Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no purely religious argument for the marriage of a man and woman that is separated from common sense and natural law, or “nature”, however you’d like to say it. “Because God says so” is an adequate response for a believer but not for a non-believer.
And since the Church speaks to all people, it also speaks to non-believers of all cultures.

The argument for marriage rests on the observation of reality by a sane person. This has become difficult in our day because it is profoundly simple and does not require nuance by the human mind. And because we are idolatrous of ourselves we have a hard time accepting simple observation. We like to recreate the world to our own thinking.
  1. It is good to be a human being.
  2. The only way to be a human being is through the union of a man and woman.
  3. Therefore, the union of a man and woman is uniquely good in a way that no other union can be. (I’m listening now for an “argument” that refutes this. I;ll keep listening…go ahead. I get it that gay couples have recognized good in their relationships, but it is not the same as the union of a man and woman because it cannot participate in human existence. Whatever good might be present, it’s not the same thing. You have to degrade human existence and flourishing to make the claim of same-ness)
Please note, you don’t have to say one negative word about gay couples, and you don’t have to say one word about Scripture, or commandments, or Church teaching.
All you have to do is make a sane observation about the world around you. And as with any moral question, the answer always points to the good. Prohibitions are part of the good, but they are not the whole good. So, it’s not enough to say “gay couples can’t” do this and that. This moral question is grounded in the good of human existence and flourishing.

This question answers itself for any sane person, which points out the fact that our culture is definitively insane. And this is the real evil at play here…deception and unreason. This is what Paul pointed out in Romans 1.
Deception.
 
Last edited:
Homosexuals are not seeking “the right” to civil union/marriage. They are seeking to force the Catholic Church to accept their homosexuality as another form of “love.”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
vsedriver said:
Sex education shouldn’t be about the mechanics. That is easily learned. It should be about the responsibilities and the effects it has on the individuals. A sexual relationship is a unique bonding relationship. Breaking it and trying to remake it over and over with a different person deeply damages us, especially women.
Click to expand...
This goes to why abstinence is not taught as part of “sex” education.

It sounds too Catholic–and we know we cannot have that.

It’s like those silly movies about “too young to have a kid/be pregnant/get married;” on the surface that sounds so genuine but the fact remains that children are sexualized and the multiple partners are promoted under the “safe-sex” fallacy… so in reality the problem is not with anything but morality and responsibility–society has been teaching that people are not capable to control their sexual desires and that happiness lies with multiple sexual experiences with as many sexual partners and deviations as one chooses.

Yes, hollowood has trained us well: ‘we’re all going to hell on a handbasket, and we are loving it!’

Maran atha!

Angel
 
But that’s the point, isn’t it?

Legalizing the immoral and forcing all to accept fluidity of sex and gender as a normal acceptable “life choice.”

While I have no problem with the state asserting that a man can have sex with his tree, I certainly have a problem with the state forcing me to accept that man as a Catholic brethren and to force me and my local parish to bring him into the fold with his stump/branch or leaves, as his husband/wife.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
edwest211 said:
But destroy the natural family for sex and this is what happens. I read the not too old comments: “The heteros mucked it up so why not let the gays give it a try?”
Click to expand...
Yet, they go to such extreme to make them look “good.”

Many schools have adopted policies to support the homosexual agendas even against the knowledge and authority of the parents of the kids that are enrolled in their schools.

But not only that. We are bombarded by hollowood with this “perfect” homosexual unions/partnerships in most movies and programs where heterosexuals are always depicted as dysfunctional families and malcontents while homosexuals are the picture perfect couples whose love ooze out into their communities and they become the glue (or is it puss) that binds everyone together… years of such wacky viewership and every child in America will want to be homosexual (wait, that has been happening in schools all over where kids are doing the homosexual thing to no feel left out or be called bullies).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Foreign_Grid said:
humans have inherent dignity bestowed on us by a Creator
Click to expand...
That is exactly what is being rejected.

Anything that forces man to accept that there is a higher Law and that he must be held accountable is rejected.

Dignity and morality does not apply!

…nor reason or commonsense, for that matter.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…not only that, but there’s a chemical change in homosexual unity… there’s that nature thing that they refuse to accept… that’s why females become so whitewashed (facial features), almost homogeneously and males contract aids–again the natural process in motion.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Let it stay and flourish… just don’t force it down my throat; don’t force the Church to accept and legitimize their existence as an alternative sex which Yahweh God Blesses and promotes!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Umm - are they? Can you give me an example of anyone trying to ‘force’ the Church to accept homosexuality as another form of love?
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Can you give me an example of anyone trying to ‘force’ the Church to accept homosexuality as another form of love?
Click to expand...
What do you make of the slogans such as “Love wins out” and the like as arguments for why same sex partnerships, including SSM, are good and should be State-endorsed?

And what do you make of cases where to do no more than communicate Catholic teaching on the subject to Catholics is taken as grounds to take a Bishop before an Anti-discrimination board?

I suggest the former establishes a position, and the latter is a crude means of “forcing” it.
 
Those cases happen, Annie. But you should realize that conservative media jumps all over any such case like white on rice. That’s probably why you see them so often, at least if you’re following conservative blogs or news sites.
 
jcrichton said:
“Heterosexuals” who practice homosexuality have ventured into homosexuality… just as a female cannot be “just a little bit pregnant” a heterosexual couple ceases being heterosexual when they practice homosexuality–in the log-run the same decease that affects the homosexual community will affect them–granted to a lesser or greater degree according to the homosexual activity.
Click to expand...
Please use words according to their proper meanings. If nothing else, it helps us evangelize.

Homosexual activity, by definition, cannot occur between a man and a woman. Sodomy can.
 
jcrichton said:
“Heterosexuals” who practice homosexuality have ventured into homosexuality… just as a female cannot be “just a little bit pregnant” a heterosexual couple ceases being heterosexual when they practice homosexuality–in the log-run the same decease that affects the homosexual community will affect them–granted to a lesser or greater degree according to the homosexual activity.
Click to expand...
You just made that up. Even if that was how you experienced it that isn’t how it works.
 
Rau said:
What do you make of the slogans such as “Love wins out” and the like as arguments for why same sex partnerships, including SSM, are good and should be State-endorsed?

And what do you make of cases where to do no more than communicate Catholic teaching on the subject to Catholics is taken as grounds to take a Bishop before an Anti-discrimination board?

I suggest the former establishes a position, and the latter is a crude means of “forcing” it
Click to expand...
No. don’t agree. Individuals can try anything. Tp generalise this to ‘homosexuals’ is to commit the sin of calumny.
 
Are you saying that SSM proponents ought be entirely distinguished from the practitioners? Do the latter disavow the former? 🤔
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Are you saying that SSM proponents ought be entirely distinguished from the practitioners? Do the latter disavow the former? 🤔
Click to expand...
When you talk about things like anti-discrimination boards in the Catholic Church, you need to realize that there are many, many gay people (chaste or otherwise) who strongly oppose such totalitarian “liberalism”.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
When you talk about things like anti-discrimination boards in the Catholic Church, you need to realize that there are many, many gay people (chaste or otherwise) who strongly oppose such totalitarian “liberalism”.
Click to expand...
Not “in the Catholic Church”, but legal entities operating on behalf of the State. And yes, I agree opinions and attitudes are diverse. eg there are homosexual persons who advocate against the appropriateness of SSM and the raising of children by same sex couples.

I was not seeking to generalise as to the attitudes or behaviour of any group, but to reject the particular implication (generalisation) implicit in this statement by another poster: “Can you give me an example of anyone trying to ‘force’ the Church to accept homosexuality as another form of love?”
 
I think what you have said is an exaggeration of the situations you describe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top