Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[savedbygrace92]

Forgive me if this sounds like a dumb question.

I understand why the Church thinks same-sex marriage or relations are wrong and I can agree with the Church on this teaching. If everyone in the entire world felt this way about same-sex marriage, that would be great and there would be no debate over this.

However, people think differently are were raised differently with a diverse pool of ideas and beliefs. Not everyone is a devout Catholic—that’s why we have this separation of Church and State. I honestly feel like “the bad guy” for fighting against gay marriage.

I don’t feel like I have any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives. The LGBT community have gone through enough **** already and I feel bad trying to oppose their desires to get married (no matter how wrong it would be) by telling them that I’m against it because of my personal and faith beliefs.

Maybe the question isn’t “WHY must we fight?”, but more “HOW must we fight?” because I don’t think holding protests or telling people they are “going to hell” is the right way to do things…

 

[fix]

Forgive me if this sounds like a dumb question.

I understand why the Church thinks same-sex marriage or relations are wrong and I can agree with the Church on this teaching. If everyone in the entire world felt this way about same-sex marriage, that would be great and there would be no debate over this.

However, people think differently are were raised differently with a diverse pool of ideas and beliefs. Not everyone is a devout Catholic—that’s why we have this separation of Church and State. I honestly feel like “the bad guy” for fighting against gay marriage.

I don’t feel like I have any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives. The LGBT community have gone through enough **** already and I feel bad trying to oppose their desires to get married (no matter how wrong it would be) by telling them that I’m against it because of my personal and faith beliefs.

Maybe the question isn’t “WHY must we fight?”, but more “HOW must we fight?” because I don’t think holding protests or telling people they are “going to hell” is the right way to do things…

Do you think it is right that same sex persons adopt children? Do you feel bad for them? Do you feel bad that schools, and society, teach everyone that gravely immoral behavior is good?

I ask because the focus by some seems to be about an emotionalistic response to an individual subset of the population without regard to the rest of society.

 

[livingwordunity]

We must fight against so-called “same-sex marriage” because it’s a lie, and it’s something that will further the confusion of gender roles and the destruction of families which are the most basic building blocks of society. It’s not charitable to be content that I know the truth and not want to share that truth with others for the sake of their salvation when I know that they are on a path to eternal spiritual destruction. The traditional family is the domestic church even if people are of a different religion or even of no religion and don’t know it. That’s why Satan is currently launching a direct attack on it. The fact that many don’t realize that this is a spiritual battle doesn’t change the fact that it is.

 

[Shlomo]

In principle, you are right: the world is going to dogs anyway, let everyone go to hell the way he likes.

On the other hand, the position of gays is not exactly the above mentioned. They insist on defining their unions as nothing less than exactly the same institution as bisexual marriage which existed millenniums before. They do not accept any other definition like “civil pact” which would give them exactly the same rights.

So, all of a sudden I and my wife find ourselves in the very same kind of union the gays are! But we did not mean this! That is sheer violence which is unacceptable. In other words, they don’t just want go peacefully their own way, they insist on us accompanying them.

But we can do nothing about this my friend - the world is doomed and the things only will go worse. The only thing we might ask now is to define our marriage as some special kind (like “traditional family”) but forget about this as well - gay pressure groups will destroy such project as human rights violation.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Do you think it is right that same sex persons adopt children? Do you feel bad for them? Do you feel bad that schools, and society, teach everyone that gravely immoral behavior is good?

I ask because the focus by some seems to be about an emotionalistic response to an individual subset of the population without regard to the rest of society.

AMEN!

 

[Jules_Verne]

“Why do we need to fight against same sex marriage?”

Because the Church seeks to distract from the pedophilia scandal, and rather than focus on the fact that the church still employs cardinals and priests who personally helped cover up child sex abuse, they seek to shift attention to gays to avoid taking full responsibility and making attrition for one of the biggest betrayals of humanity in the history of religion.

It isn’t working.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

Well you’re right about one thing, protesting and telling people that they’re going to hell aren’t good or even productive ways of fighting same-sex marriage. The only solution to any problem or disagreement is to gain a better understanding of it. My reasons for opposing same-sex marriage aren’t strictly religion-based in thinking that it is immoral or ‘unchristian.’ For example, a person is neither born “staight” or “gay.” Sexual orientiation is just that, its something that you must be *oriented *into. The question is: Which is more healthy? Heterosexual or homosexual orientation? I’ve read psychological analysis’ of many homosexual patients who fear persueing the opposite sex due to a rape or molestation that occured in their childhood. The portion of attention one parent gives over another and at the duration of which period in the person’s life has a major influence in sexual orientation as well, so I can only imagine how negatively a 50% divorce rate effects sexual orientation! Ultimately, I am against santifying something that is likely the result of childhood trauma or unorthodox devopment. However, some also orient themselves into being capable of persuing homosexual relationships, usually bisexuals obtain this. Of course, these people would have no regard for religious or conservative value. Where conservatives see meaning and standards, liberals question why those should be our purpose and standards. Who is to say that many of us wouldn’t ‘experiment’ with homosexual intercourse if we didn’t have the values that we did? I mean, once one realizes that women aren’t the only source of sexual stiulation, the possibilities are pretty much endless. Women often find that other women make for better intercourse then men because they have a better understanding of female anatomy and arousal then men ever will (am I right, fellas?)

Ultimately, however, anal sex is dangerous, and homosexual relationships I believe should be considered socially unorthodox. I remember once on my birthday my family took a trip to Disney World and they were celebrating “gay-pride weekend.” A four-year old girl asked her father, "Daddy, why are those two men kissing?"If they see something wrong with it before an age that they can develope social or religious bias, then clearly there is something wrong with it. I cannot fathom introducing homosexual Disney characters to our children to be viewed as ‘orthodox’ to our children.

However, this does not mean that we should shun, attack, or judge those of a homosexual orientation. In fact, acceptance rather than rejection shows a tendancy towards heterosexual behavior rather than homosexual. As a form of therapy, many homosexuals hang out with straight individuals to further their heterosexual orientation. So in short, remember to be inclusive to your homosexual neighbors but keep your religious values.

God bless.

 

[fix]

“Why do we need to fight against same sex marriage?”

Because the Church seeks to distract from the pedophilia scandal, and rather than focus on the fact that the church still employs cardinals and priests who personally helped cover up child sex abuse, they seek to shift attention to gays to avoid taking full responsibility and making attrition for one of the biggest betrayals of humanity in the history of religion.

It isn’t working.

Pedophilia? No, it was not about that. The victims were mostly post pubescent. Draw your own conclusions.

In any event, such wrong behavior does not negate the truth of the teaching regarding the intrinsic wrongness of same sex sexual actions.

 

[stewstew03]

Forgive me if this sounds like a dumb question.

I understand why the Church thinks same-sex marriage or relations are wrong and I can agree with the Church on this teaching. If everyone in the entire world felt this way about same-sex marriage, that would be great and there would be no debate over this.

However, people think differently are were raised differently with a diverse pool of ideas and beliefs. Not everyone is a devout Catholic—that’s why we have this separation of Church and State. I honestly feel like “the bad guy” for fighting against gay marriage.

I don’t feel like I have any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives. The LGBT community have gone through enough **** already and I feel bad trying to oppose their desires to get married (no matter how wrong it would be) by telling them that I’m against it because of my personal and faith beliefs.

Maybe the question isn’t “WHY must we fight?”, but more “HOW must we fight?” because I don’t think holding protests or telling people they are “going to hell” is the right way to do things…

Because same-sex “marriage” can never be equal to heterosexual marriage by virtue of the fact that the former can never serve as a building block for any civilization.

 

[someperson555]

you are right. i agree with you completely. marriage is a civil matter. for us, its spiritual as well, but not everyone follows our ways. its wrong to try to force our ways unto others.

 

[fix]

you are right. i agree with you completely. marriage is a civil matter. for us, its spiritual as well, but not everyone follows our ways. its wrong to try to force our ways unto others.

So if three brothers wish to marry that would be ok?

 

[savedbygrace92]

Do you think it is right that same sex persons adopt children? Do you feel bad for them? Do you feel bad that schools, and society, teach everyone that gravely immoral behavior is good?

I ask because the focus by some seems to be about an emotionalistic response to an individual subset of the population without regard to the rest of society.

Good questions.

I think it comes down to individual morality (what you personally think is right and wrong) and objective morality (what everyone should think is right or wrong). Unfortunately, I feel like most of the people I’ve encountered (or maybe it’s because my college campus is pretty liberal) are either for gay rights or don’t even have an opinion on it. I think gay marriage would be objectively wrong, but not everyone sees it that way.

How are we supposed to present our beliefs to people who feel like we’re just shoving our morality down their throats? Maybe I’m being overtly cynical, but I honestly feel like fighting against this issue would be futile. On a small scale, I know that I can be accepting and non-judgemental of my gay friends. I can slowly try to guide them towards Christ. But on a larger scale, I honestly can’t see entire countries fighting against this and making a huge difference.

 

[stewstew03]

So if three brothers wish to marry that would be ok?

Or Father-Son, Mother-Daughter? Whole families could just marry one another - and why not? The possibilities are endless…

 

[MartinMark]

Most of Paul’s New Testament letters include the subject of adultery immediately. With his first, Romans, he addresses same sex with…"…God handed them over to degrading…Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise…for one another." Romans 1: 26-27

I must fight same-sex marriage; the Bible clearly tells me to.

Thanks,
Marty

 

[DWGarvin]

Marriage, in my dictionary, is defined as a “legal union between a man and a woman to form a family, often to have children.” (or words to that effect).

In our society, we have this “thing” called “marriage”. It wasn’t invented by homophobic Christian radicals in the 1930s. It developed in every single nation on earth as the building block of our various societies. There are some societies in which the model is polygamous, but in every case the relations are heterosexual because it is the only model in which our society propagates itself. As an institution, it predates Christianity by hundreds or thousands of years.

Now, in our society, there is a statistically insignificant number of people who are homosexual. (2-3% or so). These people want to marry, and that’s fine, because there isn’t and neverhas been a law stating that one must be heterosexual to marry. Our society has four components to marriage:

1. 
   *]Age
   *]Number
   *]Gender
   *]Blood.
   
   All of these components are necessary, not so much to protect the participants, but rather to ensure the ideal situation for the offspring.
   Age: Persons entering marriage are making a contract. To do so, they must be of an age that will make their contract legal. It is of their own volition, and they cannot be forced into it.
   Number: Although in some societies there are plural marriages with many partners, our society has deemed that the ideal model for the children is to have one father and one mother. Psychologists have long determined this to be the ideal for children for very many reasons.
   Gender: Twenty years ago, this would be a no-brainer; however, our messed up, socially regressive society no longer sees the importance of having two genders. Without two genders, it is physically impossible to have offspring. As well, the ideal situation for a child to be raised in is to be raised by his or her biological mother and biological father. Yes, some children are raised in orphanages, but the guardians are not parents. And let us not forget that the role of the father differs from the role of the mother. Significantly.
   Blood: Blood relatives cannot marry because if they do, they will have defective children. There is not much else to say about this.
   
   So, given all of the above, how can one argue for homosexual couplings to be put on the same level as marriage? Maybe they want recognition. That’s fine. But they cannot have children, which is a necessary component of marriage. If it weren’t then why the four components above? I mean, they may think that it’s against their rights, and hey, it won’t affect you and me right? Right? WRONG! It reduces the roles and rights of fathers and mothers to that of “generic parent.” I’ve personally seen this when I recently applied for my daughter’s long-form birth certificate from the Canadian province of Ontario. There was a spot to check off your relationship to the person in the certificate. The choices? “Mother” and “Other Parent”. I sent off a long-winded email to complain, but in their oh-so-politically correct atmosphere in Ontario, they were more afraid to offend some homosexual “parent” than the millions of fathers in that province…
   
   So, this leads me to my final point: why does the state (eg: the government) offer various tax-incentives to people that get married? Put simply: to encourage it because it is good for the state. In short, it makes new people and sustains the state. Homosexual couplings have NO benefit to society, and in fact, I would argue that it reinforces unhealthy behaviour and ignores their psychological or physiological defect that causes them to shun natural behaviour for dangerous and unhealthy behaviour. In fact, it’s gotten so bad, that if you support marriage in its natural form, you are somehow a bigot. (That I cannot fathom). Hell, I’m all for equal rights for blind people, folks, but I don’t want then driving cars! And that’s my point: you can restrict or discriminate based on disability when it makes sense. And for marriage, why we would alter the definition of “family” to include a model that gives no benefit?
   
   So, that’s why we must fight against altering the definition of marriage.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Marriage, in my dictionary, is defined as a “legal union between a man and a woman to form a family, often to have children.” (or words to that effect).

In our society, we have this “thing” called “marriage”. It wasn’t invented by homophobic Christian radicals in the 1930s. It developed in every single nation on earth as the building block of our various societies. There are some societies in which the model is polygamous, but in every case the relations are heterosexual because it is the only model in which our society propagates itself. As an institution, it predates Christianity by hundreds or thousands of years.

Now, in our society, there is a statistically insignificant number of people who are homosexual. (2-3% or so). These people want to marry, and that’s fine, because there isn’t and neverhas been a law stating that one must be heterosexual to marry. Our society has four components to marriage:

1. 
   *]Age
   *]Number
   *]Gender
   *]Blood.
   
   All of these components are necessary, not so much to protect the participants, but rather to ensure the ideal situation for the offspring.
   Age: Persons entering marriage are making a contract. To do so, they must be of an age that will make their contract legal. It is of their own volition, and they cannot be forced into it.
   Number: Although in some societies there are plural marriages with many partners, our society has deemed that the ideal model for the children is to have one father and one mother. Psychologists have long determined this to be the ideal for children for very many reasons.
   Gender: Twenty years ago, this would be a no-brainer; however, our messed up, socially regressive society no longer sees the importance of having two genders. Without two genders, it is physically impossible to have offspring. As well, the ideal situation for a child to be raised in is to be raised by his or her biological mother and biological father. Yes, some children are raised in orphanages, but the guardians are not parents. And let us not forget that the role of the father differs from the role of the mother. Significantly.
   Blood: Blood relatives cannot marry because if they do, they will have defective children. There is not much else to say about this.
   
   So, given all of the above, how can one argue for homosexual couplings to be put on the same level as marriage? Maybe they want recognition. That’s fine. But they cannot have children, which is a necessary component of marriage. If it weren’t then why the four components above? I mean, they may think that it’s against their rights, and hey, it won’t affect you and me right? Right? WRONG! It reduces the roles and rights of fathers and mothers to that of “generic parent.” I’ve personally seen this when I recently applied for my daughter’s long-form birth certificate from the Canadian province of Ontario. There was a spot to check off your relationship to the person in the certificate. The choices? “Mother” and “Other Parent”. I sent off a long-winded email to complain, but in their oh-so-politically correct atmosphere in Ontario, they were more afraid to offend some homosexual “parent” than the millions of fathers in that province…
   
   So, this leads me to my final point: why does the state (eg: the government) offer various tax-incentives to people that get married? Put simply: to encourage it because it is good for the state. In short, it makes new people and sustains the state. Homosexual couplings have NO benefit to society, and in fact, I would argue that it reinforces unhealthy behaviour and ignores their psychological or physiological defect that causes them to shun natural behaviour for dangerous and unhealthy behaviour. In fact, it’s gotten so bad, that if you support marriage in its natural form, you are somehow a bigot. (That I cannot fathom). Hell, I’m all for equal rights for blind people, folks, but I don’t want then driving cars! And that’s my point: you can restrict or discriminate based on disability when it makes sense. And for marriage, why we would alter the definition of “family” to include a model that gives no benefit?
   
   So, that’s why we must fight against altering the definition of marriage.

1. 
   Thanks for that excellent post!
   
   And welcome to CAF!
   
   We need more members from your country to rebut the now favored snicker by the pro-gay ‘marriage’ folks that the sky has not yet fallen or society has not yet collapsed in Canada since same sex ‘marriage’ became legal there in 2005.
   ,

 

[belorg]

Now, in our society, there is a statistically insignificant number of people who are homosexual. (2-3% or so). These people want to marry, and that’s fine, because there isn’t and neverhas been a law stating that one must be heterosexual to marry. Our society has four components to marriage:

1. 
   *]Age
   *]Number
   *]Gender
   *]Blood.
   
   All of these components are necessary, not so much to protect the participants, but rather to ensure the ideal situation for the offspring.
   Age: Persons entering marriage are making a contract. To do so, they must be of an age that will make their contract legal. It is of their own volition, and they cannot be forced into it.
   Number: Although in some societies there are plural marriages with many partners, our society has deemed that the ideal model for the children is to have one father and one mother. Psychologists have long determined this to be the ideal for children for very many reasons.
   Gender: Twenty years ago, this would be a no-brainer; however, our messed up, socially regressive society no longer sees the importance of having two genders. Without two genders, it is physically impossible to have offspring. As well, the ideal situation for a child to be raised in is to be raised by his or her biological mother and biological father. Yes, some children are raised in orphanages, but the guardians are not parents. And let us not forget that the role of the father differs from the role of the mother. Significantly.
   Blood: Blood relatives cannot marry because if they do, they will have defective children. There is not much else to say about this.
   
   So, given all of the above, how can one argue for homosexual couplings to be put on the same level as marriage? Maybe they want recognition. That’s fine. But they cannot have children, which is a necessary component of marriage.

1. 
   Children are not a necessary component of marriage. They may be a necessary component for most Catholic marriages, but in most countries, a civil marriage does not include any obligation to have children.
   

   If it weren’t then why the four components above? I mean, they may think that it’s against their rights, and hey, it won’t affect you and me right? Right? WRONG! It reduces the roles and rights of fathers and mothers to that of “generic parent.” I’ve personally seen this when I recently applied for my daughter’s long-form birth certificate from the Canadian province of Ontario. There was a spot to check off your relationship to the person in the certificate. The choices? “Mother” and “Other Parent”. I sent off a long-winded email to complain, but in their oh-so-politically correct atmosphere in Ontario, they were more afraid to offend some homosexual “parent” than the millions of fathers in that province…

   And exactly how does that affect you?
   

   So, this leads me to my final point: why does the state (eg: the government) offer various tax-incentives to people that get married? Put simply: to encourage it because it is good for the state.

   That’s probably correct.
   

   In short, it makes new people and sustains the state.

   That is simply false.
   

   Homosexual couplings have NO benefit to society, and in fact, I would argue that it reinforces unhealthy behaviour and ignores their psychological or physiological defect that causes them to shun natural behaviour for dangerous and unhealthy behaviour.

   There is nothing unhealthy about homosexual behaviour as such. There are lots of dangerous sexual behaviours, heterosexual as well as homosexual.
   

   In fact, it’s gotten so bad, that if you support marriage in its natural form, you are somehow a bigot. (That I cannot fathom).

   You are not a bigot for supporting marriage in its “natural” from. I respect your choice for a natural marriage. I am also “naturally” married. If someone calls you a bigot, it’s probably because you do not respect other people’s choices.
   

   Hell, I’m all for equal rights for blind people, folks, but I don’t want then driving cars! And that’s my point: you can restrict or discriminate based on disability when it makes sense. And for marriage, why we would alter the definition of “family” to include a model that gives no benefit?

   Becasue it does give benefit, you just don’t allow yourself to see it.
   

   So, that’s why we must fight against altering the definition of marriage.

   The “definition” of marriage has been continuously altered throughout history.

 

[belorg]

Thanks for that excellent post!

And welcome to CAF!

We need more members from your country to rebut the now favored snicker by the pro-gay ‘marriage’ folks that the sky has not yet fallen or society has not yet collapsed in Canada since same sex ‘marriage’ became legal there in 2005.
,

Same-sex marriage became legal in 2003 in my country, and I can asure you, the sky hasn’t fallen here either. Nor has it in any way affected me or anyone else I know.

 

[ahs]

…I don’t feel like I have any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives. The LGBT community have gone through enough **** already and I feel bad trying to oppose their desires to get married (no matter how wrong it would be) by telling them that I’m against it because of my personal and faith beliefs.

Maybe the question isn’t “WHY must we fight?”, but more “HOW must we fight?” because I don’t think holding protests or telling people they are “going to hell” is the right way to do things…

It is not that you should tell anyone how to live their lives. It is that Scripture admonishes us (in Christ’s Words no less) to correct the sinner. The reason is that their souls are at stake. In the end, it comes to Heaven or Hell, and the goal is to help each other avoid the pains of Hell.

How? Recognize sin, charitably correct the sinner, love him/her and never sacrifice Truth for sentiment. What is the more loving act…ignoring your friends’ sin and potentially let them take the path to perdition whichis wide…and many follow it…OR take the risk of being hated and correct the sin in the hopes that your friends will choose the long and narrow path, which few travel?

 

[Edward_H]

The reason we must defend the natural order is because it’s for their and everyone’s greatest good, in this life and in the next. It’s motivated out of love, seeking someone’s greatest good.