What are some reasons for opposing Gay Marriage?

[SpeakKindly]

Besides:

A) it’s not a legitimate definition of marriage in any sense of the word.

B) it weakens the true meaning of the word, not just for those who are supportive of marriage, but future generations.

C) there’s no morally right way to be biological parents.

In discussions, I find that A and C seem to be dismissed as simply opinions of a closed minded person, while B is just rejected as unsupported fears (especially since people can look at Canada, for example, as to how other countries are doing).

Even people who support marriage seem to cave into the idea that Gay Marriage won’t hurt them, and it makes the Gay couple happy.

 

[kozlosap]

 

[rcuk]

Just a quick post to mention to look-up Peter Kreeft on Youtube for a useful aspect to this argument.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

D) it automatically means children will not have a mom or they might not have a dad. Different genders have different parenting approaches that balance each other. (my opinion based on my anecdotal experience. I have no data to support this)

 

[PietroPaolo]

It impossible. There’s no sense in pretending otherwise.

There exists a unique relationship between a man and a woman, one that is ordered to life long, exclusive, sexual love. This relationship is so unique that it alone can produce new human life - which no society can exist without. We have, from time out of mind, called this unique relationship “marriage.” We can call other relationships “marriage” but that doesn’t make them the same as his unique relationship not does it make them as important to the State.

 

[dmar198]

Besides:

A) it’s not a legitimate definition of marriage in any sense of the word.

B) it weakens the true meaning of the word, not just for those who are supportive of marriage, but future generations.

C) there’s no morally right way to be biological parents.

In discussions, I find that A and C seem to be dismissed as simply opinions of a closed minded person, while B is just rejected as unsupported fears (especially since people can look at Canada, for example, as to how other countries are doing).

Even people who support marriage seem to cave into the idea that Gay Marriage won’t hurt them, and it makes the Gay couple happy.

---

Catholic Reasons Against “Same-Sex Marriage” - from “Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to [Homosexual] Unions” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

“[Homosexual] activities…do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society.” – Considerations 8

“Sexual relations are…[supposed to] express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and [be] open to the transmission of new life.” “[H]omosexual acts…close the sexual act to the gift of life [and] do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.” – Considerations 7, CCC 2357

“[C]hildren who [are] placed in the care of [homosexual couples] would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. … [This] would actually mean doing violence to these children…[because it] place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.” – Considerations 7

“[M]arried couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest.” “[C]ivil law [therefore] grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.” – Considerations 9

---

I would add that we can know from reason alone that sex is only for a man and a woman because that’s how we’re designed anatomically, that’s how our bonding hormones oxytocin and vassopressin work together, and it’s how our genetic code is reproduced in nature. A government that honors relationships that go against the natural law, is a government that has abandoned the principle that our rights come from “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” (The Declaration of Independence)

I would also add that “same-sex marriage” doesn’t promote equality but inequality. When you give rights to homosexual couples that you don’t give to single people, you treat single people unequally solely on the basis that they haven’t fallen in love yet. That isn’t fair. Marriage rights only make sense if marriage is for children. If we give special rights to people simply because they’ve fallen in love, that’s not equality, it’s inequality.

 

[Avila123]

The Bible is the reason for me.

Leviticus 18:22 - “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; …”

Romans 1:26-27. “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites”

1Timothy 6-11, “Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance. We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”

Source: usccb.org/bible/

To keep it short, the verses are out of context and should be read with the rest of the chapter e.g. in Leviticus, God spoke to Moses about different aspects of sexual immorality.

 

[frobert]

Besides:

A) it’s not a legitimate definition of marriage in any sense of the word.

B) it weakens the true meaning of the word, not just for those who are supportive of marriage, but future generations.

C) there’s no morally right way to be biological parents.

In discussions, I find that A and C seem to be dismissed as simply opinions of a closed minded person, while B is just rejected as unsupported fears (especially since people can look at Canada, for example, as to how other countries are doing).

Even people who support marriage seem to cave into the idea that Gay Marriage won’t hurt them, and it makes the Gay couple happy.

Minor correction. Gay marriage for gays and supporters is a civil rights issue and while it will likely bring happiness to many, the pursuit of happiness is a minor issue.

I have heard arguments that churches made a major mistake by joining the fight against gay marriage because the momentum was so much in favor that there is little doubt that it will eventually pass in most western countries. The reasoning continues that christian churches could easily have made their disapproval. disdain and opposition of a civil matter known while strengthening their teachings that gay marriage does not effect the sacrament of matrimony for the faithful, much in the same way the CC treats divorce. The christian churches, while not being homophobic themselves, have joined forces with many homophobes and appears to have created a public relations nightmare within their own communities.

For the record I do not believe that all opponents to gay marriage are homophobic.

 

[SpeakKindly]

Minor correction. Gay marriage for gays and supporters is a civil rights issue and while it will likely bring happiness to many, the pursuit of happiness is a minor issue.

I have heard arguments that churches made a major mistake by joining the fight against gay marriage because the momentum was so much in favor that there is little doubt that it will eventually pass in most western countries. The reasoning continues that christian churches could easily have made their disapproval. disdain and opposition of a civil matter known while strengthening their teachings that gay marriage does not effect the sacrament of matrimony for the faithful, much in the same way the CC treats divorce. The christian churches, while not being homophobic themselves, have joined forces with many homophobes and appears to have created a public relations nightmare within their own communities.

For the record I do not believe that all opponents to gay marriage are homophobic.

I think that the Church understands that divorce is a legal separation of the couple. The couple can say they’re not married and all that, but the marriage, if valid, still would exist in the eyes of the Church and God. Divorce itself is not a sin, but it’s also not recognized as a valid separation of a valid marriage.

However, Gay Marriage is view as a fundamentally different beast than divorce. Someone can disagree with the Church on divorce and how that all works in the eyes of God, but fundamentally a same-sex marriage is a concept being labeled with the incorrect term, in the eyes of the Church.

You pose an interesting point.

 

[punisherthunder]

The homosexual marriage propoganda machine will be looking now to more three way marriages, beastiality, and pedophilia acceptance. It’s happening now. Book it.

 

[EasterJoy]

Minor correction. Gay marriage for gays and supporters is a civil rights issue and while it will likely bring happiness to many, the pursuit of happiness is a minor issue.

I have heard arguments that churches made a major mistake by joining the fight against gay marriage because the momentum was so much in favor that there is little doubt that it will eventually pass in most western countries. The reasoning continues that christian churches could easily have made their disapproval. disdain and opposition of a civil matter known while strengthening their teachings that gay marriage does not effect the sacrament of matrimony for the faithful, much in the same way the CC treats divorce. The christian churches, while not being homophobic themselves, have joined forces with many homophobes and appears to have created a public relations nightmare within their own communities.

For the record I do not believe that all opponents to gay marriage are homophobic.

This whole mischaracterization as same-sex unions being the equivalent of true marriage does effect natural marriage, which is still true marriage, even though it is possible to dissolve one.

The Catholic Church was not silent when civil government made divorce easier, particularly no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce undermines marriage when civil government lets people make “vows”, calls it marriage, and then allows one party to unilaterally dissolve the marriage without any wrong-doing on the part of the other spouse. That alone has devastated both family life and the definition of marriage. Contraception has also made this “redefinition” of marriage as a union with no necessary connection to the reproductive faculty a possibility.

Having said that, the idea that same-sex unions are exactly the same as heterosexual unions is such a farce that it is hard to believe the concept will “pass” for the extended future. When a civil institution is based on such an obvious falsehood, it is hard to imagine how it can endure.

 

[frobert]

This whole mischaracterization as same-sex unions being the equivalent of true marriage does effect natural marriage, which is still true marriage, even though it is possible to dissolve one.

To my knowledge no one is saying that civil marriage is the same as the Sacrament of holy matrimony

The Catholic Church was not silent when civil government made divorce easier, particularly no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce undermines marriage when civil government lets people make “vows”, calls it marriage, and then allows one party to unilaterally dissolve the marriage without any wrong-doing on the part of the other spouse. That alone has devastated both family life and the definition of marriage. Contraception has also made this “redefinition” of marriage as a union with no necessary connection to the reproductive faculty a possibility.

Churches should not be silent on the such matters, they should make their objections known while making the distinction between civil and church matters and instruct their parishioners accordingly, through dialogue. Why create alienation when a softer approach will pay much higher dividends in the long run?

Having said that, the idea that same-sex unions are exactly the same as heterosexual unions is such a farce that it is hard to believe the concept will “pass” for the extended future. When a civil institution is based on such an obvious falsehood, it is hard to imagine how it can endure.

Civil right movements have always been underestimated. Over time the majority, rightly or wrongly, equate civil rights with fairness.

 

[EasterJoy]

To my knowledge no one is saying that civil marriage is the same as the Sacrament of holy matrimony

Churches should not be silent on the such matters, they should make their objections known while making the distinction between civil and church matters and instruct their parishioners accordingly, through dialogue. Why create alienation when a softer approach will pay much higher dividends in the long run?

Civil right movements have always been underestimated. Over time the majority, rightly or wrongly, equate civil rights with fairness.

No, the Church is saying that a natural marriage–that is a marriage that is not between two believers–is a true marriage, although it may be dissolved, but that a same-sex marriage cannot be a natural or true marriage. The reason to risk getting people mad at us is to prevent the greater “alienation” of enshrining something that is false even on a natural level into the law.

You would not, for instance, think it is OK for the state to allow incestuous marriages or marriages to small children. Why? Because you can see this is objectively wrong. It does not have to do with the sacramental nature of marriage, but with the purely natural basis for marriage.

IOW, our faith can inform us rightly on matters of sociology, not just matters of sacrament. We are duty-bound to advocate for laws that are just and right and against laws that are unjust or false. Besides, civil law does not allow citizens to do anything they like, if they just call it religious. Neither does faith allow letting laws be written in false or unjust ways, just because those laws do not touch on the practice of religion. There is a lot of overlap.

I would not be so sure that every idea of what constitutes a “civil right” will stand the test of time. Yes, the majority always thinks that the contemporary idea of what is fair is the ultimate example of fairness, and that all other ages or societies fall short. That doesn’t mean the majority is right or will always think in the same way. For instance, society now thinks it fair that one spouse can end a marriage unilaterally, when there is no evidence of wrong-doing by the abandoned spouse. Is this fair? Society would say yes, it is tragic for the abandoned spouse, but it is just and right to allow the abandoning spouse not just to vacate one marriage promise for no reason, but that the abandoning spouse ought to be free to go make another. Does the majority opinion make this a just situation? I don’t think so. Reason certainly does not require it to be so. In the same way, reason does not require that same-sex marriage be treated as if it were a true marriage. They aren’t the same thing; they are very obviously different. It is only by contemporary propaganda that this has been obscured.

 

[frobert]

No, the Church is saying that a natural marriage–that is a marriage that is not between two believers–is a true marriage, although it may be dissolved, but that a same-sex marriage cannot be a natural or true marriage. The reason to risk getting people mad at us is to prevent the greater “alienation” of enshrining something that is false even on a natural level into the law.

I understand the church’s distinction but what happens when states legalize gay marriages. Won’'t the churches be in a worse position when they have to explain again or backtrack or something to explain gay marriages away? I am getting confused just thinking about all the possible permutations. The only people, that I can think of, that benefit are disingenuous politicians, on either side, who use the issue as a wedge issue. Are the politicians worth it?

You would not, for instance, think it is OK for the state to allow incestuous marriages or marriages to small children. Why? Because you can see this is objectively wrong. It does not have to do with the sacramental nature of marriage, but with the purely natural basis for marriage.

The types of marriage you reference are reprehensible and illegal, comparing them to gay marriage is a disservice to everyone involved. Whether you believe gay marriages is natural or not, the distinction is that gay marriage is legal in many jurisdictions and will likely become legal in more jurisdictions. Its obvious that not everyone thinks them reprehensible.

 

[EasterJoy]

I understand the church’s distinction but what happens when states legalize gay marriages. Won’'t the churches be in a worse position when they have to explain again or backtrack or something to explain gay marriages away? I am getting confused just thinking about all the possible permutations. The only people, that I can think of, that benefit are disingenuous politicians, on either side, who use the issue as a wedge issue. Are the politicians worth it?

The types of marriage you reference are reprehensible and illegal, comparing them to gay marriage is a disservice to everyone involved. Whether you believe gay marriages is natural or not, the distinction is that gay marriage is legal in many jurisdictions and will likely become legal in more jurisdictions. Its obvious that not everyone thinks them reprehensible.

The Church has not backtracked on whether no-fault divorce laws serve the institution of marriage with justice. The Church has not backtracked on whether a divorce nullifies a valid marriage or frees the parties to remarry someone else. The Church has not backtracked on whether or not homosexual acts are disordered just because the psychiatric associations have declared them not to be disordered. The Church has not backtracked on whether women can ever be ordained to the priesthood, even though some of the Anglicans have admitted women to the episcopacy and many denominations have placed women in the position of pastor.

When the Church starts deciding which parts of moral law to defend or proclaim based on the political popularity of the teaching, we are in a dark time. I’m not going to say it has never happened, but that it is not a praiseworthy thing when bishops quiet themselves on what the Church teaches, based on the direction of the political wind. The Church does not change her teachings, but when that quiet about her teaching descends around the vices that are popular, it is a dark time.

As far as the litmus test of “what everyone thinks” or “what the law allows,” consider asking anyone who died before 1960 whether the terms “reprehensible” or “illegal” would apply to two people of the same sex attempting marriage at that time. If the person wasn’t a devotee of Alan Ginsberg, the chances are that they’d say yes. These are *attitude *changes, brought about by a relentless propaganda campaign. Ask yourself this, after all: why is it such a “disservice to everyone involved” to compare homosexual sex to consensual incest between adult siblings?

Do you want to explain to a woman who has had a hysterectomy why she can’t marry her own brother? What about siblings who were adopted? What about one of the countless blended families, where the siblings are not blood relatives? Do you have an argument against these consenting adults living their lives as they see fit? Remember we are talking about a generation that believes pre-birth testing and abortion are solutions to birth defects. Many of them have siblings who are not blood relatives. Do not be so sure you can say which taboos are going to fall and which will stay in place, then.

I think the requirement that all parties be capable of legal consent will stay in place. After that, all bets are off as far as I can see. Plural marriage is certainly on the table, particularly if all limits on marriage have to withstand the test of arguments made to judges instead of popular referendum. Once the rational arguments against whatever consenting adults can think up to do are being disallowed as bigoted and narrow-minded by the courts, I would not be so sure I know what boundaries will hold. As for what the Church will teach is and is not a marriage, though, that will not change.

 

[Estevao]

If procreation is in principle impossible, marriage is irrelevant. It’s simple, “gay marriage” is a logical contradiction.

youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc