Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

The reason so many heterosexuals now think “gay sex” is the same thing as heterosexual sex is that they have severed the connection between sex and childbirth. (This is a fact of biology, not an invention of the Church.) Contraception and abortion were necessary forerunners for acceptance of same-sex marriage. Now, many heterosexuals have ‘made themselves gay’ by sterilizing their sexual encounters. The rub of this—which you can see now but perhaps one day will—is that when heterosexuals tell you that gay sex is equivalent to heterosexual sex is that is equally meaningLESS.(It has no purpose, no meaning, it is just whatever people want for as long as they want it and for whatever reason they want it. This is adolescent thinking.)

I think you have the makings of a good argument there, in the historical sense of how one change brings about another.

But you lost me with the bit about meaning. The problem is that if society tells them they’re second-rate and refuses to acknowledge them entering into long-term commitments, society is pushing an agenda of meaningless promiscuity on them and shouldn’t be surprised at the result. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, like never educating girls and then saying women don’t do as well as men so there’s no point educating them.

 

[inocente]

I can’t see any consistency within a line of thought that acknowledges a certain behaviour to be a sin but that there nothing wrong in enabling individuals to engage in that behaviour. The problem with this POV is that sinful behaviour is sinful because it is damaging to the spiritual integrity of the individual. Enabling sinful behaviour is tantamount to approving the harm done by the individual to themselves under the guise of “freedom.”

Why would you agree that certain behaviour is sinful, but argue that individuals should be aided and abetted in engaging in the behaviour unless you lacked a concern for the well-being of the individual?

I see absolutely no inconsistency in the idea of loving the sinner and not approving of the potential harm to the individual that sinful behaviour is causing to them. It is possible, after all, to love a person and hate a cancer that is destroying them. Sin is destructive of individuals, so it is entirely correct to hate the sin precisely because of the harm done to the person committing it,

If you admit that same sex behaviour is wrong and sinful, how can you condone the conditions to come about that will make sin easier to commit and make it socially licit? The only possible sense I can make of this position is that you really don’t believe same sex behaviour to be sinful, but are just claiming it is to present yourself as a “Christian.”

Perhaps I am mistaken about your position and you don’t really think same sex behaviour is wrong at all. At least, that would be consistent on your part.

I can see nothing wrong in “same sex behavior”, no one can choose their sexual orientation.

But what exactly is “same sex behavior” and why should I be bothered? Around 97% of us are not homosexual, we’re heterosexual, and there are married heterosexuals who engage in wife-swapping (a sort of drive-thru polygamy) and all kinds of fetishes and perversions, you wouldn’t believe some of the things they get up to. They far outnumber homosexuals yet there are no protests, no marches, no anguished threads, it’s as quiet as the grave. Apparently none of them are harming the institution of marriage, while when gays want to get married and live a quiet, normal life together there’s uproar.

What a strange world, you couldn’t make it up could you?

 

[tonyrey]

Methinks it was only because he called himself gay that he caused any interest, after all his arguments are not original, they’ve been presented before.

 

[markeverett49]

I think you have the makings of a good argument there, in the historical sense of how one change brings about another.

But you lost me with the bit about meaning. The problem is that if society tells them they’re second-rate and refuses to acknowledge them entering into long-term commitments, society is pushing an agenda of meaningless promiscuity on them and shouldn’t be surprised at the result. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, like never educating girls and then saying women don’t do as well as men so there’s no point educating them.

Well, this is easy. You might call it Secularism 101: sexual acts have no inherent meaning, period. They have (-for humans, with minds of their own) to “essential” end. People invest such acts with whichever meaning they prefer, and others should respect that. No one way is better than another, no one way is worse than another. This is another way of saying all these acts are in themselves meaningless.

You think that recognizing same-sex marriage will mean everyone respects same-sex couplings the way society has respected married couples. This is a huge mistake. It means that marrying in order to have and raise a family is no better or worse than, say, a college professor preying on a new college student every semester while avoiding commitment.

I don’t even think that homosexual persons will respect other homosexual persons who marry more than those who prefer the single life. Many unmarried heterosexual persons regard marriage as a prison sentence and look down on women “bury their brains” in domesticity.)

It is ironic that many advocates of same-sex marriage cite statistics showing the benefits of marriage while for the past several decades, liberal heterosexuals have insisted those statistics do NOT mean that marriage is better than the single life, or that sex outside of marriage is in any was ‘less’ or ‘wrong’ or to be judged in any way. (Many switch back and forth without noticing the irony of arguing that we should encourage homosexuals to marry because it is good for them but should not encourage heterosexuals to marry because that would be oppressive, judgmental, regressive.)

 

[tonyrey]

Well, this is easy. You might call it Secularism 101: sexual acts have no inherent meaning, period. They have (-for humans, with minds of their own) to “essential” end. People invest such acts with whichever meaning they prefer, and others should respect that. No one way is better than another, no one way is worse than another. This is another way of saying all these acts are in themselves meaningless.

You think that recognizing same-sex marriage will mean everyone respects same-sex couplings the way society has respected married couples. This is a huge mistake. It means that marrying in order to have and raise a family is no better or worse than, say, a college professor preying on a new college student every semester while avoiding commitment.

I don’t even think that homosexual persons will respect other homosexual persons who marry more than those who prefer the single life. Many unmarried heterosexual persons regard marriage as a prison sentence and look down on women “bury their brains” in domesticity.)

It is ironic that many advocates of same-sex marriage cite statistics showing the benefits of marriage while for the past several decades, liberal heterosexuals have insisted those statistics do NOT mean that marriage is better than the single life, or that sex outside of marriage is in any was ‘less’ or ‘wrong’ or to be judged in any way. (Many switch back and forth without noticing the irony of arguing that we should encourage homosexuals to marry because it is good for them but should not encourage heterosexuals to marry because that would be oppressive, judgmental, regressive.)

Their arguments are tailored to a desired conclusion!

 

[josh987654321]

There’s a little bit if possible ambiguity in the word “faith” here. But some one can be completely aware of what is written in their holy book and either disagree or not care while still being a member of that religion.

Yea, I don’t know of a better way to describe it, maybe Ignorance in their beliefs? because I mean the bible is very clear on homosexual acts being sinful (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22) and the Gospels are very clear about marriage being only between a man and woman (Mathew 19:4-6), they’d have to be ignorant to place their beliefs in the Gospels or Bibile and think that homosexuals can marry.

Sex before marriage may be an example of this.

Very true, and I would be just as upset if they tried to claim that sex before marriage was moral by equating it to something that is actually moral like celibacy.

Quite true. I myself am not sure of what good it is outside of the legal benefits that come with it.

Good thread, I am currently reading through it, thanks for the link.

It’s hypocritical that those who don’t care about marriage are the same ones who are passionatly campaigning for same sex marriage and calling us bigoted for refusing marriage to homosexual couples.

And some one can do this without objecting against homosexuals engaging in the same civil contract.

knowing what I know about homosexuality, I cannot in good conscience support same sex marriage, as I wouldn’t be loving my neighbour if I did.

Homosexuals acting on their disordered desires will not provide them with the satisfaction that they are after, it will instead lead them down a destructive path in which will ultimately leave them in despair, as a slave to their desires, desires that soul purpose is to self serve, and yet people are encouraging this with same sex marriage and calling it love and compassion.

Here is a really good post that sums up my views alot by ricmat on another thread -

Indeed. Love your neighbor. Love your enemy.

Love is an act of the will, not of the flesh.

Here is a good definition of love that I read here:

True love is “other-centered” and willingly diminishes, while it nourishes others to the exclusion and often to the detriment of the self. It has no “contingency”, and is forthright and enduring.

The matter at hand is not whether homosexuals should be allowed to “love” each other, where love is as described above. Of course they should, as should we all. And a marriage “certificate” is not required to do that. The approval of society is not required to do that.

The matter at hand is “sex outside of marriage.” And here I’m talking about marriage as defined by God (“become one flesh…go forth and multiply”) Gay marriage is impossible, since the marriage cannot be consummated. There are no “2” persons (male and female), there are 2 of the same “person”, and so they cannot combine to become “one” person / flesh. And neither can they multiply, not even theoretically.

Homosexual “sex” acts are not acts of love. They are disordered desires manifested as disordered acts. Instead of this sex act potentially resulting in a seed planted in fertile “ground”, the seed is intentionally planted in a location designed for defecation. Like all of our disordered desires, the truth is turned upside down and mocks God and his creation, and his commands.

The church teaches that those with same sex attraction have a difficult cross to bear, and that we should be aware of this, and sympathetic to it. They should bear it in the same way that unmarried heterosexuals should - which is to say, celibacy.

We all have crosses, though I admit that celibacy is a tough one to be told one must embrace when disordered desires can be so strong.

Right. Jesus told (at least indirectly) those who would stone the woman caught in adultery not to judge her. But he went on to say to the woman even more explicitly, go and sin no more. Jesus tells all of us, homosexuals included, the same thing.

There are many more possible thoughts behind the stance. Some people view legal marriage and spiritual marriage as being distinctly different.

Where do you think they got legal marriage from? why is there legal marriage? what defines a legal marriage? currrently it’s what ever people want it to mean, and if the majority of the population are christian and believe that marriage is clearly only between a man and a woman, than why do they not vote for their beliefs of marriage? just like athiests who don’t care about marriage are voting for their meaningless view of marriage.

It’s the all too common religious marriage is different to civil marriage, therefore in the name of liberty we should be able to call any union we want a marriage and you must recognise that.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Not sure I understand your point.

Arguing for same sex marriage is like arguing for women to be called men for equality sake, given the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman and their sexual compatibility, a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are fundamentally different, just like men and women are different so why are people arguing for same sex coupels to be recognised as a marriage?

No matter what you call a plant it will never smell like a rose unless it’s a rose, so why do people want to give the same name to two different plants?

It’s not a matter of rolling over, in a democracy the majority get to decide. We might not always go along with the majority but that’s how it is.

True, but I find it hard to accept that the majority are Christian and yet support same sex marriage, as the Gospels are very clear of what a marriage is.

To be christian means to be a believer in Jesus Christ, and his own words are that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that the father created men and women to be united to one another, not men and men or women and women.

I’m not separating my beliefs, I’m happy to see gays married in my church.

Im surprised to read this, I didn’t think any Christian denomination would unite a homosexual couple in holy matrimony.

Have you not read the gospels? these are Jesus Christ’s words, the one you claim to place your faith in.

**Mathew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” **

How can two of the same, male and male or female and female become one flesh? they cannot, Jesus is talking to us about marriage in this passage, clearly a homosexual couple is not a marriage according to Christ.

But it is state-sponsored prejudice to treat citizens unequally without good cause.

Like I said, is it prejudice not to call women, men? why is it prejudice not to call a homosexual union marriage?

Also in regards to IVF treatment allowing homosexuals to have children, would you claim prejudice to treat them differently? in refusing IFV treatment to homosexuals?

Because in that case it requires a thrid party and it is intentionaly set up to bring a child into the world with absolute intention to deprive that child of their mother or father, not because it will benefit the child but because it will selfishly benefit themselves.

The convienience of the adults are being put above the welfare of the children.

If you call me prejudice for refusing IVF to homosexuals, than I am damn happy to be labeled as prejudiced.

It’s only a sin according to some religions, and stopping people from marrying is encouraging promiscuity. Are you saying you’d rather people are promiscuous?

Have not come across the word “promiscuity” before so please forgive me if I miss understand it in this reply.

In the case of having sexual morality than yes, I would very much rather people are promiscuous, and have good and clear morals when it comes to sexual acts, so many percieve sex as harmless fun and in doing so remove all morality from it.

Don’t know, sorry.

Don’t you think you ought to find out what ‘marriage’ is and where it comes from before you vote for a redefinition?

Who told you it’s not true love, how do you know what is and isn’t true love?

Because true love wants what is best for the other, it doesn’t give easy answers, it doesn’t appease peoples conciences by telling them lies, it is an act of the will, not of the flesh.

If there is one word in everyones vocabulary that is and has been abused and miss used the most, it would be the word ‘Love’.

It’s the same evil miss use of the word love that drives the passion behind same sex marriage.

And who told you homosexuals’ desires are disordered? Compared with the depravities many heterosexuals get up to? How is marriage encouraging anything other than responsible behavior?

The basic human anatomy of a man and a woman and their compatibility, the fact that Christ states that the father created men and women and a man unites to a woman and becomes like one in marriage, something that is impossible for a homosexual couple.

Compared to heterosexuals and the depravities heterosexuals get up to? well there is no difference if heterosexuals are acting just as Immoral and disordered as homosexuals are, a homosexual unions soul purpose is to act in Immoral and disordered ways sexually, they cannot have sexual relations in a moral and ordered way directed at procreation like a heterosexual couple can.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Homosexuals acting on their disordered desires will not provide them with the satisfaction that they are after, it will instead lead them down a destructive path in which will ultimately leave them in despair, as a slave to their desires, desires that soul purpose is to self serve, and yet people are encouraging this with same sex marriage and calling it love and compassion.

I don’t think preventing them from marrying will prevent them from having sex.

Where do you think they got legal marriage from? why is there legal marriage? what defines a legal marriage? currrently it’s what ever people want it to mean, and if the majority of the population are christian and believe that marriage is clearly only between a man and a woman, than why do they not vote for their beliefs of marriage?

The motivations for marriage have varied across time and culture. Sometimes it’s even been a part of political negotiations, to gain social status, or to acquire resources. But in present day USA it’s a civil contract between two individuals. There’s slight variation from state to state on the requirements and definition.

It’s the all too common religious marriage is different to civil marriage, therefore in the name of liberty we should be able to call any union we want a marriage and you must recognise that.

As an individual, I don’t think you are obligated to recognize another’s marriage.

 

[josh987654321]

I don’t think preventing them from marrying will prevent them from having sex.

It will discourage it though, it will teach society the truth that not everything we sexually desire is moral, it will help counter act a culture in which sex is seen as harmless fun, there is no longer any morality when it comes to sexual relations as evident with the same sex marriage argument, which is a culture that will be intensified through the next generation with a false understanding of same sex marriage, with the false understanding of the acts of homosexuality being apparently equivalent to the acts of heterosexuality.

They are taking something Immoral and Disordered such as homosexual intercourse and are trying to relate it to something that is moral and ordered such as marriage between a man and a woman, heterosexual intercourse that is ordered towards procreation and unity of family.

The motivations for marriage have varied across time and culture. Sometimes it’s even been a part of political negotiations, to gain social status, or to acquire resources. But in present day USA it’s a civil contract between two individuals. There’s slight variation from state to state on the requirements and definition.

As an individual, I don’t think you are obligated to recognize another’s marriage.

Civil marriage in combine with no fault divorce has made marriage null and void, Civil marriage has become a completely meaningless institution.

I don’t know why people even bother with civil marriage and yet this is what the LGBT community are passionatly fighting for, what I can make of it, is that it’s not about marriage as they see it, it’s about teaching society to view the acts of homosexuality as moral and ordered.

I think It’s no longer about tolerance, it’s about acceptance, so I think it is inevitable after same sex marriage is legalised that anti discrimination laws will eventually be changed in order to try and enforce others to view/treat the acts of homosexuality as moral and ordered, in which I cannot do, and I would hate to be legally persecuated for that, but we will just have to wait and see what happens and argue that one when/if it comes up.

Like I said before, I certainly wont throw stones if out of weakness a homosexual gives into their disordered and immoral desires, but I will be upset when they try to claim that those desires are no longer immoral or disordered, which is what they are doing by arguing for same sex marriage.

I would be just as upset if they tried to redefine a word to equate pre marital sex with celibacy.

And given that the acts of homosexuality are acts of grave depravity, I wouldn’t be loving my neighbour if I was in support for same sex marriage, it’s not love when encouraging others to sin, love doesn’t tell lies in order to make people feel better about their desires or actions.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

Arguing for same sex marriage is like arguing for women to be called men for equality sake, given the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman and their sexual compatibility, a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are fundamentally different, just like men and women are different so why are people arguing for same sex coupels to be recognised as a marriage?

No matter what you call a plant it will never smell like a rose unless it’s a rose, so why do people want to give the same name to two different plants?

True, but I find it hard to accept that the majority are Christian and yet support same sex marriage, as the Gospels are very clear of what a marriage is.

To be christian means to be a believer in Jesus Christ, and his own words are that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that the father created men and women to be united to one another, not men and men or women and women.

Im surprised to read this, I didn’t think any Christian denomination would unite a homosexual couple in holy matrimony.

Have you not read the gospels? these are Jesus Christ’s words, the one you claim to place your faith in.

Mathew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

How can two of the same, male and male or female and female become one flesh? they cannot, Jesus is talking to us about marriage in this passage, clearly a homosexual couple is not a marriage according to Christ.

Like I said, is it prejudice not to call women, men? why is it prejudice not to call a homosexual union marriage?

Also in regards to IVF treatment allowing homosexuals to have children, would you claim prejudice to treat them differently? in refusing IFV treatment to homosexuals?

Because in that case it requires a thrid party and it is intentionaly set up to bring a child into the world with absolute intention to deprive that child of their mother or father, not because it will benefit the child but because it will selfishly benefit themselves.

The convienience of the adults are being put above the welfare of the children.

If you call me prejudice for refusing IVF to homosexuals, than I am damn happy to be labeled as prejudiced.

Have not come across the word “promiscuity” before so please forgive me if I miss understand it in this reply.

In the case of having sexual morality than yes, I would very much rather people are promiscuous, and have good and clear morals when it comes to sexual acts, so many percieve sex as harmless fun and in doing so remove all morality from it.

Don’t you think you ought to find out what ‘marriage’ is and where it comes from before you vote for a redefinition?

Because true love wants what is best for the other, it doesn’t give easy answers, it doesn’t appease peoples conciences by telling them lies, it is an act of the will, not of the flesh.

If there is one word in everyones vocabulary that is and has been abused and miss used the most, it would be the word ‘Love’.

It’s the same evil miss use of the word love that drives the passion behind same sex marriage.

The basic human anatomy of a man and a woman and their compatibility, the fact that Christ states that the father created men and women and a man unites to a woman and becomes like one in marriage, something that is impossible for a homosexual couple.

Compared to heterosexuals and the depravities heterosexuals get up to? well there is no difference if heterosexuals are acting just as Immoral and disordered as homosexuals are, a homosexual unions soul purpose is to act in Immoral and disordered ways sexually, they cannot have sexual relations in a moral and ordered way directed at procreation like a heterosexual couple can.

Thank you for reading
Josh

:clapping: A powerful post!

 

[gavanhe]

Arguing for same sex marriage is like arguing for women to be called men for equality sake, given the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman and their sexual compatibility, a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are fundamentally different, just like men and women are different so why are people arguing for same sex coupels to be recognised as a marriage? …
…snip snip…(for brevities sake)
Josh

This post certainly gets my tick.

 

[inocente]

You haven’t explained why his arguments are unsound.

Yes I did - see post #286.

Allowing gays to get married is another nail in the coffin of marriage - which has in your view become a legal matter rather than a sacred institution.

How is civil marriage “a sacred institution”?

To value marriage doesn’t automatically endow persons with the right to get married. To believe that it does implies that it is nothing more than a human institution based on individual preferences.

How is civil marriage anything other than a human institution?

 

[inocente]

Well, this is easy. You might call it Secularism 101: sexual acts have no inherent meaning, period. They have (-for humans, with minds of their own) to “essential” end. People invest such acts with whichever meaning they prefer, and others should respect that. No one way is better than another, no one way is worse than another. This is another way of saying all these acts are in themselves meaningless.

You think that recognizing same-sex marriage will mean everyone respects same-sex couplings the way society has respected married couples. This is a huge mistake. It means that marrying in order to have and raise a family is no better or worse than, say, a college professor preying on a new college student every semester while avoiding commitment.

I don’t even think that homosexual persons will respect other homosexual persons who marry more than those who prefer the single life. Many unmarried heterosexual persons regard marriage as a prison sentence and look down on women “bury their brains” in domesticity.)

It is ironic that many advocates of same-sex marriage cite statistics showing the benefits of marriage while for the past several decades, liberal heterosexuals have insisted those statistics do NOT mean that marriage is better than the single life, or that sex outside of marriage is in any was ‘less’ or ‘wrong’ or to be judged in any way. (Many switch back and forth without noticing the irony of arguing that we should encourage homosexuals to marry because it is good for them but should not encourage heterosexuals to marry because that would be oppressive, judgmental, regressive.)

I think then we’re agreed that meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The meaning of civil marriage changes constantly. For instance, it must have been very different in England a few centuries back according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

By the common law the age at which minors were capable of marrying, known as the age of consent, was fixed at fourteen years for males and twelve years for females. Marriages under the age of seven years for both were void, but between seven and the age of consent the parties could contract an imperfect marriage, which was voidable but not necessarily void. The marriage of parties who had attained the age of consent was valid even though they lacked parental consent, until in England the marriage act of 1753 declared such marriages void. - newadvent.org/cathen/09691b.htm

 

[inocente]

Arguing for same sex marriage is like arguing for women to be called men for equality sake, given the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman and their sexual compatibility, a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are fundamentally different, just like men and women are different so why are people arguing for same sex coupels to be recognised as a marriage?

No matter what you call a plant it will never smell like a rose unless it’s a rose, so why do people want to give the same name to two different plants?

You seem to think that marriage is only about anatomy in the bedroom, but to most people it’s much much more, it’s to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

*True, but I find it hard to accept that the majority are Christian and yet support same sex marriage, as the Gospels are very clear of what a marriage is.

To be christian means to be a believer in Jesus Christ, and his own words are that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that the father created men and women to be united to one another, not men and men or women and women.*

See comments below (and those aren’t entirely His own words, Jesus is quoting Genesis).

Im surprised to read this, I didn’t think any Christian denomination would unite a homosexual couple in holy matrimony.

The Quakers and the Unitarians also perform same.sex marriages, don’t know if there are others.

But your opinion on what Christians should and shouldn’t do is off-topic again, the thread’s about secular arguments.

*Have you not read the gospels? these are Jesus Christ’s words, the one you claim to place your faith in.

Mathew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”*

How can two of the same, male and male or female and female become one flesh? they cannot, Jesus is talking to us about marriage in this passage, clearly a homosexual couple is not a marriage according to Christ.

Didn’t you get taught to read the whole book and not take verses out of context? Jesus never does confusing asides, He always sticks to the subject in hand, and He is teaching about divorce here, not trying to lay down rules about who can and can’t get married.

*Like I said, is it prejudice not to call women, men? why is it prejudice not to call a homosexual union marriage?

Also in regards to IVF treatment allowing homosexuals to have children, would you claim prejudice to treat them differently? in refusing IFV treatment to homosexuals?

Because in that case it requires a thrid party and it is intentionaly set up to bring a child into the world with absolute intention to deprive that child of their mother or father, not because it will benefit the child but because it will selfishly benefit themselves.

The convienience of the adults are being put above the welfare of the children.

If you call me prejudice for refusing IVF to homosexuals, than I am damn happy to be labeled as prejudiced.*

I don’t know anything about IVF or the medical ethics of who it’s offered to. We’re getting off-topic again, the thread is about gay marriage.

*Have not come across the word “promiscuity” before so please forgive me if I miss understand it in this reply.

In the case of having sexual morality than yes, I would very much rather people are promiscuous, and have good and clear morals when it comes to sexual acts, so many percieve sex as harmless fun and in doing so remove all morality from it.*

Promiscuity is casual sex with multiple partners, so I think you’d probably prefer marriage to promiscuity.

Don’t you think you ought to find out what ‘marriage’ is and where it comes from before you vote for a redefinition?

No, I can’t see it would make any difference.

*Because true love wants what is best for the other, it doesn’t give easy answers, it doesn’t appease peoples conciences by telling them lies, it is an act of the will, not of the flesh.

If there is one word in everyones vocabulary that is and has been abused and miss used the most, it would be the word ‘Love’.

It’s the same evil miss use of the word love that drives the passion behind same sex marriage.*

That’s not a rational argument though, just your opinion, and I think it’s a bit of a strange opinion at that - do you really believe that the homosexual Catholic sitting in the pew next to you can’t experience love, or experiences it less deeply than you? How can you possibly know that?

Compared to heterosexuals and the depravities heterosexuals get up to? well there is no difference if heterosexuals are acting just as Immoral and disordered as homosexuals are, a homosexual unions soul purpose is to act in Immoral and disordered ways sexually, they cannot have sexual relations in a moral and ordered way directed at procreation like a heterosexual couple can.

If your opinion is that homosexuals can’t experience love then you would only see them as robot-like and/or depraved, but that doesn’t say anything about what they’re really like, only about your opinion.

 

[markeverett49]

I think then we’re agreed that meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

No, I’m making clear that this is the path you have chosen: sex is meaningless in and of itself, which means homosexual sex is too. You think that having it branded as equivalent to heterosexual sex will make people respect it more but this is backward: they won’t have any more respect for it than for any other kind.

I think there IS a meaning to the marital act, which is why I oppose same-sex marriage.

I think it might prove salutary for you to read what many current advocates for same-sex marriage were saying AGAINST marriage two decades ago: oppressive, regressive, dying, dead, moribund, a relic, and so on.

 

[josh987654321]

.

I will still reply to your previous post if you wish, but I would like to share this with you along with my previous post directed toward you to contemplate, thank you.

Mathew 5:31-32
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Given that mathew has already addressed divorce why would this passage below only be about divorce?

Mathew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Please reflect on this, he is speaking to us about more than just divorce, why would he say that the creator made them male and female and that they become like one flesh in marriage, so they are no longer two but one flesh? this is obviously something impossible for a homosexual union, given that only a man and a woman are compatible in such a way.

The following is from this link provided to me on a different thread by edwest2- catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html

**Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.

The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.

It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.

The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.

Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.

Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.

Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.**

This is my point of view, please contemplate it and if you still feel that I am incorrect or have a warped view of love to be in opposition to same sex marriage and acts of homosexuality than please let me know, thank you.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Fairwinds]

Marriage is a privilege, not a right…

why do you think that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by josh987654321
Arguing for same sex marriage is like arguing for women to be called men for equality sake, given the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman and their sexual compatibility, a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are fundamentally different, just like men and women are different so why are people arguing for same sex coupels to be recognised as a marriage?

No matter what you call a plant it will never smell like a rose unless it’s a rose, so why do people want to give the same name to two different plants?

You seem to think that marriage is only about anatomy in the bedroom, but to most people it’s much much more, it’s to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

The reason it seems to you that his reasoning implies that marriage is only about anatomy in the bedroom is because of a confusion in your logic. Logically speaking it is quite right to claim that an issue is necessarily about a particular aspect without claiming it is only about that aspect. Josh can consistently be claiming that marriage is necessarily about procreation without being held to the implication that it is only about procreation.

Either you are aware of that distinction and are making an unwarranted point or you need to reconsider your own thinking on this issue.

 

[JontheMaronite]

You seem to think that marriage is only about anatomy in the bedroom, but to most people it’s much much more, it’s to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

And why? If the basis of sexual complimentarity and openness of the marital union to procreation does not hold true, then these other attributes of marriage are not founded and are thus mere personal preference. For you to deny the anthropological truth that marriage is based upon is to change marriage’s meaning and conflate it with companionship.

Didn’t you get taught to read the whole book and not take verses out of context? Jesus never does confusing asides, He always sticks to the subject in hand, and He is teaching about divorce here, not trying to lay down rules about who can and can’t get married.

Jesus already dealt with divorce, if you read the context. He’s talking about the institution of marriage, its nature and its purpose here.

Promiscuity is casual sex with multiple partners, so I think you’d probably prefer marriage to promiscuity.

This is not a question of preference, this is a question of correctly labeling the distinct relationship of marriage, and not attempting to change its meaning. Same sex unions are not marriages and two people of the same sex could not have a marital relationship, it’s a nominal impossibility, like a square circle.

Sure, we encourage faithfulness in relationship and and so forth, but practicing those virtues is not unique to a marital relationship, so calling something a marriage and revising its meaning to encourage faithfulness, and exclusivity, and other martial norms, is a prime instance of consequentialism, and an ineffective strategy (we see in the European countries that unstigmatized and normalized “married” same sex unions have much higher rates of and tendencies towards open relationships and infidelity) as well as an extremely harmful redefinition of the institution of marriage.

 

[JontheMaronite]

The latest article from Public Discourse really pulverizes the “marriage equality” argument and the claims of unjust or arbitrary discrimination.
thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9956/

Some solid quotes:

Race, nationality, and skin color are properties irrelevant to one’s personhood. There is nothing in skin tone that could restrict one from the rights and equality enjoyed by all citizens. That is why the Supreme Court struck down the “miscegenation” laws against interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, unfair or invidious discrimination is the arbitrary granting of certain privileges to a particular class of persons within a larger group where “no reasonable distinctions” can be found between those favored and those unfavored. In other words, it means treating equals unequally.

There are at least two reasons to think that Prop 8 does not discriminate wrongly—that it does not treat equals unequally.

First, it does not target the sexual activity of gays and lesbians, nor does it purport to harm them. Prop 8, like other marriage amendments, is neutral on the question of whether the parties requesting a marriage license are heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual…

As the Family Research Council noted in an amicus curiae brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

The fundamental flaw with the district court’s holding that Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex is that “the marriage laws are facially neutral; they do not single out men or women as a class for disparate treatment, but rather prohibit men and women equally from marrying a person of the same sex.” . . . “[T]here is no discrete class subject to differential treatment solely on the basis of sex; each sex is equally prohibited from precisely the same conduct.” . . . Other courts have also rejected the claim that “defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman discriminates on the basis of sex.”

Second, to make a point that has perhaps been overlooked, same-sex marriage advocates (including Walker) presume that same-sex couplings are substantively equal to marital unions; they conflate discrimination against particular partnerships with discrimination against persons.

This is the fallacy of composition: One claims that what is true of the parts is also true of the whole.
…
Likewise, a marriage is greater than the sum of its two members. A same-sex coupling of two individuals cannot achieve the comprehensive union that makes a marriage—a union of hearts, minds, and bodies that is oriented toward sharing of family life—and is therefore something vastly different from, and hardly the equivalent of, a marital union. Thus, it’s false to say that Prop 8 codified unfair discrimination if marriage, by definition, cannot include same-sex relationships.

The point is that while discrimination against gays and lesbians as persons is inappropriate, discrimination against same-sex couplings may be entirely appropriate if the coupling does not meet the necessary conditions of marriage. If reasonable distinctions are found between a same-sex coupling and a marital union, such that the coupling does not qualify to enter matrimony, then Prop 8 does not discriminate unfairly.

Of course, to make a coherent case that Prop 8 does not discriminate wrongly requires us to consider further the definition of marriage. Walker regards marriage as something malleable—something that has evolved over time such that “gender is no longer relevant” and “no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

…

By contrast, in the historical view of marriage, it is a pre-political institution, an intrinsically valuable, basic human good rooted in human nature, not human will. As the Court said in Baker v. Nelson, “[t]he institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

Whatever same-sex partnerships are, they cannot be called marriages because they do not meet the necessary conditions. They do not naturally form families, nor have they built civilizations or stabilized societies. A same-sex coupling is a social construction that shares little with the essence of marriage, and is therefore categorically distinct from a marital union. Where reasonable distinctions apply the charge of discrimination is unfounded.

The Supreme Court should recognize that Prop 8 does not discriminate against gays and lesbians, or any individual for that matter. It is facially neutral concerning sex and sexual orientation. Where it does discriminate, and properly so, is in preventing same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses, not because they are gays or lesbians, but because they cannot, as a couple, enter the institution of marriage as that term has always been defined.