Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[Jan_Sobieski]

Legal Fiction is an end product of queer marriage. A marriage where by definition any children of it must be in fact a fiction as a third party will have to be involved to make the birth certificate “legal”.

 

[DWGarvin]

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).

Wow…
You do realize that marriage is a civil institution, right? One that has never, EVER, been homosexual in any of its forms? And that it is the building block of human society, right?

 

[surritter]

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.

Where did any of my posts refer to sacraments or religion? (Other than a smiley comment.)
I have discussed marriage purely from the governmental and biological point of view. So your accusation is completely off.
Please ask yourself WHY a government is in the business of certifying a love relationship at all. I can’t go any further with you until we define this. And it’s got zip, zero, nada to do with religion or God, except that most of us on this forum would say that God designed the biology of reproduction. But you are free to stop short of that.

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

Then you are apparently A-OK with bulimia. Like sex, food has two reasons: enjoyment/taste, and nutrition. If someone enjoys a meal and then pukes it up, we instinctively think that is disordered. Why? Because food is “ordered” toward the biological function of helping our bodies grow.
A bulimic has a “disorder” because he or she circumvents the natural biological end.

Similarly, sexual intercourse has two aspects: the mutual giving of love, and procreation. This is why we say that it is “ordered” toward procreation. Homosexual sexual acts are “disordered” because they not only circumvent the procreative aspect, but the biology of such aspect is not even there. So it’s not truly sexual intercourse, but merely selfish pleasure (again, akin to bulimia).

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

Wouldn’t you say that food is “ordered” toward helping our bodies grow? Thus, sexual intercourse is ordered toward helping the human race grow. For heterosexual couples where having children is impossible: Think about a yummy dessert that isn’t exactly helpful to someone’s plan for losing weight. It is still ordered toward nutrition, though it’s not able to give the type of nutrition that individual is seeking at the moment.
Homosexuality is like eating dirt or rubber shavings. They are not going to give the desired nutrition, nor are they even designed or ordered toward being food in the first place.

 

[DWGarvin]

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.

What valid point do they raise? They are judgmental, and they use a false dichotomy.

Please, help me see what point this poster raises that is valid.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There are many, many people who truly believe organized religion is harmful to individuals and society.
And yet.
I don’t think we see these people trying to close down churches or religious schools, or try to make it a law that someone cannot get married in church because they believe it will harm them–even though the churchgoer cannot see the truth they are trying to tell them for their own good.

Everybody’s truth is truth to them.

But some people are more religiously tolerant and all-embracing and loving than others.

Hmmm . . . . . . I just might possibly need to break from these forums for a while, because it appears I’m beginning to take some of this - - - - too personally.

When I read

There are many, many people who truly believe organized religion is harmful to individuals and society.

…it tends to induce nausea, because after trimming away all the ambiguous fluff, the sentiment that is actually being expressed is:

"The Catholic Church is harmful to individuals and to society." “Harmful” is a label gay militants love to put on anything that opposes the homosexual agenda.

And yet. I don’t think we see these people trying to close down churches or religious schools,

Gee. . . seems someone forgot to mention Catholic Adoption agencies - the first casualty in Britain’s implementation of their equality legislation…
Rather than concentrating on people - on the “harm” done to “individuals and societies” who are having their religious freedom and freedom of conscience stripped from them - freedoms guaranteed in their constitution, we’re are instead offered the thought of “closing down” a church.

Can we be we certain that what isn’t being said, is something a little more inflammatory - along the lines of “Well we haven’t succeeded in totally eradicating freedom of religion and freedom of conscience yet” ?

As for not “closing down”

religious schools

. . . Now why would anyone want to go and do that , while they can still infiltrate them and use them as a viable hub to promote the homosexual agenda by effectively subverting Catholic education and attacking it from the inside?

Gay Friendly Agenda Gaining Footholds in Catholic Schools Around the Country

Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality

What is “harmful to individuals and society” , is parents’ 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 guilty school boards - religious or not, with a little slight of hand, don’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 ?

 

[vsedriver]

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.

The first two examples are unequal. No one knows who will do a good parenting job however, no child should be deliberately deprived of experiencing a mommy and a daddy. Yes, there are many children that need to be adopted but the easiest to place are infants and small children. The government makes it very hard for anyone to adopt older children.

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.

It has already happened.

Drunk driving does

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

SSM can endanger the rights of a child to a male and female parents.

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

Right, they must violate a child’s right in order to be parents.

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

Well if you don’t make the child you don’t need to worry about how to raise one.

 

[someperson555]

Wow…
You do realize that marriage is a civil institution, right? One that has never, EVER, been homosexual in any of its forms? And that it is the building block of human society, right?

so you just blindly follow tradition?
so then should we re-legalise prostitution? because the roman Catholic church tolerated prostitution on the basis that “prostitution was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evils of rape, sodomy, and masturbation”. yet at the same time in some roman catholic countries homosexuals recieved the death penlty. do you believe that same sex marriage is a greater evil than prostitution?
you cannot claim that " traditional marriage is the building block of society". since it is evident from history this is not always the case. there were very happy polygynous marriages for example. and its better for an orphan to be raised by a gay couple than to be wasting away at an orphanage.

 

[someperson555]

What valid point do they raise? They are judgmental, and they use a false dichotomy.

Please, help me see what point this poster raises that is valid.

the valid point they raise is that many christians freak out over gay marriage but they rarely ever address the worse evils of society. for example i have YET to see a conservative christians speak out against tobacco, i have YET to see christians calling to bring back prohibition. (yes drinking and smoking are MORTAL sins) and they cause far more damage to society than a couple of gays deciding to move in together.
but ofcourse its not just conservative christians who are in the wrong here, its the gays too. the problem here is more universal, the prolem is with human nature, what we see here is typical “group warfare” mentality. both sides are programmed to react emotionally and irrationally to the other’s views, therefore making honest debate impossible.
do you know what the best solution would be IMO? i really like the stance of the people’s republic on China on this issue, which the three no’s: “No approval; no disapproval; no promotion.”
that is by far the most common sense approach i have heard on the subject. why cant both sides here in america reach such a consensus?

 

[vsedriver]

ah the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

Catholic societies are not the Catholic Church. St. Joan of Arc was burned because the English wanted revenge. They simply used the Church as an excuse. Many people have misused the Church to justify doing evil.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Nonsense. The Pope was the first European leader to categorically condemn the African Slave trade. The church never approved of slavery-it tolerated it as a part of the fabric of the times. The Church NEVER burned anyone at the stake, children or otherwise. And finally Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by civil authorities-not because of grenadier issues but because she led a rebellion.

I am sure we will soon see posts justifying sodomy while referring to the inquisition and Gallelio.

 

[Gift_from_God]

And finally Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by civil authorities-not because of grenadier issues but because she led a rebellion.

Joan of Arc was tried for heresy and was interrogated by a Cardinal, not exactly a civil authority

 

[Elizabeth502]

St. Joan of arc was also burned at the stake for her challenging traditional views on gender roles.

Gender roles have nothingi to do with marriage. Gender has everything to do with marriage. Gender is hard-wired, radical, and cannot be overriden by artificiality, posing, pretense, propaganda, and experimentation. Gender roles are a completely different category, and have never been an element of legitimate marriage.

 

[fix]

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).

Slippery slope is not always fallacy.

Once you artificially redefine marriage there is no logical
Reason it cannot be done so again.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Slippery slope is not always fallacy.
Once you -]artificially/-] subjectively redefine marriage there is no logical
reason it cannot be done so again.

…Actually, the real consequence is that there is then no logical reason why any two or more collections of people cannot marry, based on private, subjective reasons.

 

[Biblepoe]

Where did any of my posts refer to sacraments or religion?

Here you are injecting your religious definition of a marriage:

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.

A civil marriage is a set of contractual agreements between two sex partners that is recognizes by the state as having a set of standardized protections/privileges under the law (hospital visitation rights come to mind). Otherwise, your just dropping in your religious definition that says that one person must have male genitalia and the other female. You are free to have that as one of your church’s teaching and to only marry those in your church who meet those conditions, but your aren’t free to impose your religious beliefs on others.

I have discussed marriage purely from the governmental and biological point of view.

No you haven’t. Saying that one partner must have male genitalia and the other female to reproduce is not the same thing as discussing biological reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage. You also haven’t discussed any practical reasons to not allow them to marry.

A bulimic has a “disorder” because he or she circumvents the natural biological end.

That’s not why it’s a disorder. Bulimia Nervosa is considered an anxiety disorder because a person who binges and purges has lost control, gone the excess, develops compulsive behaviors, and tends to bring guilt and shame. A better analogy is between bulimia and having promiscuous sex all the time.

Your analogy is like saying, “Eating is ordered to nutrition. Since oral chemotherapy isn’t ordered to nutrition it ‘circumvents the natural biological end’ and hence is bad.”

Homosexual sexual acts are “disordered” because they not only circumvent the procreative aspect, but the biology of such aspect is not even there.

Your not making any sense. There’s nothing in biology that suggests that it makes sense to allow a couple known to be infertile to marry if the purpose is procreation, but to deny it to gay couples. Both are just as “disordered” if your criteria is to procreate. If your criteria is that one partner must have male genitalia and the other female genitalia, then that is a religious definition of marriage, not one determined by practical or biological reasons.

Wouldn’t you say that food is “ordered” toward helping our bodies grow?

No. That’s a use that food may have. Just because a thing generally serves a useful purpose doesn’t mean it aught to every time it’s used. I would not automatically say that someone eating food for a reasons entirely different from nutrition (such as a person who taste-tests milk from a truck for contaminants, only to spit it out) is necessarily doing something wrong.

Would you say that a taste-tester who is working for a major ice cream company is doing anything wrong by sampling milk from a truck for contaminants only to spit it out?

 

[Biblepoe]

No one knows who will do a good parenting job however, no child should be deliberately deprived of experiencing a mommy and a daddy.

That’s a slap in the face to all singles who have adopted. Do you think an injustice was done to children who were adopted out to a single parent?

It has already happened.

When and where was a church in the US forced to marry a gay couple?

SSM can endanger the rights of a child to a male and female parents.

Obviously the government and most people in this country don’t agree that having both a male and female parent is a right, since single adaption is considered OK.

Do you think that a single adult is violating a child’s right when he or she adopts as a single? I’m especially interested in your answer to this one.

Well if you don’t make the child you don’t need to worry about how to raise one.

You evaded answering the question, so I’ll try to re-phrase it so you can answer.

Is it more important for our society that the number of children produced goes up, or that the percentage of children who are produced being properly/lovingly raised goes up?

 

[NeedImprovement]

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…

 

[religioismorals]

From wikipedia " Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage."

Marriage was not created by christians and was in different cultures.
Why should you be able to decide who can marry who?
Since believers of other religions and athiest are “sinners” are you going to ban them from getting married?
If you can decide laws based on faith, then get used to not eating pork somebody might try to ban that.

Just try to think about others and not just a book.

Also, those of you that argue that kids need to be raised by a man and a woman, you need to ban divorce. You don’t want children to face the “horrible” life of a single parent home growing up!

Sorry if there are typos it’s hard for me to type on a kindle.