Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

I wonder how many children being brought up with “two moms” or “two dads” wish they had one of each like a normal family… (“Normal” used to be a pejorative but now many people who once used it that way now delight in praising same-sex couples as so normal…)

In some parts of the world it used to be normal to own slaves or put children down mines, etc., etc.

Our morals are formed partly by those who refused to accept what was previously taken as normal.

One of whom was of course Jesus (off-topic).

 

[po18guy]

Here, former Ambassador Alan Keys clearly elucidates his argument against re-defining marriage. His opponent, whoever he is, seems lost without his teleprompter.

youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw&list=PL0C32DB914C228951&index=2

 

[markeverett49]

If you can’t state any rationale for your opinion other than bafflement that anyone could think differently then it’s hard for others to distinguish it from prejudice…

I can state the rationale but didn’t think I had to. Humans are a sexually reproducing species. This is why the two sexes are complementary; only the union of a male and a female may produce offspring. (The unions of male and male or female and female are fruitless.) Further, human offspring are slow to mature. (It takes decades for a human to mature physically, emotionally, and intellectually.) Because of this, the union of parents and child in what we call a family is of fundamental importance to society. Not all children are raised by their parents. In those cases, it is better for a child to be raised by a married couple (male and female) than a male-male couple or female-female couple, for the latter two lack the unity only a male-female couple can become and make, shall we say, disordered models of the male-female relationship which is the only one that can produce children.

 

[tonyrey]

Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Really? The gospel is rational, unlike homosexual behaviour. Also, condemning the act isn’t homophobia. Homophobia would be verbally or physically abusing a person for the solely because of their sexual orientation.

It would seem that either St Paul was seriously misguided or this passage is not authentic!

 

[inocente]

I can state the rationale but didn’t think I had to. Humans are a sexually reproducing species. This is why the two sexes are complementary; only the union of a male and a female may produce offspring. (The unions of male and male or female and female are fruitless.) Further, human offspring are slow to mature. (It takes decades for a human to mature physically, emotionally, and intellectually.) Because of this, the union of parents and child in what we call a family is of fundamental importance to society. Not all children are raised by their parents. In those cases, it is better for a child to be raised by a married couple (male and female) than a male-male couple or female-female couple, for the latter two lack the unity only a male-female couple can become and make, shall we say, disordered models of the male-female relationship which is the only one that can produce children.

That argument failed miserably here in Spain.

First, there’s no evidence that kids raised by gay parents are any different to those adopted by straight parents, while there’s lots of evidence that a loving, stable relationship benefits the child.

It’s also impossibly utopian, in the real world there are more dysfunctional straight parents than there are gays.

But mainly, those using the argument had stayed quiet for decades over the significantly greater damage done to the family by easy divorce, and only made a noise when gay marriage was on the cards, so it looked as if they weren’t really bothered about the children after all but were just using them as an excuse for gay bashing.

(As a non-Catholic in a mainly Catholic country the argument also confused me since it seems to conflict with what I thought the Church teaches, that gays are not lesser people in God’s eyes).

 

[inocente]

It would seem that either St Paul was seriously misguided or this passage is not authentic!

Please see post #168.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

First, there’s no evidence that kids raised by gay parents are any different to those adopted by straight parents, while there’s lots of evidence that a loving, stable relationship benefits the child.

I’ve asked if any one was familiar with information on this before. Most of the time I’ve gotten a response with statistics on the differences between being raised in a two parent (heterosexual) home vs. a single parent home, which don’t really tell us anything about two parent homo-sexual homes. I’ve also wondered about other family arrangements, such as a single parent raising a child with the assistance of other relatives (such as a single mother with her siblings and a parent , which is descriptive of quite a few people I know).

 

[inocente]

I’ve asked if any one was familiar with information on this before. Most of the time I’ve gotten a response with statistics on the differences between being raised in a two parent (heterosexual) home vs. a single parent home, which don’t really tell us anything about two parent homo-sexual homes. I’ve also wondered about other family arrangements, such as a single parent raising a child with the assistance of other relatives (such as a single mother with her siblings and a parent , which is descriptive of quite a few people I know).

There don’t seem to be many formal studies but for instance I did find this one (pdf).

*Our findings revealed, for the first time, that young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents.

…] We also found that young children adopted by lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents were assessed as showing typical gender development.

…] Regardless of parental sexual orientation, parents who reported less parenting stress, use of more effective disciplinary techniques, and greater happiness in their couple relationships had children who were described as well-adjusted. Thus, our results provide further evidence that family process variables are more closely tied to child outcomes than is family structure.*

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…] We also found that young children adopted by lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents were assessed as showing typical gender development.

I’ve gotten this impression before, most recently when an open lesbian tried to convince my younger sister to go on a date with her son.

 

[tonyrey]

Please see post #168.

Because of this, God gave them over to** shameful **lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for **unnatural **ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[inocente]

inocente;10632184:

Please see post #168.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

From catholicbible101.com/howtoreadthebible.htm:

*"The Bible is meant to be read in its entirety, and never to be taken out of context. That is what satan tried to do to Jesus in the desert in Matthew 4 – Taking individual verses out of context, trying to use them to mean something they really don’t.

…] Another rule to follow is that you must read the bible with a sense of Tradition, what the original author meant to say, not what you think it means."*

 

[inocente]

New Zealand made gay marriage legal today. Bit of humor from the debate in parliament:

*National MP for Pakuranga, Maurice Williamson, congratulated Louisa Wall on the bill and said he would support it.

He said he had received a letter saying the bill was the cause of our drought.

"You will see that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning that it was pouring with rain; we had the most enormous big gay rainbow across our electorate this morning.

"It has to be a sign, Sir, it has to be a sign; if you’re a believer.

"The good news about my years in this Parliament is that you learn to deflect all of the dreadful fire and brimstone accusations.’’

He said a reverend in his electorate said a gay onslaught would start the day after the bill was passed.

"We’re really struggling to think what the gay onslaught will look like.

"We don’t know if it will come down the Pakuranga Highway as a series of troops.’’

He said another Catholic priest told him he was supporting an unnatural act.

"I found that quite interesting coming from someone who has taking a vow of celibacy for his whole life.’’

Mr Williamson said he also had a letter telling him he would burn in hell for eternity.

"So don’t make this into a big deal; this is fantastic for the people it effects but for the rest of us life will go on.’’

nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10878182*

 

[tonyrey]

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful

There are thousands of Christian sects precisely because individuals believe they have privileged insight into the meaning of Scripture, claim that words like “shameful” are insignificant and ignore the words of Jesus:

4“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’a 5And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’**(“Matthew 19 NLT”) 6Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

 

[markeverett49]

]First, there’s no evidence that kids raised by gay parents are any different to those adopted by straight parents, while there’s lots of evidence that a loving, stable relationship benefits the child…

Perhaps you are innocent of the error you are making. Either that, or you’re trying to hoodwink people and think they’re too dim to notice. Let us look at the two claims

1 Evidence of kids raised by a same-sex couple…​

2 Evidence that a loving, stable parental relationship benefits the child.​

The first set is NOT part of the second one. (There are no sizeable, long-term studies on the effects of same-sex parenting on adults by same-sex couples because such adoptions have so recently been allowed.) All the evidence for #2—the importance of loving, stable relationships–is taken from opposite-sex couples. You cannot assume the same would go for same-sex couples. (Well, I think you DO assume that, but you cannot pretend that it is a belief based upon research.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**Our morals are formed partly by those who refused to accept what was previously taken as normal.

One of whom was of course Jesus (off-topic).**

Jesus was not an advocate of sodomy (anal sex), which is at the heart of same sex marriage. You really are shameless in the implications you offer … that children who live with sodomites are perfectly safe and able to develop a perfectly natural heterosexual life.

Mark 9:42

"If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

 

[inocente]

There are thousands of Christian sects precisely because individuals believe they have privileged insight into the meaning of Scripture, claim that words like “shameful” are insignificant and ignore the words of Jesus:

Then it’s mighty strange indeed that the CCC should contain teaching about how Catholic individuals should read scripture:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

[etc.]

4“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’a 5And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’**(“Matthew 19 NLT”) 6Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

What is this, philosophy by scatter gun?

You quoted a couple of verses from Paul, and I had already posted why when read in context those verses don’t support Paul blurting out something on gays in the middle of his letter. Nothing to do with “privileged insight”, just read what Paul says.

You’ve ignored that (I wonder why ) and instead quote another couple of verses out of context.

In any event, there are married straight couples who don’t have sex, and gay couples may also marry and not have sex, so then even your interpretation fails.

And this is still off-topic, the thread is about secular arguments.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps you are innocent of the error you are making. Either that, or you’re trying to hoodwink people and think they’re too dim to notice. Let us look at the two claims

1 Evidence of kids raised by a same-sex couple…​

2 Evidence that a loving, stable parental relationship benefits the child.​

The first set is NOT part of the second one. (There are no sizeable, long-term studies on the effects of same-sex parenting on adults by same-sex couples because such adoptions have so recently been allowed.) All the evidence for #2—the importance of loving, stable relationships–is taken from opposite-sex couples. You cannot assume the same would go for same-sex couples. (Well, I think you DO assume that, but you cannot pretend that it is a belief based upon research.)

First, the perpetual continuance of a practice cannot be justified by arguing that we don’t know what will happen if it stops, or we would never have seen an end to slavery or child labor or many other things.

Second, I quoted a section from the study which states a finding supported by other studies, not an assumption:

Regardless of parental sexual orientation, parents who reported less parenting stress, use of more effective disciplinary techniques, and greater happiness in their couple relationships had children who were described as well-adjusted. Thus, our results provide further evidence that family process variables are more closely tied to child outcomes than is family structure.

 

[inocente]

Jesus was not an advocate of sodomy (anal sex), which is at the heart of same sex marriage. You really are shameless in the implications you offer … that children who live with sodomites are perfectly safe and able to develop a perfectly natural heterosexual life.

Mark 9:42

"If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

Jesus was not an advocate of the iPhone or strawberry ice cream either.

Your use of the word sodomy is very ambiguous since it’s defined as “any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex” and as such is something some heterosexuals do. Are you saying heterosexual sodomites are harmful, or homosexual sodomites, or homosexuals who aren’t sodomites, or what?

 

[tonyrey]

Then it’s mighty strange indeed that the CCC should contain teaching about how Catholic individuals should read scripture:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

[etc.]

What is this, philosophy by scatter gun?

You quoted a couple of verses from Paul, and I had already posted why when read in context those verses don’t support Paul blurting out something on gays in the middle of his letter. Nothing to do with “privileged insight”, just read what Paul says.

You’ve ignored that (I wonder why ) and instead quote another couple of verses out of context.

In any event, there are married straight couples who don’t have sex, and gay couples may also marry and not have sex, so then even your interpretation fails.

And this is still off-topic, the thread is about secular arguments.

I have already presented a secular argument to which there has been no adequate rejoinder:

A powerful secular argument against the demand for gay marriage is that it is a case of overcompensation motivated by the paranoia and inferiority complex of those who believe it will demonstrate that** everyone** has equal rights in** every** respect! Sympathy and compassion for the victims of injustice and prejudice should not persuade us to allow the foundation of society to be destroyed in the name of “tolerance”. To do so would be to encourage the permissiveness which has already fragmented families and caused immense suffering for fathers, mothers and children alike.

The Catholic Church is opposed to gay marriage and rejects idiosyncratic interpretations of Scripture:

In the UK the state has already fined a Christian couple for not accepting a homosexual couple as guests in their boarding house and forced the Catholic Children’s (Adoption) Society to close down… If gay marriages are legalised it is only a question of time before priests and ministers are punished for refusing to comply.

The uniqueness of gay marriage is regarded by its apostles as a sign of progress whereas in reality it is taking permissiveness to its logical conclusion and endowing every form of sexual relationship with the cloak of legality - as if human laws are necessarily just and beneficial for society - in addition to being a futile attempt on the part of the enemies of religion to destroy the spiritual significance of marriage…

**There is nothing whatsoever to prevent couples of any sexual orientation becoming legally united with all the privileges of marriage.
**
The irrational insistence on **being regarded as having a relationship which is identical in every respect - even in name - with that of a man and a woman **is motivated by a perverse desire to undermine its traditional status.

The insidious attack on marriage is another example of the current onslaught on religion from every conceivable angle. In the UK even the feast of Whitsun has been renamed the “Spring Bank Holiday”.

 

[josh987654321]

Tonyrey

I thought I would add my secular argument aswell.

Two men or two women are just not compatible sexually compared to a man and a woman the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Marriage is a union in which both partners give each other fully to the other which includes sexually, in which a homosexual union is incapable of compared to a heterosexual union, so for the law or anyone to Ignore the sexual nature of both unions when it comes to marriage is illogical.

When it comes to including homosexuality under the same word as marriage it’s an unjust and prejudicial treatment of marriage, trying to equate two things that are in no way equal in regards to marriage.

Homosexual marriage is discrimination towards heterosexual marriage, or vice versa, they cannot both be equated under marriage, they are fundamentally different.

The law should only include equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because in that case they are equal, however they should most certainly not include equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality (same sex marriage) as that would be unjust, because the two unions, given their sexual nature are fundamentally different, it would only force people to play along with a false equality.

So it’s not whether we want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether we want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.

It seems to me that people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, they are trying to equate homosexuals and heterosexuals which is good, but foolishly they are equating homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage which is just factually incorrect.

I think same sex marriage supporters are very skilled at convincing the public by lumping the homosexual and the acts of homosexuality together, therefore anyone who speaks against homosexuality is accused of speaking against homosexuals.

Thank you for reading
Josh