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.
Larowyn said:
All of my arguments were countered by how bigoted and hateful the Church and anyone against it is. I can’t think of anything else to argue.
Click to expand...
Hi Larowyn;

Sometimes, trying to help others to see what you’re trying to explain about the faith, can become frustrating if the typical rebuttal is a non rebuttal…“you’re a bigot,” or whatever you might be hearing.

Jesus doesn’t expect us to continue to go 'round and 'round with people who don’t want to hear Truth. He told His followers to ‘shake the dust from their feet for those who would not welcome them…’ (Luke 9:1-9) So, likewise, if our advice is not welcomed, we can’t beat ourselves up over that. We have to leave, and move on. If enough people are told Truth by us, someone will listen, and it will impact them. Jesus preached the Truth–not everyone even listened to Him.
 
Fitswimmer said:
If you’re only talking about reproduction, then I would agree. Members of the same gender cannot reproduce without assistance.

However, a union or a marriage between two people is not ONLY about reproduction. Millions of people join together in marriages and unions all over the world without any intention whatsoever of reproducing. The commitments between those people is no less valid than the commitments between people who have joined together and had children.

Of course, from a religious standpoint reproduction is the most important reason for marriage. How would any religion grow if reproduction was not encouraged in that way?
Click to expand...
Well yes, religions could not grow in the absence of reproduction. Neither could human civilizations! But we seem to be at a point where many existing civilizations (not all) are so atomized as to have a civilizational death wish.
 
Time for an update: I’ve managed to get all of my opponents on the defensive, and none of them have been able to prove to me that homosexuality is natural and immutable. I’ve told them that if they cannot prove that homosexuality is natural then they must accept the possibility that homosexuality is acquired and thus merely same-gender sexual conduct, which would put it on the same spectrum as other deviant behaviors.

It’s been ten minutes since my last post and there have been no responses since then. Up to my last point my opponents stopped trying to pick apart my arguments and decided to call me a hatemonger. I really appreciate the support and advice everyone here has given me, even if I didn’t respond to all of it.
 
HelenaMT said:
I think it is impossible to argue against gay marriage because the country seems to recognize marriage as a right of individuals just like freedom of expression, not as a union to produce children, or a sanctified union.

So many hetero couples purposefully refrain from reproducing that it has become silly to use the argument that producing children has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
Precisely. The widespread, accepted use of contraception in marriage seems to have opened the floodgates to a lot of things, homosexual “marriage” among them. The Catholic Church, fortunately, has remained consistent in her teaching that marriage MUST be open to life.
 
Larowyn said:
Time for an update: I’ve managed to get all of my opponents on the defensive, and none of them have been able to prove to me that homosexuality is natural and immutable. I’ve told them that if they cannot prove that homosexuality is natural then they must accept the possibility that homosexuality is acquired and thus merely same-gender sexual conduct, which would put it on the same spectrum as other deviant behaviors.

It’s been ten minutes since my last post and there have been no responses since then. Up to my last point my opponents stopped trying to pick apart my arguments and decided to call me a hatemonger. I really appreciate the support and advice everyone here has given me, even if I didn’t respond to all of it.
Click to expand...
Bingo! Man- they swarm like bees with the epithets and such. Wait to you start giving them research that show it is not natural and immutable more fireworks wll fly. One more thing - lurkers do benefit from legitimate links and such.
 
Gay Activists Reiterate Strategy to Redefine Marriage

Nine leading homosexual-activist groups are reiterating their strategy to redefine marriage across the nation. And they’re getting plenty of funding along the way.
In an online alert, they advise same-sex couples: "Don’t go suing right away. Most lawsuits will likely set us all back. There are other ways to fight which are more likely to win.
“The fastest way to win the freedom to marry throughout America is by getting marriage through state courts and state legislatures. We need to start with states where we have the best odds of winning. When we’ve won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts.”

more…
 
God help us all!

Seems impossible to get them to see that they are harming themselves.
 
All right, now they’ve conceded that homosexuality may not be natural but that it doesn’t matter whether it is or not. They also argue that prosthetic legs are not natural but people have them.
 
Larowyn said:
All right, now they’ve conceded that homosexuality may not be natural but that it doesn’t matter whether it is or not. They also argue that prosthetic legs are not natural but people have them.
Click to expand...
The problem is that whether it’s natural or not depends on the context of the discussion. If you are discussing reproduction, then no-it’s not natural. In order to reproduce, you have to have one of each. Atttraction however, is not necessary for reproduction, it certainly helps, but the process can take place whether there is any attraction there or not.
 
Larowyn said:
All right, now they’ve conceded that homosexuality may not be natural but that it doesn’t matter whether it is or not. They also argue that prosthetic legs are not natural but people have them.
Click to expand...
Having a prosthetic or bionic limb does not allow you to go and kick someone with it. Society has the right and obligation to make a law against it.
 
buffalo said:
Having a prosthetic or bionic limb does not allow you to go and kick someone with it. Society has the right and obligation to make a law against it.
Click to expand...
What you describe would be defined as an assault and would be harming others-without any religious connotation whatsoever. There is no equivilent harm to others with gay marriage. Whether people believe that there is moral harm or not depends on religious persuasion, which is not the focus of this discussion as I understood it.
 
Fitswimmer said:
What you describe would be defined as an assault and would be harming others-without any religious connotation whatsoever. There is no equivilent harm to others with gay marriage. Whether people believe that there is moral harm or not depends on religious persuasion, which is not the focus of this discussion as I understood it.
Click to expand...
Society has the right to make laws that promote the common good. If society says marriage is between one man and one woman for the common good then it stands.
 
buffalo said:
Society has the right to make laws that promote the common good. If society says marriage is between one man and one woman for the common good then it stands.
Click to expand...
I assume we are talking about the US here, and the US has a constitutional amendment which prohibits the establishment of religion. If US society passes a law that has as it’s foundation the belief of any religion without identifying an objectively measurable harm to sociey as a whole, then it is very likely that law will be struck down as unconstitutional. Since the major religious demoninations in the US are in disagreement regarding this issue, I find it difficult to see how objectively measureable harm can be proven.

However, that does not stop anyone from believing that there is a moral harm to gay marriage, speaking out about that harm and encouraging others not to involve themselves in gay marriages.
 
Fitswimmer said:
I find it difficult to see how objectively measureable harm can be proven.
.
Click to expand...
But aren’t we now back to defining what “marriage” historically has always been about - the protection and promulgation of society?
 
Fitswimmer said:
I assume we are talking about the US here, and the US has a constitutional amendment which prohibits the establishment of religion. If US society passes a law that has as it’s foundation the belief of any religion without identifying an objectively measurable harm to sociey as a whole, then it is very likely that law will be struck down as unconstitutional. Since the major religious demoninations in the US are in disagreement regarding this issue, I find it difficult to see how objectively measureable harm can be proven.

However, that does not stop anyone from believing that there is a moral harm to gay marriage, speaking out about that harm and encouraging others not to involve themselves in gay marriages.
Click to expand...
The “separation of church and state” is an illusion. The Constitution simply says the government shall make no law with respect to religion (making a state religion). In other words the government is not to influence religion, however religion can influence government. There can, should be, and has been laws made on religious moral grounds. In fact the vast number of priveleges granted marriage in the US has been to promote marriage as the common good for society.
 
buffalo said:
The “separation of church and state” is an illusion. The Constitution simply says the government shall make no law with respect to religion (making a state religion). In other words the government is not to influence religion, however religion can influence government. There can, should be, and has been laws made on religious moral grounds. In fact the vast number of priveleges granted marriage in the US has been to promote marriage as the common good for society.
Click to expand...
Those laws have all been about objectively measureable societal harm, not about what one faith or another believes is sinful. If the civil law and the religious belief agree, it is more likely that the religious belief was also based on the idea of how people relate with each other. The 10 Commandments begin with how we relate to God, and those Commandments have NOT been enshrined into civil law. Try proposing a civil law saying that Every American Citizen shall worship the Judeo-Christian God, and no other Gods before the Judeo-Christian God.

The “marriage benefits” are primarily about children, and it can be objectively demonstrated, without religious terms that supporting the raising of children has benefit for society as a whole.

As far as history-there is no worse arguement in the world than “This is the way we’ve always done it”.
 
Fitswimmer said:
Those laws have all been about objectively measureable societal harm, not about what one faith or another believes is sinful. If the civil law and the religious belief agree, it is more likely that the religious belief was also based on the idea of how people relate with each other. The 10 Commandments begin with how we relate to God, and those Commandments have NOT been enshrined into civil law. Try proposing a civil law saying that Every American Citizen shall worship the Judeo-Christian God, and no other Gods before the Judeo-Christian God.

The “marriage benefits” are primarily about children, and it can be objectively demonstrated, without religious terms that supporting the raising of children has benefit for society as a whole.

As far as history-there is no worse arguement in the world than “This is the way we’ve always done it”.
Click to expand...
Actually, Commandments 4-10 were enshrined into civil law. 3 was and recently changed.
 
Fitswimmer said:
The “marriage benefits” are primarily about children, and it can be objectively demonstrated, without religious terms that supporting the raising of children has benefit for society as a whole.
.
Click to expand...
That isn’t completely true about marriage and children, but it certainly is a hearty component of the marriage contract. But let’s discuss the sake of the children. How does gay marriage fulfill that aspect?
 
Jennifer123 said:
That isn’t completely true about marriage and children, but it certainly is a hearty component of the marriage contract. But let’s discuss the sake of the children. How does gay marriage fulfill that aspect?
Click to expand...
It can’t, by definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top