So is it impossible to argue against same-sex marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larowyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would tend to think that many members of the gay community “use” Catholic charities and hospitals. Probably the Church loves them more than they are willing to concede. The church has helped out many destitute members of the gay community in the past. Having said that, the RCC and her parishes do have a say in saying who gets married in the RCC.

Marriage is not a right. It is a priviledge. If our government wants to go into the church business and start offering baptisms, that doesn’t mean that they are valid. The same with marriages.
 
Again it has nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married in a Catholic church, it’s about whether the country should allow said marriages.
 
gmarie21 said:
If you think about it, that would make EVERYONE a hypocrite on some level (which to me, makes the word meaningless and pointless to use in an arguement). That is why I stated what it was, because every priest would be a hypocrite on some level (even if we don’t know a priest’s sins) same as the Pope. To me, that just doesn’t make sense because being a sinner does not automatically qualify a person as a hypocrite. Basically, your definition would require someone to be without any type of sin all of the time inorder to NOT be a hypocrite. I just had the same arguement with my cousin, which is why I have actually tried to put thought into this (my cousin sent an email to his friends as well as mine and our family stating that I was a perfect example of a religious hypocrite and proceeded to forward the email I sent to him about a political candidate that was not so nice about that candidate).
Click to expand...
In order to be a hypocrite you would have to be engaged in the same sin while condemning it. Kind of like “do as I say but not as I do”. Most people are hypcrites on some level I guess if you look at the official definition:

: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
 
Larowyn said:
Again it has nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married in a Catholic church, it’s about whether the country should allow said marriages.
Click to expand...
In that case, it should be a matter of whether same sex marriage is beneficial to society as a whole. That can be argued on societal grounds. What government favors by law, it gets more of, what it disfavors, it get less of. An example is abortion. Protected by law, society gets more of it.
 
JimG said:
In that case, it should be a matter of whether same sex marriage is beneficial to society as a whole. That can be argued on societal grounds. What government favors by law, it gets more of, what it disfavors, it get less of. An example is abortion. Protected by law, society gets more of it.
Click to expand...
That was countered by how homosexuals are considered second class citizens because they can’t marry each other. They argue that society only stands to benefit from allowing same-sex marriage.
 
Larowyn said:
That was countered by how homosexuals are considered second class citizens because they can’t marry each other. They argue that society only stands to benefit from allowing same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
Reproduction is EXTREMELY important for economic stability. Many countries are starting to face a possible breakdown of their economies because they have a negative population growth. Heck, we’re just barely above replacement level and Social Security will be non-existent because there aren’t enough “younger” generation whose taxes can care for the older generation. And last I checked, sperm and sperm don’t make a human as well as egg and egg don’t make a human.
 
Larowyn said:
That was countered by how homosexuals are considered second class citizens because they can’t marry each other. They argue that society only stands to benefit from allowing same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
But that is historically inaccurate. In fact, the opposite can be demonstrated historically.

Way back in 1947, Carle C. Zimmerman of Harvard University published a well researched book entitled “Family and Civilization.” This analyzed a number of civilizations over the millennia, correlating their rise and fall with changes in the structure of marriage within the society, ranging from patriarchal and authoritarian extended family structures, to compact families, to contractual marriage, to atomized families characterized by easy divorce, individualization, and sexual deviation. Once families reached the final stages of decline (as our own society appears to be doing at this time) the collapse of the civilization was inevitable.

Based on his conclusions—and remember this was written in 1947—arguing for a reversal in the decline of families at this time looks almost like spitting into the wind. Our own family structures may be too far gone to be reversed. Just be prepared for the consequences.

The book by the way is still available on Amazon.com.

Another good resource on this subject is “The Meaning of Marriage” edited by Robert George and Jean Elshtain, which covers similar ground, but with more reference to contemporary society.
 
gmarie21 said:
Reproduction is EXTREMELY important for economic stability. Many countries are starting to face a possible breakdown of their economies because they have a negative population growth. Heck, we’re just barely above replacement level and Social Security will be non-existent because there aren’t enough “younger” generation whose taxes can care for the older generation. And last I checked, sperm and sperm don’t make a human as well as egg and egg don’t make a human.
Click to expand...
If the people in question are gay, whether they marry or not they aren’t going to reproduce.
 
Fitswimmer said:
If the people in question are gay, whether they marry or not they aren’t going to reproduce.
Click to expand...
Which is why I gave him that arguement against civil unions disguised as “marriage” between those who suffer from same sex attraction.
 
If gays want to have a civil ceremony under the laws of the land to co-habitate and get all the rights and priviledges of a domestic partnership, and the elected officials write laws calling it “strawberry fields forever” fine. It’s not marriage, it never will be marriage. Like I said earlier, if the government starts doing baptisms, doesn’t make them valid. Marraige is a sacrament of the Church and government should not be doing them.
 
Larowyn said:
Seems that way. Apparently Catholics are just hypocrites out to deny others of their rights. I’m unable to beat any arguments on this one forum.
Click to expand...
The ones who buy into the Secular Relativist agenda will not be convinced no matter what you say. It is like a cult that blinds people to the truth.
 
Ted_in_Charlott said:
If gays want to have a civil ceremony under the laws of the land to co-habitate and get all the rights and priviledges of a domestic partnership, and the elected officials write laws calling it “strawberry fields forever” fine. It’s not marriage, it never will be marriage. Like I said earlier, if the government starts doing baptisms, doesn’t make them valid. Marraige is a sacrament of the Church and government should not be doing them.
Click to expand...
I agree that it will never be sacred marriage, but then a marriage between a man and a woman that takes place before a JOP isn’t really either.
 
They argue that civil unions make homosexuals separate but equal and that homosexual couples are no worse than heterosexual couples in terms of child-rearing.
 
They can ‘argue’ till they turn blue. Doesn’t mean they’re correct.
 
They sure are convinced that they are correct and none of my arguments make them doubt it.
 
Larowyn said:
They argue that civil unions make homosexuals separate but equal and that homosexual couples are no worse than heterosexual couples in terms of child-rearing.
Click to expand...
I think that you are too focused on winning the argument. Instead, consider all the people who are influenced by what you write. It doesn’t matter if everyone on that forum writes that you are wrong, there will be a few souls who will listen to what you say. Also, you can plant a seed in others hearts. I’ve had that done to me at times when I thought that I was most resistant to what I was hearing/reading. It was only later when the argument was over that I was able to think through what I had been debating about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top