A
atassina
Guest
Are there natural law arguments that prohibit “gay marriage”? How can we demonstrate that “gay marriage” is bad for society without using theology or scripture?
- Status
M
Mater
Guest
This might give you some information to start with. It is NOT from a Catholic perspective. It is written by two academics, one of whom is self-described as gay. It lays a case against gay marriage. I don’t think they cover everything, but make some very good points.
Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage
KATHERINE YOUNG AND PAUL NATHANSON
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0064.html
Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage
KATHERINE YOUNG AND PAUL NATHANSON
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0064.html
S
stephe1987
Guest
- Children thrive and do better in society with BOTH parents. Men and women complement each other in the family. Kids learn some things from their mothers, others from their fathers. They need two-parent household, one man, one woman.
- Gays have a much higher risk of HIV/AIDS (44x more than heterosexual males) and other STDs. They are also at risk for certain cancers, especially anal cancers, which are almost nonexistant in non-gay men.
- Homosexual acts are more harmful to health than smoking. Active homosexuals have shorter lifespans than smokers.
- Heterosexual marriages improve health.
- Gays are 14x more likely to attempt suicide, 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.
I’ve also read that 75% of gay men come from homes without fathers. They end up needing and seeking male approval in sexual ways. Gays need counselling and a positive male influence/role model, not to be having sex with other men (bad health effects).
J
jmj603
Guest
You can make a strong argument, in Darwinian algorithmic terms, that gay marriage is a random mutation which will NOT improve the survivability of our country and civilization in a competition for resources with other peoples.
A
atassina
Guest
Thanks. I have never thought of that.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
The way you guys talk is as if legal marriage will cause more people to be gay, and you also talk as if only men have homosexual sex. Yes, unprotected anal sex is the riskiest form of sex that humans are capable of, but it’s equally true that lesbian sex is the least risky form.
Unless you personally are gay, allowing gay marriage will not affect you or your life. Why do you care?
Unless you personally are gay, allowing gay marriage will not affect you or your life. Why do you care?
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Well, it’s a good thing then that we don’t use Darwinian evolution as the basis of our laws. Evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive – it tells us how we got here, not how we should act.
Incidentally, “gay marriage” isn’t a “mutation” – it’s a social institution.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
This is an argument against allowing gay couples to adopt, not against gay marriage.
This is an argument against promiscuous unprotected sex, not against gay marriage.
In the first place, you’re arguing against homosexual acts, here, not marriage specifically. And in the second place, the practice you pick as a comparison – smoking – is perfectly legal.
This is an argument from heterosexuals to get married, not against gay marriage.
Again, this does not speak to gay marriage as an issue.
You don’t seem to understand the first thing about argumentation.
R
rossum
Guest
This is a weak argument. Studies indicate that female relatives of gay men have more babies than average, which is why the gene persists. See Why Gays Don’t Go Extinct.
An opponent who is aware of that study will shoot down your argument in flames.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
That is more of an argument against gay adoption rather than against gay marriage per se.
Another weak argument. Lesbians have lower rates of STDs than male or female heterosexuals. This is an argument for lesbian marriage.
Some homosexual acts are indeed very harmful. Unprotected sex with an infected individual is harmful in heterosexuals as well. Is that an excuse to forbid heterosexual marriage?
And how do you know that gay marriages will not also improve health? You have no comparative figures to go on.
So if other people stop persecuting them and let them get married to the person they love perhaps those suicide rates would come down. You just told us that marriage improves health so why do you want to keep such a panacea away form some of your fellow citizens?
You have some very weak arguments there.
rossum
C
Captain_America
Guest
The old Argument from Body Parts still is compelling to me. Diss me all you want! 
J
jmj603
Guest
Try reading my comment next time.
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
I find most of that to be highly dubious…
J
jmj603
Guest
A
atassina
Guest
I truly enjoyed your responses and found them right on. I wish I had thought of them. The clarity of your responses was excellent. Nevertheless, the quote from Thomas Jefferson is defective because he assumes spiritual things are material. St. Augustine had this problem with evil more than 1,700 years ago. Read his"Confessions".
T
twoangels
Guest
The issue is not “Should gays be allowed to marry?” but rather “What is marriage?” Gay marriage is an attack on the traditional understanding of marriage. It is an attack that only comes because the traditional understanding of marriage has already come under attack with no fault divorce and with the societal acceptance of cohabitation and even sex prior to marriage. Contraceptives have also contributed to the attack.
Ultimately, the tradtional purpose of marriage has always been to hold heterosexuals responsible for the effects of their sexual union - namely children. It is the institution that has kept men involved with their children, rather than impregnanting a woman and running off leaving her with the kid. It says that heterosexual relations are so serious and effect so many lives, that couples have a moral responsibility to publically commit to the idea of marriage (husband, wife, children, grandchildren…ie the family) ideally before they get pregnant. This is also why traditionally if pregnancy occurred prior to marriage or simply outside of marriage, the young couple was often rushed into marriage.
The issue is our society does not like this purpose to marriage and actually considers this form of marriage to be self destructive. They blame traditional marriage for causing the unhappiness and even abuse of married couples and their children.
But weddings still occur today and people still cling sort of to the idea of family in a very lose mentality. What we have are heterosexuals who idolize the concept of romantic love. Interestingly enough, romantic love historically has not been considered the primary reason to marry and used to be simply blamed for adultery. It was always understood to be a short-lived experience that led people to imprudent and even harmful decisions. It was a temptation. The idea that two people could be “in love” for the long term is an ideal that currently our culture is constantly searching for. Many couples today “marry” to celebrate something they see as having already begun (a successful loving commitment) rather than entering a new commitment (marriage) out of a sense of duty, responsibility and good will. You can see this change in approach to marriage in comparing traditional wedding vows and the “personalized” wedding vows that are popularized today.
In the end, people who support the idea of gay marriage, support the idea that marriage exists solely for the good of the couple and not the good of society. The couple is not serving society by marrying, but rather are now seen as asking for legal recognition with legal benefits. They see it as the government serving them and as a way to seek affirmation and to further normalize homosexual relationships. They in effect are not seeking to marry at all, nor would I say are a lot of heterosexual couples. Marriage as an institution is falling apart and the “gay marriage movement” is simply one small bomb of many to destroy not simply marriage, but to completely whip out the last remnants of traditional marriage and make it even more difficult to restore marriage to its purpose. Moreover as marriage is reduced more and more to a big fancy wedding and continual cohabitation, it will continually be seen as entirely optional until society starts looking at it wondering why we have the institution at all.
C
Curious_Hobbit
Guest
That was a very informative article that cited many studies. Here are some other interesting things I found on it…
" Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54
Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses."
The article also says that lesbian relationships last much longer than male homosexual relationships. It went on to conclude that marriage doesn’t civilize men, women civilize men. I think all the health risks of homosexuality are as relevant to this debate as the health risks and birth defects of incest. What authority does the state have to ban incest? What authority does the state have to tell you that you can’t marry your close relative?
S
Seeker2010
Guest
The difference is that homosexual behavior puts at risk only those who choose to participate, and presumably they know (or should know) what those risks are. On the other hand, the risks involved with incest are borne by someone else.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Not if they have protected sex.
Oh, unless you are talking about the immorality of incest.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
Huh?
If two men decide to have sex with each other, they are both potentially opening themselves up to health risks. They can take steps to protect themselves, though they are not perfect, but they have voluntarily taken on a known risk.
If a brother and a sister have sex, they could create a baby with severe genetic malformations, therefore an incestuous couple is putting the burden of risk onto someone else.
If a gay couple having sex put MY or YOUR health at risk, we would have standing to prevent it, but it doesn’t. Incest is a different story.
- Status