Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter T1Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

T1Catholic

Guest
I’m not sure if this is the right forum to post this question but I’ll give it a go anyway. I need non-religious reasons why same-sex marriage is not good for society. In Canada it is legal but with our new Conservative government elected yesterday, the issue is going to be re-opened. I have been challenged today by someone who said that we should no re-open the issue and that it doesn’t harm anyone if two gay people choose to get married. I absolutely cannot argue with this person on religious grounds. Does anybody have anything they can equip me with?

T1 Catholic
 
Although homosexuality has been around, and sometimes excepted by society, for thousands of years, it has never been an acceptable substitute for hetrosexual marriage. Contrary to modern myth, biologically speaking, marriage is not about love or self-fullfillment, it is about children. The begretted and raising, to be exact. Sound familiar? Now we all know that naturally homosexuals can not have children, that eliminates the primary reason for marriage. But also, no matter how much love or support a gay couple can give a child, that does not make up for the lack of a parent of the opposite sex. Studies have found that for children, especially boys, to develop into healthy adults they need a parent of both sexes. It is a crucial part of development.

Of course gay supporters will often say that a child is better off with a loving gay couple than a disfunctional straight one. To this tell them that in order for a comparison to be valid it must be of equal parts. In other words, a loving gay couple and a loving straight couple or a dysfunctional gay couple and a dysfunctional straight one. In this light of equality the child is always better off with the straight parents.

So if gay people can not beget or successfully raise children, they can not, biologically speaking be married.
 
But that’s a religious argument. Society has pretty much spoken and decided that marriage as it is practised is not about rearing children. It may include that, but it doesn’t have to. If a four time divorcee can marry a 5 time divorce then split up after 2 years ready to try it again, under civil law then it seems silly to prevent the small % of the population (something like 3%) that’s gay from marrying civilly as well.

As far as children and gay adoption go, that’s a separate issue from marriage. And when you consider the startling number of single parent families, it seems as though a gay couple could manage better than a single parent as there are at least two of them. And how many gay couples actually adopt children? I’ve known a lot of lesbian mothers and in all cases they were raising either their own or their partner’s children.

Pax,
Amy
 
40.png
a_cermak:
But that’s a religious argument. Society has pretty much spoken and decided that marriage as it is practised is not about rearing children. It may include that, but it doesn’t have to. If a four time divorcee can marry a 5 time divorce then split up after 2 years ready to try it again, under civil law then it seems silly to prevent the small % of the population (something like 3%) that’s gay from marrying civilly as well.

Pax,
Amy
Click to expand...
I would go so far as to say that reason for attempts to redefine the family/marriage is the direct result of the primary mission and purpose of marriage – the begetting and raising of children – has been severed from the marital union (via contraception).
 
First thing that comes to mind for me (after religious reasons) is that the tax breaks that were set up for marriage was to help a family afford to live so that a parent could stay home and raise their children. If there would be no fruit of the union(as in Gay marriage), there would be no need for a parent to stay at home , nor would there be any reason to give them a tax break…personally here is my suggestion…take away all benefits of marriage as far as the civil or governmental authority goes, give a tax break to a 2nd parent in a household instead if they choose to stay home to raise a child. Make them have to prove that both parents are in the household and are legally married and raising a child…now here is my kicker…I know a bunch of you are out there thinking what about the single parent…make the other parent pay through the nose to support their child if there is a divorce or a single parent wasn’t married but don’t give them the tax credit for 2nd parent household…I bet more folks would either stay together or not get married and reproduce to begin with.
 
Hi T1,
Google Stanley Kurtz. He has been working on secular arguments against gay marriage. He looks at scandinavia and argues empirically that the incidence of gay marriage there has been directly tied with the decline of heteresexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is dying there. This is contributing to their plummeting birthrate and the eventual overthrow by more fertile minorities (such as muslims). Basically, gay marriage, since it is so rarely entered into seriously, just dilutes the overall seriousness of the heterosexual marriage covenant, which contributes to the death of a culture. Seems like a serious secular argument to me.
 
40.png
BlestOne:
First thing that comes to mind for me (after religious reasons) is that the tax breaks that were set up for marriage was to help a family afford to live so that a parent could stay home and raise their children.
Click to expand...
Well since there actually aren’t any tax breaks for being married this one won’t fly. There is actually a maariage penalty. That is two people who are married actually pay more tax than the same two people, earning the same amount of money who are single.

There is a tax break for having kids. But that wouldn’t apply here since childless couple don’t get it.

Next.
 
40.png
MulusChristi:
Hi T1,
He looks at scandinavia and argues empirically that the incidence of gay marriage there has been directly tied with the decline of heteresexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is dying there. This is contributing to their plummeting birthrate and the eventual overthrow by more fertile minorities (such as muslims)…
Click to expand...
I think your man is confusing cause and effect here. the decline in brithrate (endemic to ALL affluent societies in human history by the way) has resulted in fewer marriages. Check the rate of unwed motherhood for verification of this. And I wouldnt worry too much about society beiing overhrown by the Muslims. as tehy eneter our societies and grow in affluence their fertility rate will drop too. It always happens. As people get richer they ahve fewer kids. You can look it up. It happened in ancient Rome, Modern Europe, the US and Japan.
40.png
MulusChristi:
Basically, gay marriage, since it is so rarely entered into seriously, just dilutes the overall seriousness of the heterosexual marriage covenant, which contributes to the death of a culture.
Click to expand...
This argument is nonsensical, Gays have never had an opportunity to form legal marriage, they still don’t, they get “Civil Unions” in Canada and what two (?) U.S. States, yet YOU say they rarely enter into it “seriously”. When have they ever had a chance?

As far as the dilution of the “marriage covenant”, give me break. That covenant has been deteriorating since the 50’s, you know, back in the good old days when Homosexuals were ostracized, beaten by police and blackmailed. Our current 50% divorce rate and 30% out of wedlock birthrate have nothing to do with homosexuals or gay marriage.
40.png
MulusChristi:
Seems like a serious secular argument to me.
Click to expand...
Well it sounds like a load of bigoted codswallop to me.
 
You CANNOT argue with someone who considers homosexuality natural. If they don’t agree that it’s a disorder or perversion, then any good arguement loses validity to them.

The arguement would be that it greatly contributes to the moral decline of our society. It’s not the only thing, and maybe not even the worst thing, but definately a contributing factor. When our children grow up seeing how things that they innately know are unnatural being accepted as normal, then they begin to lose the fabric of their own morality. Suddenly, we as a society start to question every moral issue. If two gay men can be married and accepted as natural, why not a man and a boy? Or a Woman and a girl? Or any combination of the two. And are we sure it’s not O.K. to kill someone you don’t like? Are we sure it’s not OK to lie cheat and steal to get ahead? Are we sure infidelity is not OK? Why can’t I abort a baby I don’t want?

I don’t think these are jumping to extremes. It may not happen overnight, but over time, with the degradation of societies morals and ethics, we become a decadent society. Selfish to the point of self destruction. You can look at the entire history of the U.S. and see examples of this all over the place.

Of course no one wants to go back to discriminating on people, but a lot of good was lost when we tried to right some wrongs. You don’t have to hate a gay person. You don’t have to discriminate against them. We should make available means to treat the disorder. At the same time, they should be welcome in our society as equal human beings. That does not mean that we should enable their disorder by encouraging it through federal or state laws mandating that they be treated as married couples and get the same protections and rights as a real married couple. They should be treated as equal. As any single, equal, person.

Good luck in your arguement, but in my experience, you cannot argue with someone who believes that homosexuality is a natural biological thing.
 
www.marriagemovement.org

www.americanvalues.org

These two sites have some great research about secular reasons. Most of what you will find is fully compatible with the Catholic Faith.

Also for understanding logical reasons and developing your ability to understand and discuss things based on natural law, check out www.peterkreeft.com

Peter Kreeft has many MP3 audio files available for download containing apologetic type arguements for morality Christian principles and the Catholic faith. Natural law and logic can be used very effectively to support the reasons why marriage can only be between one woman and one man.
 
40.png
BillP:
Well since there actually aren’t any tax breaks for being married this one won’t fly. There is actually a maariage penalty. That is two people who are married actually pay more tax than the same two people, earning the same amount of money who are single.
Click to expand...
While that was a popular political myth/issue in the USA, it was a mathematical artifact that only held for a very small set of taxpayers. It was removed from the tax code a while ago (and not by making a small number of people pay more but by making a large group pay less thus greatly affecting the general fund…but that is another story)
from a tax saving point of view marriage pays

Back to the OP, I can’t think of a good civil reason to discourage marriage.
It is a stabilizing factor. Stable households accumulate more wealth, usually are more committed to the community, and the partners provide a social buffer for each other that the government would otherwise fill

That is the reasons governments got into the marriage business in the first place. It provided clear guidance for property rights, inheritance, support and a host of other things.
 
40.png
BillP:
This argument is nonsensical, Gays have never had an opportunity to form legal marriage, they still don’t, they get “Civil Unions” in Canada and what two (?) U.S. States, yet YOU say they rarely enter into it “seriously”. When have they ever had a chance?
Click to expand...
Not true. Canada has actually changed the legal definition of marriage. No civil unions here, just trying to change the english language through legislation.

Sorry, but gay “marriage” is simply not possible. A marriage is by definition a formal comitment between a man and a woman. Gay unions can be given whatever terminology anyone wants to apply to them, but the simple fact is that by definition (legal manoevering aside), marriage is exclusively heterosexual. Homosexuals need to come up with their own word.
 
Although homosexuality has been around, and sometimes excepted by society, for thousands of years, it has never been an acceptable substitute for hetrosexual marriage. Contrary to modern myth, biologically speaking, marriage is not about love or self-fullfillment, it is about children. The begretted and raising, to be exact. Sound familiar? Now we all know that naturally homosexuals can not have children, that eliminates the primary reason for marriage. But also, no matter how much love or support a gay couple can give a child, that does not make up for the lack of a parent of the opposite sex. Studies have found that for children, especially boys, to develop into healthy adults they need a parent of both sexes. It is a crucial part of development.
Click to expand...
But this is not relevant to gay Civil Unions, as gay adoption is a very different matter.
 
To the OP, I have often thought of this, and have before asked the question in other threads.

I have not received any reply to why homosexuality should be condemned for practical reasons. In fact all reasons for condemning homosexuality seem to stem back to God’s simple dislike in the iregularity of his “perfect” creation.

So far, I have not been presented with a good reason, other than it does not conform to another persons view of what is right. 😦
 
40.png
Lapsed:
Not true. Canada has actually changed the legal definition of marriage. No civil unions here, just trying to change the english language through legislation.

Sorry, but gay “marriage” is simply not possible. A marriage is by definition a formal comitment between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
but you just said that the Canadians changed the definition. :confused:
40.png
Lapsed:
Gay unions can be given whatever terminology anyone wants to apply to them, but the simple fact is that by definition (legal manoevering aside), marriage is exclusively heterosexual. Homosexuals need to come up with their own word.
Click to expand...
so your objection is that the same word is used for both the civil procedure and the religious one?
 
Paul McGuire, a conservative radio talk-show host for Crawford Broadcasting Corp., speaks to a large syndicated audience every weekday afternoon from his studio in Los Angeles. McGuire believes that if gay marriage is adopted, “5,000 years of civilization will be affected.” He realistically predicts that there will not only be a social chaos from such a trend, but legal validation will also result in “a moral anarchy” in our social climate.

McGuire believes a future including gay marriage usurps the traditional components of a union between a husband and a wife. “Social studies confirm that children do best when you have [both] a mom and a dad,” the radio host says, adding that “psychological fallout will result” when society confuses its inhabitants by changing a social order (traditional marriage) that has been the cornerstone for every major civilization since the beginning of man.

McGuire is convinced that many citizens who have recently decided to support gay marriage “have not thought things through to the logical conclusion.” He sees a society “where there is no need to have any committed relationships” and where homosexual activists will “corrupt heterosexual [marriage] in an effort to make homosexual relationships legitimate.” On a recent show, McGuire alluded to an article from World magazine that chronicles 10+ years of social history in several Scandinavian countries where homosexual marriage was first introduced. With heterosexual marriage being socially de-emphasized in Scandinavia in the early 1990s, traditional marriage was gradually replaced by live-in relationships. Sociologists found that parents in those countries became less committed to their partners and to their children. If this happens in America, McGuire sees “a society where the state raises the children … [and marriage is replaced] by a series of sexual relationships.” He refers to this as “sexual anarchy.”
 
McGuire believes a future including gay marriage usurps the traditional components of a union between a husband and a wife. “Social studies confirm that children do best when you have [both] a mom and a dad,” the radio host says, adding that “psychological fallout will result” when society confuses its inhabitants by changing a social order (traditional marriage) that has been the cornerstone for every major civilization since the beginning of man.
Click to expand...
But once again this revolves around allowing homosexual adoption - something that is completely different.

I am unsure about McGuire’s views, alot of this seems to be only what he thinks will happen, nothing else. Further more, I think his history skills are lacking slightly. McGuire fails to accept that a homosexual Union may very well be loving and dedvoted, he uses too much stereotype for his points to be taken seriously.

One poster before said that you cannot prove wrong someone who refuses to hear you out - this is true of people arguing both for and against homosexual Unions.
 
40.png
Libero:
McGuire fails to accept that a homosexual Union may very well be loving and dedvoted, he uses too much stereotype for his points to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
But not based on the truth, rather a counterfeit love and human level of devotion. Hence, not really nurturing to the entire needs of the whole (emotional, psychological, social, spiritual, physcial) person (person in the “union” or adopted children whom they are responsible for meeting their developmental needs).
 
40.png
pira114:
You CANNOT argue with someone who considers homosexuality natural. If they don’t agree that it’s a disorder or perversion, then any good arguement loses validity to them.
Click to expand...
It’s really sad, but I tend to agree with this. Natural law arguments fall flat, because they tend to reject the concept of natural law entirely. Empirical arguments fail to convince, because even given evidence of other societies/cultures that have either been devastated by or become something stable but very ugly upon widespread acceptance of homosexuality, they believe that here it’ll be somehow magically different. It’s like arguing againt diehard atheistic communists, given the history of socialism in the 20th century.

I do, however, believe that if the perponderance of the evidence against homosexual marriage were to see the light of day, it would result in its downfall. It’s already got a very high “ick” factor, so this only adds to the unpopularity. Think about it: in the States, the only gains being made are in the courts; whenever these issues get to the voters, it is overwhelmingly rejected. Only problem is, given the media we have, this evidence will never see the light of day, not in any meaningful way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top