume that this parent has regular, normal friendships with many people not of his or her gender, so that the child has regular opportunity to interact with that opposite gender.

A promiscuous unmarried heterosexual (importing the nation’s fornication culture into the home) would also not make for an appropriate foster parent, by not just Catholic standards.

 

[fix]

pope john paul 1 would disagree with you. (the man is one of my personal catholic heroes by the way)

No he would not. That is propaganda from the homosexual crowd.

it was thanks to him that gay couples were allowed to adopt children, it was also due to his efforts that single people could adopt too!
in a letter to explian his reasoning for allowing homosexual couples to adopt children, he said this:

“that we have found that homosexuals will take handicapped and less than healthy and attractive children. Most importantly they will take bastards.”

homosexuals are people too, they can love and hate just as we do. its completely wrong to judge them based on their sexual orientation.

Never verified.