Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

[2towers]

Yes if they engage a Catholic in conversation about it. If they have no interest in Biblical or Catholic perspective. We are called to admonish or really to advise those in sin, but personally, I would rather live the example, and be available to those driven to inquire.

Most people at different points in their life realize that there has to be something more out there than a paycheck, a six pack and a roll in the sheets. Many people go further and ask themselves "Why am I here? Surely there is more to life than having a good time, or even getting married, having kids, growing old, and dying? There has to be something more…That is when question like spirituality and yes even the purpose of sexuality come in.

The problem now is [thanks to the 1960s] is as youth, we became “sexualized” too early. My parents like many parents, did not feel comfortable talking about it… [This thanks to the Victorian era.] So they did the next best thing. They sent me to summer camp. That used to be a cliche about learning the birds and the bees happens at summer camp. I wast taught there, and by TV that sex was just a recreational sport, and that is what we grew up with. That and “boys will be boys.”

People wonder why the drug problem is so bad, suicide and crime. The nations of the world where Maslow’s hierarchy of needs have been met seem to be the unhappiest. The ones where suicide get’s worse every year. What is the suicide rate in Chad where people are looking for their next meal during a drought. I believe in large part, it is because we threw God out. Without God, we can’t answer the question “is that all there is?”

T

 

[CatholicGearSolid]

Couldn’t be explained more clearly.

 

[edwest211]

The Victorian era? What? Having sex is not rocket science. It’s very uncomplicated. And yes, back in the days of promoting The Pill in the late 1960s, it was all leading up to this: making kids aware, without parental notice, about sex through “sex education” classes. I and my classmates knew the basics. And Sex Education promoted promiscuity, and “mom and dad are just too embarrassed.” Baloney. A ton of baloney. Lame excuse.

 

[buffalo]

It was not a federal issue and the court should have not heard it.

 

[ATraveller]

I need facts to support why, as a Catholic, the Church cannot accept gay “marriage.”

Who are you talking with? You can use some of what’s already been mentioned and Catholic Answers site. But in the end, if they don’t listen, like Jesus pretty much said don’t waste anymore time (Matthew 10:14).

Also didn’t God make it clear that same sex intercourse is wrong?

Yes. It’s in the Bible including the New Testament. Romans was cited by someone here already. I’ll add this:

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. -1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

[vsedriver]

African-Americans gained the right to vote before women. Was that discriminatory against women? This seems a pretty weak defense of keeping gay marriage banned, that somehow some other group remains disadvantaged.

your example is a non-sequitur. Only men were allowed to vote. After African American’s were given the right to vote, only men could still vote. So essentially nothing about the rules of voting changed. Women were discriminated against before African American’s could vote and were still discriminated against afterwards too.

Since I could not marry my mother prior to gay marriage I wasn’t discriminated against, since my mother and I didn’t fit the definition of marriage, which was a man and a woman who had the potential to become a mother and a father, who were of legal age, not closely related, and not married to anyone else. All 4 of these requirements are related to children.

But with legal gay marriage then I am being discriminated against. Two gay men or women do not have the potential to become a mother and father. If it is OK for two people who can never be a mother and a father to get married then why can’t closely related people get married?

The only difference between my mother and myself and a gay or lesbian marriage is that we are closely related. Why should the closely related be discriminated against? Our marriage wouldn’t hurt anyone, and wouldn’t affect anyone else’s marriage.

We love each other, we live together. Why shouldn’t we enjoy the same benefits of marriage that any other two people in the same relationship do simply because they aren’t blood relations? There is no legal reason to discriminate against the closely related when it comes to marriage.

 

[vsedriver]

They have a right to a family. Families have many different formations in time and space. I, for instance, was raised by my grandparents.

nature has designed us to be raised by a female and a male. Even grandparents qualify as a male and female. So you had the benefit of both sexes growing up. To deliberately deprive a child of experiencing both a mother and a father is selfish and self indulgent.

 

[vsedriver]

Freedom of speech and the right to impose your beliefs are two very different things.

we impose our beliefs every time we go to the polls, religious or not. At least, that was the way it was supposed to work. Now we just let the courts decide what we believe. And if you don’t go along with the courts you will lose your business and livelihood or called a bigot and a hater.

 

[edwest211]

We’re already seeing the greatly desired confusion and indifference.

 

[vsedriver]

If it is a cognition issue, then that pretty much undermines the whole “those body parts were meant for that” argument, not to mention the whole “natural law” argument. It turns out animals, humans included, have same sex sexual contact.

animals have no morals. Are you saying humans have no morals only legal codes to follow?

 

[edwest211]

Bad argument. Very bad. You have beliefs and there are people you support because they agree with you.

 

[josh987654321]

I need facts to support why, as a Catholic, the Church cannot accept gay “marriage.”

I always try to point out that I don’t hate anyone because of their sexual orientation which I couldn’t care less about, and then say I don’t agree with the acts like gay marriage.

They usually respond that the two are one, but you can expose this dangerous fallacy they hold by pointing out sexual sins of heterosexuals and asking whether they are hateful for not wanting to support those?

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.

 

[theCardinalbird]

They usually respond that the two are one

Don’t get me started on that! It’s very annoying when they don’t understand that the attraction is different from the act. Thanks for the ideas!

 

[Rau]

It was not a federal issue and the court should have not heard it.

That’s of academic interest. Of relevant interest is how would Americans vote if they had the opportunity. I’d estimate a good 60% would vote in favour of SSM. Regrettably.

 

[josh987654321]

Don’t get me started on that!

A guy on TV likened those such as myself as akin to a Neo Nazi not wanting to serve a Jew. Simply because I would not participate in a same sex wedding. Messed up how deluded they are. Thankfully there are still others though who can refute that kind of nonsense, but as this agenda grows, the fewer will they be unfortunately.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.

 

[buffalo]

They removed philosophy and logic from the schools. Americans don’t reason they are now succumbing to the bullying of wordsmithing.

 

[FiveLinden]

The Church cannot accept, also, marriage of divorced people. Yet Catholics do not campaign to remove the right of these people to legally marry in non-Catholic ceremonies and do not object to their relationships having legal protection. Why the inconsistency?

 

[josh987654321]

The Church cannot accept, also, marriage of divorced people. Yet Catholics do not campaign to remove the right of these people to legally marry in non-Catholic ceremonies and do not object to their relationships having legal protection. Why the inconsistency?

John Ogilvie (saint) - Wikipedia

You’re like a frog in water that is slowly getting hotter and hotter. Those with objective morality can see this as a definite line which has been crossed, those without it are still sitting comfortably in the water as it reaches boiling point.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading.

 

[buffalo]

Category error …

 

[vsedriver]

And providing those laws have an actual rational secular backing I can accept them. I’m not saying Catholics shouldnt’ be politicians, I’m saying they shouldn’t be using their legislative powers to impose their religious beliefs

A person’s views are a person’s views regardless if they are secular based or religious based. Both have an equal place in forming society, even legislative. What difference does it make if your anti abortion view is based on science or religion?

Do you fear religious beliefs or religious practices? Not supporting SSM is not ‘imposing’ any religious belief on you. Any more than making laws against prostitution is imposing Christian morality on you.

SSM was made legal not for the good of society but for the benefit of a small group within society. But that benefit was still with held from other groups in society. Either any couple or group that wishes to call themselves ‘married’ should be legally allowed to do so or the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.