Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[Maryann_C]

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.

I came looking for this thread because I was in a thread called “say again” about advice given to a candle maker who wondered if he had a right as a Catholic to refuse his services to a gay couple. The discussion is related so I wanted to see what others were saying.

@ Living Word interestingly your point is backed up by a CNN report that I just saw.There was one person who openly said they wanted to “normalize the previously not normal” in people’s minds with popular TV shows like GLEE and The New Normal which is about 2 men marrying and wanting to have a baby through a surrogate.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

All right - I’ll bite. Explain the subtext here: how is it two men are incapable of loving one another?

Forgive me. I’ve clearly missed a point along the way here.

Your argument started off with the decay of society. It is a serious matter. It needs to be addressed. But … you went on to attack sexual gratification?

If you go back to your first post to which I replied, you said

To blame homosexuality for destroying the moral fabric of our communities, however, might be a little presumptuous.

I thereby put the homosexual movement in perspective for you, that it is admittedly a symptom more than a cause, but it is not an insignificant contribution to further moral and social decline.

Btw, it is not just me but a big contingent in civil society who do not approve of sexual gratification, e.g. , fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, masturbation, etc. Tell me, would anybody speak openly of engaging in said acts with pride?

Further, the Catholic Church also teaches against sexual pleasure, regarding it as morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. (CCC 2351).

Allow me to demonstrate the error in this line of thought.

QUESTION OPEN TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ANSWER
Who among you incites the act of marital relations with thoughts of how to feed an extra mouth, where to put the next car seat, and with the certain guilt it will be impossible to provide a college fund for any child that might result of said relations?

That’s an awkwardly posed question, but I think the poster fix gave you an excellent and simple answer.

Sexual gratification isn’t a doorway to hell. It’s a biological necessity. Without it, fear and uncertainty alone would have ended the human race a long, long time ago. We, after all, cannot predict the future. We can’t know we’ll be there for our children when they need us, or what troubles their lives may bring them. Sexual gratification is also something else: when the act is committed by two people who care about each other, enough not to leave one another in a bind without taking responsibility for the consequences of said relations, it is a sign of faith that we can handle what life throws at us.

Does that make the LGBT lifestyle indecent? No. But by design, they can never hold a child that is one half them and one half that of the person they love - knowing full well that never to be child is proof they believe in something larger. I believe it weighs heavily on the hearts of many.

The LGBT lifestyle is indecent. I don’t mean that homosexuals are working, associating, worshipping, shopping alongside us. Why should they not? They deserve dignity and respect as human beings, the same way that I would like other people to afford dignity and respect to a close family member of mine who is a homosexual. I don’t deny that a man is capable of deep love for another man, a woman for another woman. But giving homosexuals dignity and respect does not include affirmation or acceptance of gay ‘marriage’ and parenting as adoptive parents, as though their pretense or simulation of a marriage between a man and woman and natural parenting are equivalent and without harm.

You seem to believe they don’t care about morality, that they are interested in sexual gratification for the sake of gratification, that this is an equality agenda for the sake of equality.

What is the purpose in that? Adopting children they don’t want? To rub a same-sex marriage in the face of whomever they please? To sleep with as many human beings as possible - regardless of gender? To what end?

There is a simpler answer here - if you’re willing to hear it: you, my friend, lack faith in your fellow man.

I don’t follow what you are saying in this last portion of your post. But to react to your last sentence: I put my faith in the beginning when God created male and female, and the moral teaching of Holy Mother Church on the role of sex in our earthly life. This may not be what your agnostic ears are used to hearing.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

but you must realise that marriage is a convention, it is not an eternal truth nor is it part of the natural law.

But that’s my point. It is not just a convention that can change. It is a relationship that springs from who and what we are as human beings - requiring male and female to reproduce, and requiring the sacrifice of many years to raise young. Our nature does NOT change, but remains constant through history. Marriage is the institution that arises from these biological necessities. Courts and legislators can try to redefine the term “marriage” to make it fit relationships that include two same-sex persons who commit to each other in some way, but that does not truly make their union a marriage in a real sense, just as calling a man a “mother” does not really make it so. It’s a lie.

[C]
onventions change throughout history to fit the particular time and circumstances. just like politics, economics, etc. no one is proposing to eliminate or redefine the term “mother” or “father”.

Do you concede that terms like “mother” and “father” are non-alterable because they too spring from who and what a person is? Or are you saying that these terms are also “conventions” that are subject to change? Either way, I’m not sure you’re supporting your position.

someperson555:

there is a separation of church and state, before we proceed in the debate, we must ask: “what is the role of state”? that is to safegaurd the people, maintain order, and provide basic services. it is NOT to enforce any religion or spirituality, and it should not be.

The traditional definition of marriage can be supported without religious argument. But the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to governmental interference with the constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom and free speech.

someperson555:

as much as i loathe ann ryand, i still say that the state should have an objectivist approach to morality.

Live and let be works to a point. I also do not approve of government intrusion into my private affairs. But there needs to be an underlying morality present. What if two people mutually decide that the best way to resolve a dispute is by a duel to the death? Should this be legal? What about one person who willingly decides to give himself over to another person as a slave to pay off a family debt? Legal? What about a person who decides that he’s going to eat dead human bodies for nourishment. (Assume He’s not killing them or hurting anyone in the process, just eating corpses.) I know this seems unlikely, but its the logical outcome of a government that is amoral, and operates on the principle that anything goes as between consenting adults.

That being the case, I’m not advocating that same-sex couples should be disallowed, or that homosexuals living a gay lifestyle should be persecuted for their alternative lifestyle choice. My point is only this… no matter how special, loving, caring, and committed a same-sex relationship can be, it simply cannot be a marriage, any more than I could ever be a mom. (I am a dad.) And a same sex-couple simply is something other than a marriage. I think everyone in society would be happier if we stopped trying to change the institution of marriage into something it is not. It’s not taking rights away from homosexual couples when the institution that is being denied to same-sex couples is an institution that simply does not fit their chosen circumstances.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The word ‘matter’ seems to be used to mean “defined by” in this thread. I could be wrong but that is how I took it. To clarify the statement you want me to defend: Marriage is defined by human nature and not by civil authority (the state) because man was marrying before there was a state. I define marriage as a human arrangement with the purpose of creating and raising children.

I don’t believe that what you said is true. May I propose this statement as something that is based on truth?
Marriage is defined by God, our Creator. In our very nature, he inscribed His plan for marriage. The state’s only authority, all authority coming only from God, is to support His definition of marriage for the benefit of society. In that regard, marriage ‘matters’ to the state.

Are you asking if the state can pass a law to change nature; change the value of pi? No. They may try, but it is silly.

I only disagree with your selection of the word silly. It’s not as silly as it would be just plain false. And in being false, it is against God, the source of all Truth.

If you are asking if the state codified pi in law would that make pi a civil reality and not a natural reality? No, pi is natural.

No, that is not what I am asking. I asked if the state could recognize what was real? And recognizing that it is real and good for us, support persons in their natural call to real marriage. The Lord knows, with the challenges that people have with this ‘natural’ idea of marriage, they need all the help they can get.

Yes, the state changing the definition of pi makes the state wrong…

I did not say ‘change’. I said ‘recognize’. Those words are not synonyms. If you change my question to mean something totally different that what I actually said, our common understanding suffers tremendously. Please don’t do that.

The question seems backwards to me. Marriage preceded the state, so the question would be: Why did the state feel a need to inject itself into regulating marriage? and now defining what marriage is? Questions I’d like the pro same-sex marriage folks to answer.

Ponder this. God’s law preceded the state. Should the state refuse to ‘inject’ itself into basic issues of right and wrong, like ‘Thou shalt not murder’? If I apply your logic, the answer is no. If the state cannot support anything that came from God, then what is it left to do. Support only those things that are not from God?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

the fact is that there are far greater evils in society which must be dealt with first. i have yet see the pope issue an encyclical condemning smoking. i have yet to see a catholic movement calling to outlaw alcohol. yet alcohol and tobacco cause more pain and suffering than two gay people getting married. yet i am to believe that gay marriage is the worst possible thing that could happen to america and that everything up untill now was just great?
i will support the movement to oppose homosexual marriage when i see a catholic movement to ban tobacco.

That logic is flawed. Unfortunately I have heard it used frequently by people who can’t come up with other good reasons not to support something that is good. If it were logical argument, then all of humanity would be constrained to focusing on one, and only one problem, and nothing else, until it was solved. Who wrote that rule? Holding what is good hostage like that is just plain ridiculous.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

but seriously, regardless of what the moral theologians say, how can smoking during pregnancy be a-ok, but homosexuality be “gravely evil”??

Perhaps the answer lies in a better focus on the term ‘homosexuality’. Do you mean tendencies, or acts. If you mean ‘acts’, then look no further to the spread of AIDS and its devastating effects on life and economy for the indication of it’s evil. Have you read the history of the spread of AIDS (originally called GRIDS) from the earliest days? If not, please educate yourself on the very real dangers and damage of homosexual acts.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

…we have no right to define marriage for non-catholics.

Nor do non-catholics have a right to re-define marriage for us, or for themselves. Marriage is what it has been from the beginning, whether or not you are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other faith tradition. Political attempts to stretch marriage to include couples that are not in a marital relationship will be the moral equivalent of adopting a lie.

someperson555:

as for raising children, gay couples can adopt just like single people. in such cases, the gay couple could be of use to society. its better for a kid to grow up with same sex caretakers than in some orphanage…

Let’s set aside the debate over gay adoption because that is not the issue. The relevant point is that the nature of the marital institution is that it supports and strengthens the creation of new lives and the rearing of those new lives within a stable and protected environment that includes both biological parents. By it’s nature, a same-sex union does not support the creation of new life, and any children reared in such a union are by the very nature fo the union deprived of at least one of their biological parents.

Peace,
Robert

 

[IrenePHD]

My opposition to “gay marriage” is rooted in the foundation of the Truth given by God to Catholicism.

My public opposition to it, however, is based on the simple fact it is destructive to the family unit, and the family unit is the foundation of society. It corrupts gender roles, distressing children, gay relationships are more prone to domestic violence, alcohol and substence abuse, their rates of cheating and promosicuity is increased. A homosexual union can NEVER produce children, and as a tax payer I feel agrieved paying funds to support Larry and Chuck’s gay union. Under NZL law they get the same tax breaks as a heterosexual married couple with children. I want my tax dollars supporting the future generation, not paying to put a new leather sofa in their sitting room. - Okay, that’s gross generalisation, but my point stands.

If “gay marriage” got on the same level as real marriage, then they will be allowed to adopt, and a child has a right to a mum and a dad. Sure, kids get abused in mum/dad families, but the risks are much lower if mum and dad are stable married, as opposed to Steve and Jeff.

Some studies may point to children doing better in Lesbian homes, but that study was defunked as rubbish, and generally they have more disposible income - but it takes more than money to raise a healthy child. Just look at Paris Hilton.

If we want to kick gay marriage out of society, we need to be attacking contraception. Rid ourselves and our church of it. Stand as an exmaple.

The first people into Hell are the cowards. People who are luke warm and fuss about over not wanting to hurt people’s feelings. Generally I don’t care what peopel do or not do in regards to their faith or values, but the momen their actions, or lack thereof affect children thats when we all have to get mouthy.

The problem I have with your statement, is what basis do you have that same-sex couples are not as supporting as mother/father families? Just because you do not like the idea of it, does not mean that it is a bad mix. The number 1 reason and perhaps only reason why same-sex households struggle is due to the negative views they receive from people such as yourself. All of your claims that same sex families are rubbish and were debunked as faulty, is the most erroneous piece of propaganda I have read in my entire life. What non biased psychiatric website/article did you receive that info from? I have been writing for the APA for 40 years and heard of nothing like it.

 

[IrenePHD]

Perhaps the answer lies in a better focus on the term ‘homosexuality’. Do you mean tendencies, or acts. If you mean ‘acts’, then look no further to the spread of AIDS and its devastating effects on life and economy for the indication of it’s evil. Have you read the history of the spread of AIDS (originally called GRIDS) from the earliest days? If not, please educate yourself on the very real dangers and damage of homosexual acts.

Please stop trying to pull the AIDS card. You need to educate yourself in the history of the disease a bit more. My niece died from the result of AIDS in 1983 after a blood transfusion. Also if you knew about AIDS, you would know that a person cannot transmit AIDS from one person to another as an STD or through blood transfusion. You can transmit HIV which after sometime untreated can turn into AIDS.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The problem I have with your statement, is what basis do you have that same-sex couples are not as supporting as mother/father families? Just because you do not like the idea of it, does not mean that it is a bad mix. The number 1 reason and perhaps only reason why same-sex households struggle is due to the negative views they receive from people such as yourself. All of your claims that same sex families are rubbish and were debunked as faulty, is the most erroneous piece of propaganda I have read in my entire life. What non biased psychiatric website/article did you receive that info from? I have been writing for the APA for 40 years and heard of nothing like it.

The proof is the burden of those that want to experiment with our children in order to live an unnatural fantasy. Nature does not provide children to homosexual ‘couples’. If we are to arrogantly make the statement that we know better than nature and attempt to change things, wouldn’t the burden of proof rest on those suggesting that kids will turn out OK being raised by homosexuals?

If one takes that proper loving view that it’s NOT what homosexual couples want, but the best interest of the child that is most important, then one would not want to subject any children to such an experiment. They are NOT objects to be used to fulfill someone’s fantasy.

 

[eternalrest]

The proof is the burden of those that want to experiment with our children in order to live an unnatural fantasy. Nature does not provide children to homosexual ‘couples’. If we are to arrogantly make the statement that we know better than nature and attempt to change things, wouldn’t the burden of proof rest on those suggesting that kids will turn out OK being raised by homosexuals?

If one takes that proper loving view that it’s NOT what homosexual couples want, but the best interest of the child that is most important, then one would not want to subject any children to such an experiment. They are NOT objects to be used to fulfill someone’s fantasy.

A widely accepted psychology book on therapy is “Healing the Incest Wound: Adult Survivors in Therapy.” In the chapter on “special populations”, it says,

“an exploration of the incest experience and its associated feelings is in order. Some incest experiences, whether they were same sex or heterosexual, result in serious, negative aftereffects for the homosexual victim. Other experiences, particularly homosexual contacts involving peers or members of the extended family that were consensual, voluntary, or exploratory have been found to be more benign and even positive in at least one sample (Simari & Baskin, 1982)”

p. 511 So mainstream psychologists don’t even resolutely condemn incest anymore!

In incest or childhood sexual abuse, children become objects to fulfill another’s fantasy. Psychologists should be one of the first lines of protection for these children, but now due to the desire to be gay affirmative they are abandoning their protection of children.

 

[uni_embrace]

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.

Great post:thumbsup:
I especially like the reference to your own marriage. The legalising of same sex marriage would trivilialise and belittle the importance of you and your wife’s marriage.
I also detest the way same sex marriage is referred to as “Marriage Equality” It is no such thing.
I also find it strange that gays and many on the left have become such vocal supporters of Same Sex Marriage and the institution of marriage. Traditionally the left (like the GL community) has been opposed to the institutions of marriage and the family. Why the sudden fascination with fighting for "their human right to marriage?
It also relates to how when I was young I would gay men sneeringly refer to heterosexual men as “breeders” Yet now they want the right to adopt children!

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Please stop trying to pull the AIDS card. You need to educate yourself in the history of the disease a bit more. My niece died from the result of AIDS in 1983 after a blood transfusion. Also if you knew about AIDS, you would know that a person cannot transmit AIDS from one person to another as an STD or through blood transfusion. You can transmit HIV which after sometime untreated can turn into AIDS.

Please stop denying reality to fit the world that you wish would exist. The initial spread of HIV (to be more technically accurate at your request) was traced very directly to homosexual activity. (Gaetan Dugas). That specific activity has long been known to be abusive to certain parts of the body, as is well documented in the medical literature. Nature intended certain organs to be used for certain purposes, and using them for other purposes (abuse) can very well damage the individual physically. That abuse carries consequences. Those consequences have cost us dearly. I am sorry about your niece. She is but one of the casualties of this abusive behavior that many want to pass off as natural.

 

[IrenePHD]

Please stop denying reality to fit the world that you wish would exist. The initial spread of HIV (to be more technically accurate at your request) was traced very directly to homosexual activity. (Gaetan Dugas). That specific activity has long been known to be abusive to certain parts of the body, as is well documented in the medical literature. Nature intended certain organs to be used for certain purposes, and using them for other purposes (abuse) can very well damage the individual physically. That abuse carries consequences. Those consequences have cost us dearly. I am sorry about your niece. She is but one of the casualties of this abusive behavior that many want to pass off as natural.

And as soon as they find a treatment for HIV it will become eradicated just as Syphillis was after the invention of penicillin. Even though homosexuality facilitated in the spread of HIV, you cannot deem it abusive and it existed for thousands of years prior to HIV and it will continue to exist until the end of time.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . but what about homosexuality? what does that cause? even if its an evil in itself it doesnt really lead to other evils therefore it is more benign. thats why i cant agree with your decision.
another hypothetical, would you rather your son be a homosexual or a meth addict?

:doh2:

“Concerning homosexuality and illegal drug use, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2007 that the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.”

(More Gay Men Using Meth Study Finds ; by R. Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times , April 11th, pg B6)

.

Meth Use Surges Among Gay Men

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

And as soon as they find a treatment for HIV it will become eradicated just as Syphillis was after the invention of penicillin. Even though homosexuality facilitated in the spread of HIV, you cannot deem it abusive and it existed for thousands of years prior to HIV and it will continue to exist until the end of time.

I don’t have to deem it abusive. Nature deems it abusive. When organs are damaged by a deliberate act, that is abuse. If that’s not abuse, nothing is. It’s not rocket science.

And after HIV is cured, what’s next? HIV-2? HIV-3? Something entirely unexpected, just like HIV was. It appears that you are chasing homosexual heaven on earth. “If we can only get rid of all these nasty natural consequences, we’ll be happy.” Please stop ignoring what nature and reality is so desparately trying to tell you. You can’t change what is real with wishful thinking.

And since when is abuse NOT really abuse simply because someone has been doing it for thousands of years and will continue to do it. Think of any evil that you know exists, and you will be able to justify it with your same lame logic. War, incest, rape, torture, mutiliation, murder. It’s all be going on for thousands of years, and it will all be going on for thousands more. Suggesting that its not abuse only becuase it’s been going on for a long time is ridiculous. That is very juvenile logic.

How old are you?

 

[NeedImprovement]

And as soon as they find a treatment for HIV it will become eradicated just as Syphillis was after the invention of penicillin. Even though homosexuality facilitated in the spread of HIV, you cannot deem it abusive and it existed for thousands of years prior to HIV and it will continue to exist until the end of time.

Syphilis . . . eradicated ! ?

:dts:

Actually, in the real world , there has been a recent re-emergence of syphilis . Have a look at some of the stats. One could also pay special attention to how coinfection of HIV and syphilis complicates and even in some cases, hinders treatment.

Link to the PDF file : [ The Re-emergence of Syphilis ;George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services;Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, October 12, 2007](http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/epibio/download/The Re emergence of Syphilis.ppt#256,1,The Re-emergence of Syphilis)

 

[someperson555]

That logic is flawed. Unfortunately I have heard it used frequently by people who can’t come up with other good reasons not to support something that is good. If it were logical argument, then all of humanity would be constrained to focusing on one, and only one problem, and nothing else, until it was solved. Who wrote that rule? Holding what is good hostage like that is just plain ridiculous.

what? its you who cant come up with a decent rebuttel sir. you do not even give any reasons why its “flawed”.
the wording in this comment is a jumble by the way. no one is saying that we shouldnt support something that is good, thats why i said drugs and tobacco should be outlawed

and yes, humanity should focus on a problem until it is solved. soooo what are you even trying to say? are you trying to say that its a bad thing to solve problems…what?

 

[someperson555]

Perhaps the answer lies in a better focus on the term ‘homosexuality’. Do you mean tendencies, or acts. If you mean ‘acts’, then look no further to the spread of AIDS and its devastating effects on life and economy for the indication of it’s evil. Have you read the history of the spread of AIDS (originally called GRIDS) from the earliest days? If not, please educate yourself on the very real dangers and damage of homosexual acts.

yes i mean acts. smoking during pregnancy is far more immoral than homosexual acts since you risk lifelong damage and even death to the fetus.
are you saying abortion is less sinful than homosexuality??
and you need to educate yourself on aids. aids is not exclusively i homosexuals. first of all, HIV is the STD that is transmitted from partner to partner that weakens the immune system thus making the person more susceptible to disease. aids is merely an infection after someone’s immune system is weakened by HIV. and HIV is in both homosexual and heterosexual people. it is not a disease which developed as a result from homosexual conduct. you trying to use “aids” to attack homosexuality is like me trying top us herpes against heterosexuality.

 

[someperson555]

:doh2:

.

Meth Use Surges Among Gay Men

thats cute, you cant come up with a response. so you play it off by putting a "facepalm’ emoticon after a well thought comment so that you dont have to refute it.
drug use is not caused by sexual orientation, you probably despertately searched the internet trying to find some kind of article that links homosexuality to drug use. but you failed. LOL conservapedia? seriously? that one paragraph long article didnt prove its allegations. it was just based on anecdotal evidence. the article said that “meth use IS SAID TO BE more prevalent among homosexuals” it didnt support it’s claims with any statistics or facts, it just said that “more gay people reported that they like music and dancing”.
furthermore even if homosexuals use drugs more, what the heck does that have to do with my comments? i was trying to say that drugs are a greater evil than homosexuality. and i gave good reasons which you failed to refute. so how is your response relevant to the topic at hand?