Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
It is of interest to a moral society. Any two people are free to live together. If they engage in risky behaviors that increases societal costs to taxpayers and/or insurance subscribers then we, the people can regulate it. When they want to redefine terms such as marriage based on their own penchant then we. the people can object.

I assume you were born here and enjoy the benefits that our biblical roots provide. These roots are firmly enshrined but yet you want to change them which will undermine the very foundation you like. Be very careful here.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m in Canada, but the legal roots are pretty much the same; origins in pre-Christian Germanic law and pre-Christian Roman law, with a heavy admixture of Christian era jurisprudence… At any rate, once you start talking about “dangerous activities” as a mean to limit liberties, well, then you can limit almost any liberty. After all, plenty of heterosexual couples partake of similar sexual practices to gay couples. Perhaps you want to bring back sodomy laws, you know, in case any wayward straight couple dare try anything that doesn’t meet with your views as to “proper” sexual congress.

In the end, the majority of Americans (and Canadians) have no problem with gay marriage. It’s a done deal. Whether a minority choose to accept it or not isn’t really going to topple it. It’s not likely you’re going to convince the majority of North Americans to return to your particular matrimonial ideal.
 
Often the fallout of acceptance takes time to manifest itself. Right now America and other countries have destroyed the real meaning of marriage to such an extent it is meaningless. The state will certainly begin to realize its once vested interest in procreation is gone. Like China who aborted itself now realizes it will not survive, so now 2 children are permitted. Many European countries are now paying incentives for families to have children. Why? Because they were careless with serving the common good and fell for the dictatorship of relativism.
 
buffalo said:
Often the fallout of acceptance takes time to manifest itself. Right now America and other countries have destroyed the real meaning of marriage to such an extent it is meaningless. The state will certainly begin to realize its once vested interest in procreation is gone. Like China who aborted itself now realizes it will not survive, so now 2 children are permitted. Many European countries are now paying incentives for families to have children. Why? Because they were careless with serving the common good and fell for the dictatorship of relativism.
Click to expand...
You seriously think there are enough gay couples out there to drop birth rates? Oh, and just in case you were unaware, homosexuals can and often do procreate.

The reason birth rates are falling in the industrialized world is because greater wealth among a populace inevitably sees birth rate declines. You’d be better demanding contraceptives be banned, and yes, that would be as futile as demanding SSM be banned.
 
I stated that these countries have already perverted the meaning of marriage as between one man and one woman for the sake of children. So called same sex marriage is a lowering of the bar further. These new frivolous definitions do not further the common good. If heterosexuals were nt so self serving we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. We opened the door to this nonsense ourselves. We can now close it as we realize what real marriage is.

The common good is affected by many of the European countries experiencing a demographic winter. When birthrates fall below 1.3 the country does not recover. America is at 1.8, and 2.1 with immigrants. We are on the precipice. Further ramifications are economic. To sustain 3% economic growth, the population must grown by that amount too.
 
Contraceptives like the pill should be banned since WHO rates them a Group 1 carcinogen. So now we have to pay for increased cancer bills?

Contraception went a long way to trivializing marriage. An interesting read is the 1930 Casti Connubi. This was all predicted.

We are a country that respects the rule of law. Our standards are enshrined in law, Banning contraceptives may not be totally enforceable but are laws nonetheless. By your argument we should get rid of red lights since many go through them anyway, And btw, they are hurting the fisheries,
 
Last edited:
Abortion was concocted out of thin air. The US Supreme Court could only only cite “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution and a vague right to privacy. Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) did not get an abortion. But abortion became another form of birth control. When a woman realizes she is pregnant she goes to the doctor - why? She has a baby in her womb. Sadly, it was called a “blob of tissue” and viewed as unimportant.

Shortly after the ruling, a young girl came up to my mom and said, “My mom was going to have a baby brother or sister but she’s not going to have one now.” I was deeply saddened that this youngster knew what was happening but had no idea of the ramifications. The United States was stabbed in the back. Since 1973, millions have died.
 
To this day young people have been indoctrinated to believe the “blob of tissue” argument. That is why prenatal ultrasounds are being discouraged by the pro-death folks.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Contraceptives like the pill should be banned since WHO rates them a Group 1 carcinogen. So now we have to pay for increased cancer bills?

Contraception went a long way to trivializing marriage. An interesting read is the 1930 Casti Connubi. This was all predicted.

We are a country that respects the rule of law. Our standards are enshrined in law, Banning contraceptives may not be totally enforceable but are laws nonetheless. By your argument we should get rid of red lights since many go through them anyway, And btw, they are hurting the fisheries,
Click to expand...
You do understand that contraceptives are never actually going to be banned, right?
 
A very interesting read is Humanae Vitae which was published in 1968 during the so-called Sexual Revolution. Pope Paul VI predicted what would happen if his words were not heeded and here we are. We either control ourselves or become slaves to our flesh. It was called “freedom” at the time. No, it was slavery. And there’s money in producing the various kinds of contraceptives. But some Catholic theologians, going beyond their authority, took out a full page ad in The New York Times at the time, dissenting from the Pope and saying contraception was OK.

If tomorrow, more couples practiced self control, had sex within marriage only and planned ahead, we’d still have some who will contracept, but a lot fewer “I have been programmed to believe I can’t control myself so I must buy these contraceptives.”
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The environmentalists will push for it.
Click to expand...
If anything most environmentalists think human populations should decline, so no, they won’t push for it. I will repeat for you that contraceptives are not going anywhere. Even opposition among some Evangelical groups (which had more to do with contraceptives being available to unmarried women) long ago abandoned any substantive objections.

But back to the point that homosexuals have nothing to do with birth rate declines, so it’s absurd to even bring them or SSM up as some sort of cause of such declines.
 
edwest211 said:
A very interesting read is Humanae Vitae which was published in 1968 during the so-called Sexual Revolution. Pope Paul VI predicted what would happen if his words were not heeded and here we are. We either control ourselves or become slaves to our flesh. It was called “freedom” at the time. No, it was slavery. And there’s money in producing the various kinds of contraceptives. But some Catholic theologians, going beyond their authority, took out a full page ad in The New York Times at the time, dissenting from the Pope and saying contraception was OK.

If tomorrow, more couples practiced self control, had sex within marriage only and planned ahead, we’d still have some who will contracept, but a lot fewer “I have been programmed to believe I can’t control myself so I must buy these contraceptives.”
Click to expand...
You do understand most Americans are not Catholics, right, and further, a good many American Catholics pretty much ignore the Church’s view on contraception, so the “war on contraceptives” is even more doomed to abject and total failure than the “war on same-sex marriage.”
 
The required response is laughter followed by, “It doesn’t work.” As in, don’t even think about - there is no such thing as self control, especially regarding sex.

1 Thessalonians 4:3

New International Version
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;

New Living Translation
God’s will is for you to be holy, so stay away from all sexual sin.

English Standard Version
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;

1 Thessalonians 4:4:

New International Version
that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable,

New Living Translation
Then each of you will control his own body and live in holiness and honor–

English Standard Version
that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,

1 Thessalonians 4:5

New International Version
not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;

New Living Translation
not in lustful passion like the pagans who do not know God and his ways.

English Standard Version
not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;
 
Ignoring something does not make it false. Lots of people steal too. Is your claim that if enough people steal we should legalize it?
 
buffalo said:
Ignoring something does not make it false. Lots of people steal too. Is your claim that if enough people steal we should legalize it?
Click to expand...
So you’re seriously comparing using contraceptives to theft?
 
niceatheist said:
Children are minors, and cannot give consent.
Click to expand...
Can you explain to me why the Supreme Court could not nullify the claim you are making, and declare that children do have the right to give consent? Can you explain to me why there is any check on what laws the Supreme Court could make, or what rights the Supreme Court could “discover” in the Constitution, given enough intervening cases?
At any rate, this looks more like an application of reducto ad absurdum.
Click to expand...
You said “what’s wrong with expanding rights”? I said that children don’t have the right to determine whether they can have sex. I think that’s a good thing. So you must AGREE with me that children should NOT have this right. No reductio ad absurdum; just showing that your original question was absurd.
The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
To interpret laws. So you tell me which law or article of law is being interpreted, when we say that gay people have a right to marry each other. (And again, I’m not contesting that, as a moral right! I’m claiming that the legal process used to make it a legal right was completely and totally anti-democratic, and moreover lacking in checks and balances.)
 
buffalo said:
The majority of America is Christian.
Click to expand...
But not Catholic, and Protestants have some different views on matters like contraceptives. As to SSM, unless you believe the polling is false, it also appears many Protestants AND Catholics have no object to same-sex partners marrying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top