Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[sw85]

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–

Well, so what? Does Catholicism represent the one true faith or not? If it does than everyone who disagrees is wrong, so who cares what they think?

that’s why we have this separation of Church and State. I honestly feel like “the bad guy” for fighting against gay marriage.

Well, yes, you feel like the bad guy because our enemies have control of the culture and have worked tirelessly to make everyone who opposes them feel like the bad guy. Our enemies also murder babies and make us feel bad about “judging” the murderers. We’re not bad guys. They’re bad guys. Forget 'em.

As for separation of church and state, well, that hardly applies here. We’re not talking about religious establishment. You’re allowed to vote according to your faith.

I don’t feel like I have any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives.

You do have the right, because you have the duty to do it. Chastising sinners is a spiritual work of mercy, and God desires mercy.

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…

OK, but we’re not doing that. The Westboro nuts are doing that.

What we can do is simply what we’ve always done: speak the truth. The truth is that homosexuality is a grave moral evil and the state subsidization of homosexuality through gay “marriage,” which is a vacuous ontological error, compels you to participate to some extent in that evil. God Himself makes this clear to us, and reason reveals it by its study of natural law. We can also point to the fact that there is not a “right” to gay “marriage,” has never been, that no one has ever anywhere said such a “right” existed until about five minutes ago and all the people who insist such a “right” obviously exists are the same people who deny every metaphysical basis from which “rights” could be said to arise.

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.

Well, no, it isn’t. That’s a liberal conceit, not a Catholic one. As witnessed by the fact that every Catholic society in history until about five minutes ago was firmly reactionary and had no problem firmly stating that X was truth and that anyone who denied X was a menace to the public order.

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.

My legs are not necessary for me to be a man. It doesn’t follow that my legs are irrelevant to my being a man. It certainly doesn’t follow I should cut my legs off and drag myself around on stumps. Get it?

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.

When other people’s choices are evil, stupid, and insane, no, I don’t respect them and I’m not obligated to. I’m obligated to call those choices evil, stupid, and insane and to warn people off of them. Do you let folks drink arsenic because, hey, it’s their body and their choice and it’s just as valid as any other choice of drink?

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.

Maybe this would be relevant if you could point to anyone, anywhere, who has ever said that legislating gay “marriage” into existence would result in the sky literally immediately falling.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

Children are the natural product of marriage. It is only because heterosexual couples produce children that the state gives a man and woman benefits if they marry. Whether or not a couple has children doesn’t change the fact that they have the potential to produce children or provide adopted children with a natural experience of a mother and father. Hence the state provides benefits to married couples because of their potential to be parents by producing children.

And exactly how does that affect you?

It might affect you if you are a heterosexual adoptive couple who are passed over in favor of a gay couple. It might affect you if your church can no longer rent their community hall to the general public because they will be violating the law if they refuse to rent for a gay wedding.

Drunk driving has never affected me personally. Does this mean I shouldn’t be against it?

That’s probably correct.

yes, it is better for the state if biological parents raise and support their children. Single parent children must be supplemented by state funding.

That is simply false.

marriage does make new people to sustain the state, moreover, it makes people who are less likely to end up poor. Statistically, children from two parent families are more likely to succeed financially. It is in the state’s best interest for the biological parents to support their children rather than for the state to have to do it.

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.

Some choices don’t deserve respect.

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

It gives no benefit to the state. A childless heterosexual marriage is the exception not the rule and can change their minds or adopt. A gay marriage is always childless and hence has no impact on society or the state and therefore has no need for special benefits.

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

Really? how many definitions can you come up with? Even if you remove ‘number’, ‘age’, and ‘relationship’ from the definition you will always have gender. All marriages throughout history and across cultures involved male and female.

 

[surritter]

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…

You feel that you don’t have “any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives.” Yet marriage need not have anything to do with belief in a God. Please follow me…

Why is a government in the business of certifying a love relationship? Some options:
A) To ensure inheritance rights
B) Because the govt must certify every type of relationship
C) Because the govt has nothing better to do
D) Because this type of relationship may result in new citizens (babies) that need to be protected

The only answers that could possibly make any sense are A and D. But marriage is not about A; there are other legal vehicles for inheritance, etc. The correct answer is D; a marriage establishes a “cell” within a society where new citizens are created and formed.

If a marriage has nothing to do with babies, then a government would have no interest in more useless paperwork. Therefore, natural law and civil law both tell us that a marriage must be a relationship that is ordered toward procreation. Otherwise, it is by definition not a marriage.

A side note: I didn’t say that a marriage must result in children. I said that a marriage is a relationship “ordered toward” procreation. Two sterile people are married because their bodies, by design, are still ordered toward procreation, although a deficiency might make children impossible in their case.

Notice how this explanation doesn’t hinge on a belief in God? It’s as simple as biology. Alas, this biological link in the definition of marriage is what our society has forgotten. And if someone disagrees with the procreation link to marriage, then there really is no logical reason to keep a “marriage” from being between 3 or 4 people.

 

[belorg]

My legs are not necessary for me to be a man. It doesn’t follow that my legs are irrelevant to my being a man. It certainly doesn’t follow I should cut my legs off and drag myself around on stumps. Get it?

 

[JackHandy]

**

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.

---

(beginning of my reply)

I must point out something important here. “Separation of church and state” is a very misleading phrase. It was used in a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Hugo Black who just happened to be very anti-Catholic.

What is referenced by this phrase is simply that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (first amendment to the US constitution). The reason that we have it is so that the government cannot force us to worship as they see fit.

God Bless,

Jack Handy**

 

[belorg]

Children are the natural product of marriage. It is only because heterosexual couples produce children that the state gives a man and woman benefits if they marry. Whether or not a couple has children doesn’t change the fact that they have the potential to produce children or provide adopted children with a natural experience of a mother and father. Hence the state provides benefits to married couples because of their potential to be parents by producing children.

It is not only because marriage produces children that the state gives a man and a woman benefits. Another reason is that marriage is a stabilizing factor ibn society.
At least in my country, civil marriage vows do not include the promise to have children.

It might affect you if you are a heterosexual adoptive couple who are passed over in favor of a gay couple. It might affect you if your church can no longer rent their community hall to the general public because they will be violating the law if they refuse to rent for a gay wedding.

If you are passed over in favour of another heterosexual couple, you won’t be happy either.
And if your church owns a community hall, they do not have the right to refuse to rent it to anynody who isn’t breaking the law.
Do you think your church also has the right to refuse to rent its hall for a wedding of a man who is divorced?

Drunk driving has never affected me personally. Does this mean I shouldn’t be against it?

It is potentially affecting you, and it most certainly does affact people who don’t drink when driving.

yes, it is better for the state if biological parents raise and support their children. Single parent children must be supplemented by state funding.

In my country all children are supplemented by state funding. Anyway, that’s an argument against single parents, not against SSM.

marriage does make new people to sustain the state, moreover, it makes people who are less likely to end up poor. Statistically, children from two parent families are more likely to succeed financially. It is in the state’s best interest for the biological parents to support their children rather than for the state to have to do it.

Again, that’s a argument in favour of SSM.

Some choices don’t deserve respect.

That’s a very unchristian thing to say.

Really? how many definitions can you come up with? Even if you remove ‘number’, ‘age’, and ‘relationship’ from the definition you will always have gender. All marriages throughout history and across cultures involved male and female.

The Catholic marriage anno 2012: a man and a woman must be open to procreation if they want to marry.Man and woman have equal rights.

The Catholic marriage anno 1900. women have to obey their husband.
Marriage anno 1500. Arranged marriages, sometimes even at very young age, for poliotical reasons, often condoned and even actively supported by the Catholic church.

Civil marriage anno 1800: impossible without a religious ceremony.

Civil marriage anno 1990: one man and one woman, whether they want children or not.

Marriage anno 2012 in several places in the world: one adult male and one very young girl. the girl has no say whatsoever. AKA legal rape.

Shall I continue?

 

[parable1]

Look up until catholics as well as all those who claim to have faith vote according to that faith change will never happen. To many liberals out there that would rather have the elected officials vote how they want kills our society.

 

[Biblepoe]

It might affect you if you are a heterosexual adoptive couple who are passed over in favor of a gay couple.

What couple do you think would do a better job raising a child, a hypothetical straight couple who would sexually abuse the child or a hypothetical same-sex couple who would love the child? Just because a same-sex couple gets to adopt instead of a straight couple doesn’t mean that the gay couple’s marriage should be banned. In fact the opposite should be the case considering that there are many children who need to be adopted.

It might affect you if your church can no longer rent their community hall to the general public because they will be violating the law if they refuse to rent for a gay wedding.

This is extremely unlikely to happen, considering that churches are still permitted to deny a marriage ceremony to a mixed-race couple on the grounds that it would be a mixed race marriage, and still keep their tax-exempt status.

Drunk driving has never affected me personally. Does this mean I shouldn’t be against it?

Drunk driving does endanger other people’s rights. The same cannot be said of same-sex marriage.

A gay marriage is always childless and hence has no impact on society or the state and therefore has no need for special benefits.

No. A gay marriage is only childless if the couple decides not to adopt or they aren’t allowed to adopt.

Also, what is more important, making a child or raising a child that is made?

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . In fact the opposite should be the case considering that there are many children who need to be adopted… . .

How many … roughly ?. . .exactly ? . . . estimate . . . ? And it might be an idea to only give those estimates for the few countries where same-sex -]marriage/-] is currently legal ; or why not even reduce it to the narrower margin where gay adoption of someone else’s children is permitted. . . at least, for now. And please make sure to contast it against the lack of mother&father couples available and wishing to adopt .

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . At least in my country, civil marriage vows do not include the promise to have children.

It would be considerably impractical for a couple to have to “promise” to have children : What type of premarital testing do you suppose the state would have to impose , to rule out infertility and erectile dysfunction ; again what if the latter were remedied by a different partner rather than medication ?

. . . Can’t say I’m such a great fan of comparing my country (despite its many imperfections) with Belgium .Similarly, at the civil weddings I have attended , the justice of the peace always stipulated to the spouses in conclusion that the law obliges them to sleep together . . . (for what purpose I wonder . . . ) . Even then, do you suppose that if they had an argument and one of them had to sleep on the couch , we would be able to tell which one is breaking the law ? I would personally feel more receptive to less ridiculous reasoning than that which precipitated the statement quoted above.

Regardless of the impracticality on that particular quoted absurd side of the suggested coin , on the other side of the coin , China is still quite rigid in their one child policy :

Apparently a professor of law can be suspended by the university he taught at

. . . after it found out that he and his wife had a second child, in contravention of China’s one-child policy. He was also fined the equivalent of about 35,000 dollars.

LINK

And there are also reports that

. . . in the southwestern Guangxi Autonomous Region of China, officials were forcing pregnant women without permission to give birth to have abortions and levying steep fines on families violating the law. As a result, riots broke out and some may have been killed, including population control officials .

LINK

What disturbing language “women without permission to give birth” . Oh, and before any abortionists go getting all giddy on this one, they should try to comprehend that this also means a woman won’t “have the right to choose” (. . . whether or not to kill her own child).

Now one would think, logically, according to particular arguments being presented , that since children and procreation *don’t count in marriage *, China would have to be prime territory for the legalization of homosexual -]marriage/-] . . . but it isn’t. Same-sex -]marriage/-] is not legal in China.

Christianity has never “been a decisive influence on the course of China’s history” , so be sure to notice how a previous post wants to pit homosexual activism against the Catholic Church, against Christians and against religion.

---

What is happeneing here, and what has been happenening , is that the homosexual activists are desperately trying to define the terms of the debate to suit their militant agenda . They want the debate to appear as gay -]marriage/-] against the Catholic Church, against Christians and against religion.

But marriage is an institution which encompasses much more than Catholicism and Christianity and as vsedriver pointed out, the very essence of marriage, and its definition have always remained constant and have always understood the prerequisite comprisal of its foundation to be the union of a man and a woman.

To put it to my fellow Catholics as plainly as possible : The real core issue of this same sex -]marriage/-] aggression isn’t gay marriage against religion ; it’s** homosexual activism and gay militancy against a world that is heterosexual in nature **. But the gay militants cringe when that is brought to light because when it is, it becomes so exceedingly clear exactly who the aggressor really is.

 

[surritter]

Perhaps you guys mean for this to be a two-way dialogue, but I can’t keep myself from hopping in here…

What couple do you think would do a better job raising a child, a hypothetical straight couple who would sexually abuse the child or a hypothetical same-sex couple who would love the child? Just because a same-sex couple gets to adopt instead of a straight couple doesn’t mean that the gay couple’s marriage should be banned. In fact the opposite should be the case considering that there are many children who need to be adopted.

Frankly, this is nonsense. Of course there might be same-sex couples who would care for a child better than a given married couple who might be abusive, but we’re supposed to be talking about the definition and foundation of marriage, not individual cases. You really wish to change the definition of a word because ONE aspect of that word can be shown on a skewed scale to be deficient?
Analogy: I can’t call myself a “bank” just because I’m good with money; I have to conform to the definition of “bank” as an institution. And that hinges on many things.

Drunk driving does endanger other people’s rights. The same cannot be said of same-sex marriage.

Really? Do you think that something is harmful only when you see an immediate flesh wound? No – there are repercussions that harm a society which you don’t see myopically. Besides, whether same-sex “marriage” endangers rights is irrelevant: the definition of marriage is a relationship between two people which is objectively ordered toward procreation.

You guys are debating some worthy ideas, but still off the mark. Even if every same-sex couple in the world is outstanding and deserving of every benefit, it’s simply impossible to ever call that relationship a marriage. The government is only in the business of certifying a marriage because it is the generative cell of a new citizen. This is biology. If you separate marriage from the biological nature of procreation, then you have zero ground to stand on when someone claims that 3 people can get married. (And don’t be surprised when that comes down the pike.)

 

[Biblepoe]

Frankly, this is nonsense. Of course there might be same-sex couples who would care for a child better than a given married couple who might be abusive, but we’re supposed to be talking about the definition and foundation of marriage, not individual cases.

We’re no discussing what the definition of a word is, we are discussing how the law should treat a couple.

Belorg asked how permitting same-sex couples to have the same protection under the law as married straight couples effects married straight couples. Vsedriver responded by saying that “It might affect you if you are a heterosexual adoptive couple who are passed over in favor of a gay couple” (implying that this is a reason to ban gay marriage). My hypothetical of having a gay couple better parents than a particular straight couple is very relevant to this because the need of the child should take precedent.

Really? Do you think that something is harmful only when you see an immediate flesh wound?

I never said that. My point was that drunk driving does cause a problem by endangering a person’s rights, whereas gay marriage does not. If you can identify how gay marriage does cause harm, I’m all ears.

The government is only in the business of certifying a marriage because it is the generative cell of a new citizen.

If that was the case, the government should deny a marriage to a straight couple who obviously cannot have children. But those who obviously cannot have children are still permitted to marry.

 

[NeedImprovement]

What is harmful to society , is parental rights being denied , so that children as young as 4 and 5 years old are indoctrinated with the homosexual agenda against the will of their parents, and in a considerable number of these cases , the school board doesn’t even inform the parents they are doing this.

I wonder what in the world could ever even be minutely considered by a sound mind, to be so religiously tolerant all embracing ,and loving about invading the souls of someone else’s children at such an impressionable age and proceeding to rape their minds with the homosexual agenda ?

 

[surritter]

We’re no[t] discussing what the definition of a word is, we are discussing how the law should treat a couple.

Belorg asked how permitting same-sex couples to have the same protection under the law as married straight couples effects married straight couples. Vsedriver responded by saying that “It might affect you if you are a heterosexual adoptive couple who are passed over in favor of a gay couple” (implying that this is a reason to ban gay marriage). My hypothetical of having a gay couple better parents than a particular straight couple is very relevant to this because the need of the child should take precedent.

The needs of a child are of course important, but we cannot change the meaning of marriage for that reason alone. As I tried to point out, it’s nice to discuss certain benefits that come along with having a marriage recognized, but yes, we do indeed need to first define what marriage is. If we can’t iron that out, then all these other points are useless.

I never said that. My point was that drunk driving does cause a problem by endangering a person’s rights, whereas gay marriage does not. If you can identify how gay marriage does cause harm, I’m all ears.

Allow me to use an analogy. So many people think that the oral contraceptive pill, when introduced some fifty years ago, also caused no harm. But fast-forward to today: once our society was given the tool to easily separate the sexual act from procreation, it’s been all downhill. Abortion. Infanticide. No understanding of what marriage is, other than a dissoluble contract. That is how gay “marriage” causes harm: by furthering the myth that love and life are not connected, even though biology says that they are.

If that was the case, the government should deny a marriage to a straight couple who obviously cannot have children. But those who obviously cannot have children are still permitted to marry.

Re-read my post.

I said that marriage is “objectively ordered toward procreation.” That means that it is an institution that, by design, is geared toward the generation of a family. I didn’t say that each marriage must result in children. There are various anomalies that make specific marriages lacking in this area, but the bodies of those spouses were designed to go together to biologically create new life. Two sterile people are married because their bodies are still ordered toward procreation, although something makes children impossible in their case.
The Catholic Church likes to make people think too.

 

[Biblepoe]

As I tried to point out, it’s nice to discuss certain benefits that come along with having a marriage recognized, but yes, we do indeed need to first define what marriage is.

Defining sacramental marriage is not what we are discussing here. You and your church are completely free to believe whatever you want about which unions you think are blessed, which is what I meant when I said “We’re no[t] discussing what the definition of a word is.”

Civil marriage is what we are talking about. Civil marriage is basically a bunch of standardized contracts between two individuals. There are some pragmatic reasons why the state should be aware of whether or not a couple is considered to be married.

That is how gay “marriage” causes harm: by furthering the myth that love and life are not connected, even though biology says that they are.

Nothing in biology suggests that a loving sexual relationship aught to be open to life.

Two sterile people are married because their bodies are still ordered toward procreation, although something makes children impossible in their case.

I doesn’t make sense to say that a sexual relationship in which it is known that having children is impossible is “ordered toward procreation”.

 

[DWGarvin]

If you think that there’s no propaganda battle, you’re sadly mistaken. Images such as the following are often used:

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/543033_461828683846590_562472803_n.jpg

Please note the false dichotomy. On the left, are two homosexuals holding hands, apparently professing their love for one another. On the right, “Punisher” is blowing someone’s brains out. Implied is that children has equal access to both. Now, I found this on the Facebook after someone “liked” it. I noted in the comments that someone stated that the one on the left is a “G” rated comic. The one on the right is rated “MA” (or something like that). In other words, you needed to be of legal age to buy it. So, false comparison.

Of course, most comments were “love is love” and all that ****. But messages such as this are out there, and they are calling you and me bigots because we are so warped that we still think that having kids matter. I mean, come on, marriages that have kids are just a minor difference, right? And the fact that there are two genders is just trivial…

Also, please remember that homosexuals are the first to say “don’t judge me”, but in this photo, they are judging! They are the first to use moral arguments and decry them in the same sentence.

Logic is sadly lost on them…

 

[someperson555]

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

ah the slippery slope fallacy.
actually, this is why i believe the state should not hand out marriage licenses. we have a separation of church and state. as catholics and (hopefully) rational people we must recognize that civil matters are to be judged differently than religious matters. the state must be blind to religion or irreligion when making its laws. now thats not to say that some of the aspects of religion couldnt be incorporated into state law (for example thou shalt not kill).

 

[someperson555]

Well, so what? Does Catholicism represent the one true faith or not? If it does than everyone who disagrees is wrong, so who cares what they think?

Well, no, it isn’t. That’s a liberal conceit, not a Catholic one. As witnessed by the fact that every Catholic society in history until about five minutes ago was firmly reactionary and had no problem firmly stating that X was truth and that anyone who denied X was a menace to the public order.

Maybe this would be relevant if you could point to anyone, anywhere, who has ever said that legislating gay “marriage” into existence would result in the sky literally immediately falling.

at one point in catholic societies slavery was also accepted. so was burning 5 year old children at the stake for alledgedly being “heretics”. need i remind you, St. Joan of arc was also burned at the stake for her challenging traditional views on gender roles.

 

[someperson555]

If you think that there’s no propaganda battle, you’re sadly mistaken. Images such as the following are often used:

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/543033_461828683846590_562472803_n.jpg

Please note the false dichotomy. On the left, are two homosexuals holding hands, apparently professing their love for one another. On the right, “Punisher” is blowing someone’s brains out. Implied is that children has equal access to both. Now, I found this on the Facebook after someone “liked” it. I noted in the comments that someone stated that the one on the left is a “G” rated comic. The one on the right is rated “MA” (or something like that). In other words, you needed to be of legal age to buy it. So, false comparison.

Of course, most comments were “love is love” and all that ****. But messages such as this are out there, and they are calling you and me bigots because we are so warped that we still think that having kids matter. I mean, come on, marriages that have kids are just a minor difference, right? And the fact that there are two genders is just trivial…

Also, please remember that homosexuals are the first to say “don’t judge me”, but in this photo, they are judging! They are the first to use moral arguments and decry them in the same sentence.

Logic is sadly lost on them…

but they bring up a valid point. now i just want to point out that i personally do not believe in gay marriage. but there is hypocrisy on both sides of this debate. both sides can be self-righteous, both sides can be cruel.
i think if we all just minded our business and focused on our own sins, we wouldnt be having these debates in our society.

 

[Bernadette173]

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…

Why must we fight same sex marriage? Because anything that does not promote the reproduction of our species is bound for extinction. Entire classes and societies have vanished because of homosexual acts. And anything of How to fight LGBT unions is to point out to them WHY they are to be with the opposite sex partner, so that procreation, and not self centered lust of the flesh are important in this world. It isn’t always just about having sex for the pleasure of having sex. It is to ensure the continuation of life also.

God Bless,