Why are gay marriages wrong?

[fix]

If a gay couple get’s married by, let’s say, a judge, how does that take away from any one else? I mean you can be repulsed by it and think they are the biggest sinners of our times, but it has nothing to do with your life.

Can’t atheist get married?

A few years back, I wouldn’t have been allowed to marry my husband, b/c I am black and he is white.

I’m all about equal rights.

There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. Changing the meaning of marriage effects all marriages.

 

[actorgirl]

There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. Changing the meaning of marriage effects all marriages.

ok, they change the meaning to union between two people. How does that change anyone elses life? Everytime a new state was added, it didn’t make current citizens less American.

 

[utica]

Robert P. George has an excellent natural law argument against gay marriage and supporting the traditional one man one woman definition of marriage in his book The Clash of Orthodoxies.

I highly recommend it. His argument never brings God into the question, which can be very helpful with folks who dismiss any arguments that are religiously based.

This is George’s natural law definition of marriage:*"Here is the core of the traditional understanding: Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect (or are motivated, even in part, by a desire to reproduce). The bodily union of spouses in marital acts is the biological matrix of their marriage as a multi-level relationship: that is, a relationship that unites persons at the bodily, emotional, dispositional, and spiritual levels of their being. Marriage, precisely as such a relationship , is naturally ordered to the good of procreation (and to the nurturing and education of children) as well as to the good of spousal unity, and these goods are tightly bound together. **The distinctive unity of spouses is possible *because **human (like other mammalian) males and females, by mating, unite organically - they become a single reproductive principle. Although reproduction is a single act, in humans (and other mammals) the reproductive act is performed not by individual members of the species, but by a mated pair as an organic unit."

 

[fix]

ok, they change the meaning to union between two people. How does that change anyone elses life? Everytime a new state was added, it didn’t make current citizens less American.

If we now include elephants under the definition of ants does that not change what we mean by ants?

 

[actorgirl]

There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. Changing the meaning of marriage effects all marriages.

If we now include elephants under the definition of ants does that not change what we mean by ants?

That’s not the same thing at all. But for the sake of argument…“hey I just saw an ant” “What kind. Big or small?” “Big” “ok”

It doesn’t really affect the original ant. Ant not all mad. He still an ant, just not the only kind.

 

[fix]

That’s not the same thing at all. But for the sake of argument…“hey I just saw an ant” “What kind. Big or small?” “Big” “ok”

It doesn’t really affect the original ant. Ant not all mad. He still an ant, just not the only kind.

In reality it is not simply a matter of nomenclature, but changing the definition of words to change how we view reality is a disservice to all.

Once we artificially change a natural institution to please some subset of the population who has no right to redefine marriage we have changed how we view marriage, how we raise the next generation, and how we grasp what is true and what is false.

 

[Courtneyjo]

What is the purpose of marriage? Catholics believe that it to help the spouse to get to Heaven.

So then what is the purpose of a civil marriage? It doesn’t have to do with God or love. Marriage between a man a woman is in the best interest of the state. Why?

 

[goofyjim]

Gay sex is medically unhealthy. There is nothing unhealthy about ssa and evidence is mounting that there are prenatal, hormonal influences that predispose one towards ssa so it doesn’t and may not be able to be changed. So we reach out to them in love and support them in celibacy not bang them over the head and tell them to change their attraction.

 

[StevenFrancis]

As a catholic I know gay sex and gay marriages are wrong. The Church says it’s wrong because it goes against the order of nature.

Problem is … how do I convince people that it’s wrong without resorting to religion?

There are no studies that prove that being in a gay relationship is harmful, there are no studies that show that kids growing up in gay families are any worse off then those growing up in straight families … if you know of any, that would be helpful.

How do we claim that it is wrong in today’s secular and humanist world without looking like intolerant bigots?

Marriage is a religious institution, so having a debate about it without “resorting to religion” is not possible.

There are interesting and valid debates going on regarding partner benefits, civil unions and such, but why everyone insists on referring to marriage is beyond me.

There might be a case for gay civil unions, and the goverment of a country deciding it is ethically correct to allow the transmittal of spousal type benefits between not only homosexual couples, but say a couple of celibate friends or relatives who cohabitate for whatever reason and depend on each other in a civil and legal way. Why couldn’t they file joint tax returns, and leave death benefits, etc?

Why is there an insistence by homosexual partners in particular that these relationships be condoned and accepted under the religious institute of marriage? And if the people you are arguing with don’t want religion brought into the subject, then they should be fine and dandy with the civil union debate anyway!! If they are after something other than civil unions then they are the ones insisting that religion be part of the debate?

Does anyone else see this? If God is seperated out of this relationship discussion, then you’re discussing civil unions to begin with.

In that case, a healthy and reasonable debate can be made.

Peace be with you,

Steven

 

[Mirdath]

Gay sex is medically unhealthy. There is nothing unhealthy about ssa and evidence is mounting that there are prenatal, hormonal influences that predispose one towards ssa so it doesn’t and may not be able to be changed. So we reach out to them in love and support them in celibacy not bang them over the head and tell them to change their attraction.

All sex is unhealthy, and anal sex specifically – whether hetero- or homosexual – is no exception. Nor, however, is it that much more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex. Monogamy reduces risks, but they still exist.

Breathing’s unhealthy too. Gives you cancer. I heard it best expressed once: ‘Life is a fatal, sexually transmitted disease’.

Steven: it’s because the language of government includes the term ‘marriage’. Take that word out, put it back in the domain of the churches, and give everyone civil unions; I’m sure you’ll see the end of the issue quite quickly.

 

[christcnection1]

You know, I’m getting *really *tired of people saying that those who don’t like to invoke the divine in public debate don’t belive in absolute truth.

They don’t believe that what you believe is true. ← That’s not a statement indictative of a subjectivist viewpoint.

In fact, I wonder if *any *reasonable person believes in moral relativism.

I think a very valid point was made here, but needed to be expounded upon.

The truth is, if there is no God, there cannot be an objective moral law. You can believe in absolute truth if you’re an atheist, but if there is no God, your opinion is merely subjective anyway.

Now sticking to the original question, I would have to ask, well, is anything objectively wrong with anything?

If there is no God, there is no objective moral law. If God exists, what did God reveal? This then becomes the basis of the issue.

If the Nazi’s ruled the world, killed off all those who disagreed, would there actions still be alright? Of course not - because their actions are objectively evil. (Because God exists.)

Very simple concept… I think that was the point trying to be made.

 

[goofyjim]

All sex is unhealthy, and anal sex specifically – whether hetero- or homosexual – is no exception. Nor, however, is it that much more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex. Monogamy reduces risks, but they still exist.

Breathing’s unhealthy too. Gives you cancer. I heard it best expressed once: ‘Life is a fatal, sexually transmitted disease’.

Steven: it’s because the language of government includes the term ‘marriage’. Take that word out, put it back in the domain of the churches, and give everyone civil unions; I’m sure you’ll see the end of the issue quite quickly.

All sex is not unhealthy. There are medical reasons why anal sex and oral sex is. Genital sex, unless one partner is already infected, does not carry health risks. I suggest you read some books by doctors on this before you make such silly accusations.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet or not, but I will say it: there ARE studies that show the gay sex is harmful. There ARE studies that, at the very least, show that father-less homes cause problems for kids. I don’t know about mother-less (that happens far less often, I think). Sign up for Life Site News; www.lifesitenews.com They have unbiased, up-to-date reports on the pro-family front, including information about gay relationships, and how they are harmful. A lot of so-called pedophilia seems to be homosexual in nature as well. Look at all the pedophilic priests: they went after young BOYS, not girls, as far as I know. I have also read statistics on how gay relationships are very short. It’s rare to find a gay guy who has a committed, long-term partner. The majority of them go from sex partner to sex partner. You’ll have to do some digging, but these articles can be found. Don’t be afraid to bring up God. People want to argue stuff without bringing religion into it, well, too bad. You wouldn’t exist to argue if it weren’t for the Big Guy.

 

[christcnection1]

All sex is unhealthy, and anal sex specifically – whether hetero- or homosexual – is no exception. Nor, however, is it that much more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex. Monogamy reduces risks, but they still exist.

Breathing’s unhealthy too. Gives you cancer. I heard it best expressed once: ‘Life is a fatal, sexually transmitted disease’.

Steven: it’s because the language of government includes the term ‘marriage’. Take that word out, put it back in the domain of the churches, and give everyone civil unions; I’m sure you’ll see the end of the issue quite quickly.

When you say unhealthy, what do you mean?

Certainly “life” and “health” itself would not exist had there not been heterosexual interactions. I should not need to expand on this simple point.

I think you would find even many secularists who believe that sex can bring great physical health benefits. As Catholics, we believe that sex in the proper context has positive health benefits in a holistic sense.

I’m sorry, I cannot embrace a fatalistic view of this life:

‘Life is a fatal, sexually transmitted disease’.

Although, I used to be a vocal nonbeliever, I now have great hope, for great reason, and have found great joy through the adventure.

Whether things are healthy or unhealthy in the natural realm, there is great opportunity to bring life in the spirit realm. If God does not exist, your definition of health is subjective. (In that case none of us are right or wrong, and ultimately nothing matters.)

 

[Mirdath]

All sex is not unhealthy. There are medical reasons why anal sex and oral sex is. Genital sex, unless one partner is already infected, does not carry health risks. I suggest you read some books by doctors on this before you make such silly accusations.

Never heard of yeast infections, I take it? Or fallen off the bed?

Jim, other than ‘Catholics don’t do it’, have you seen any point made here that didn’t boil down to ‘ew, queers’? I haven’t. It’s fine if some people think other people are weird in bed; there are some kinks I don’t get at all myself. But to try to set divine fiat against what you yourself think isn’t normal is, shall we say, overreaching.

christcnection1:

I think you would find even many secularists who believe that sex can bring great physical health benefits. As Catholics, we believe that sex in the proper context has positive health benefits in a holistic sense.

I’m one of those secularists! However, to say that any activity that stresses the body is entirely healthy is false. Certainly I believe the benefits from sexual activity, both in physical health and in emotional and mental health, outweigh the risks – in vaginal, anal, and oral sex all.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet or not, but I will say it: there ARE studies that show the gay sex is harmful. There ARE studies that, at the very least, show that father-less homes cause problems for kids. I don’t know about mother-less (that happens far less often, I think). Sign up for Life Site News; www.lifesitenews.com They have unbiased, up-to-date reports on the pro-family front, including information about gay relationships, and how they are harmful. A lot of so-called pedophilia seems to be homosexual in nature as well. Look at all the pedophilic priests: they went after young BOYS, not girls, as far as I know. I have also read statistics on how gay relationships are very short. It’s rare to find a gay guy who has a committed, long-term partner. The majority of them go from sex partner to sex partner. You’ll have to do some digging, but these articles can be found. Don’t be afraid to bring up God. People want to argue stuff without bringing religion into it, well, too bad. You wouldn’t exist to argue if it weren’t for the Big Guy.

Fr. Groeschel, in The Courage To Be Chaste, says that many, if not most, homosexuals simply live a quiet celibate single life without ever telling anyone. He should know. He has counselled extensively in this area.

While the majority of pedophiles may be homosexual, one cannot reverse the claim and say the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This would lead one to make an erroneous assumption about those with ssa.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

Fr. Groeschel, in The Courage To Be Chaste, says that many, if not most, homosexuals simply live a quiet celibate single life without ever telling anyone. He should know. He has counselled extensively in this area.

While the majority of pedophiles may be homosexual, one cannot reverse the claim and say the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This would lead one to make an erroneous assumption about those with ssa.

Yikes, I wasn’t even thinking in that direction. 0.o I totally wasn’t trying to accuse those who suffer from SSA (which I see as different from those who identify themselves as being ‘gay’) of being pedophiles as well! I’m not sure what point you extrapolated from my post, but I did not intend it at all.

 

[Mirdath]

While the majority of pedophiles may be homosexual, one cannot reverse the claim and say the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This would lead one to make an erroneous assumption about those with ssa.

According to the Journal of Sex and Medical Therapy, the ratio is actually 11 heterosexual pedophiles for every individual homosexual pedophile. Eleven to one. Given the fuzziness of the statistics and the groups we’re speaking of, this does not indicate any correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia at all, let alone causation.

Also, I’ve had the dubious privilege of reading some articles from LifeSiteNews; ‘unbiased’ is not a word I would use to describe their content.

 

[goofyjim]

Never heard of yeast infections, I take it? Or fallen off the bed?

Jim, other than ‘Catholics don’t do it’, have you seen any point made here that didn’t boil down to ‘ew, queers’? I haven’t. It’s fine if some people think other people are weird in bed; there are some kinks I don’t get at all myself. But to try to set divine fiat against what you yourself think isn’t normal is, shall we say, overreaching.

I’m one of those secularists! However, to say that any activity that stresses the body is entirely healthy is false. Certainly I believe the benefits from sexual activity, both in physical health and in emotional and mental health, outweigh the risks – in vaginal, anal, and oral sex all.

Divine fiat agrees with me that homosexual acts are not normal.

 

[Mirdath]

Divine fiat agrees with me that homosexual acts are not normal.

You say divine fiat agrees with you. Other people say divine fiat says you can’t have a cheeseburger. Fortunately divine fiat doesn’t have a lot to do with the US legal system.

Also, I’d submit that ‘normal’ is in the eye of the beholder