Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[surritter]

Here you are injecting your religious definition of 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.

The fact that a baby is created by sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is – to you – injecting a “religious definition.” Strange conclusion, to say the least.
The “standardized protections/privileges under the law” such as hospital visitation rights can easily be handled by other legal means.

If those protections are what marriage is BASED on, then you obviously have no problem with a “marriage” between 4 people, if I so choose. If that sounds like a ridiculous statement, please prove why marriage must be limited to just 2 people, but two people of any sex.

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.

Again, why did governments even begin to start certifying love relationships of any kind? You claim it has nothing to do with children resulting from that love relationship, so please share why governments began doing this.

Glad to address the other concerns once we iron out these foundational things: You say that marriage is limited to two people, but that it has nothing to do with sex. But why only two people?

 

[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…

:dts:

 

[NeedImprovement]

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.

I disagree : There never should have been a debate over it. Same-sex -]marriage/-] makes a mockery of marriage and of everyone in society who gets duped into supporting it. It , with the complicity of certain judges and politicians , is also making a mockery of nations’ Constitutions. It undermines marriage, families , strips parents of their rights , harms children, (did you get that one – HARMS CHILDREN) . The initiative of the homosexual agenda is to intimidate everyone into admitting a lie – namely that active homosexuality is normal. The damage might have been limited to a certain extent if the gay militants had never intruded upon marriage and decided they wanted themselves included in a definition which never could include them, but the very day they launched this asinine reckless initiative it became a continuous invasion into everybody else’s lives.

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.

Intimidation again ? If you’re afraid to even post in a Catholic forum that homosexual -]marriage/-] is wrong , perhaps you should consider asking the Holy Spirit for fortitude (and maybe ask as many members as possible here to pray for you [never a bad idea – either of those] )

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.

So don’t bring your personal faith beliefs into it at all. A bunch of other reasons are already listed above in this post. The fact that homosexual activists’ agenda is harming other peoples’ innocent children should be more than enough reason. It actually should have been enough to convince them to discard the idea of -]same sex marriage/-].

Why should you feel bad saying it ? More than a few LGBT think same sex-] marriage /-]is a very dumb idea and they aren’t afraid to say so publicly. I would surmise it could likely be much more than a few LGBT who believe adamantly that same sex -]marriage/-] is a foolish idea, but they’re probably afraid and intimidated too( If the gay activists do such an intimidation number on heterosexual society, I imagine they just might come down a lot more severely on LGBT’s who can think for themselves ).

One opinion I was reading from an openly gay person who is opposed to same sex -]marriage/-] says there are many homosexuals who aren’t in the public eye but who oppose same sex -]marriage/-]; he says they just don’t happen to be as vocal about it. Another openly gay man who is no stranger to the media , in the same article, spoke of those activists as those who want to force others to accept their social view. These openly gay people also speak of a Gay Elite fringe who try to control the whole LGBT community.

 

[NeedImprovement]

This part here, in my limited opinion . . .

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.

. . . is the part which puts the OP (although not for the reasons we would have wished) in a class all by himself . The Catholic Church has never definitively declared any one identifiable soul in particular to be in Hell. Neither can I recall with any frequency seeing any Catholic members claiming active homosexuals were going to Hell. I do recall several gay activist instigators coming to these threads to tell/yell at us that we are going to Hell for daring to say that homosexual -]marriage/-] is not a good thing. Some of the language was so abusive a couple of times the entire thread had to be pulled.

Catholics don’t tell other people they are going to Hell. Yet I’m seeing a false premise in the OP implicitly accusing us of just that . . . What a very mixed-up thing to do . . . or perhaps “insidious” would be the better characterization as opposed to “mixed-up.”

Catholics identify things that can lead us to Hell, and we would all do well to remain aware of the disposition of the heart in the sin against the Holy Spirit our Blessed Lord warned us of, and if you really like that kind of stuff, have another look at what St. Paul says in today’s readings.

To say to someone else that they are going to Hell , is to insult God.

To falsely convey implicitly that we here at CAF somehow on a regular basis (which I have never witnessed in all my time as a member) are telling the gay activist trolls/gay militants/whomever, or anyone else that they are going to Hell, insults both God and us as CAF members.

Really. . . . . . Can it get any lower than that ?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

savedbygrace

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.

It’s not a matter of being a devout Catholic. It’s a matter of common sense. Throughout the world there has never been a civilization, Catholic or otherwise, that even considered same-sex marriage. It is a sign of the moral idiocy of our times that we are even debating this.

Stop feeling guilty about being a Catholic and start pitying those who lack common sense.

 

[religioismorals]

savedbygrace
It’s not a matter of being a devout Catholic. It’s a matter of common sense. Throughout the world there has never been a civilization, Catholic or otherwise, that even considered same-sex marriage. It is a sign of the moral idiocy of our times that we are even debating this.

" Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one suchcouple at a time(monogamy), while othercultures allow a male tohave more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly,a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have otherrestrictions onmarriage based onthe ages ofthe participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership inreligious orothersocialgroups."
-from wikipedia

There have been same sex marriages in other cultures.
Please stop trying to force the belief that Christianity is the only authority on marriage.

 

[surritter]

" Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one suchcouple at a time(monogamy), while othercultures allow a male tohave more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly,a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have otherrestrictions onmarriage based onthe ages ofthe participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership inreligious orothersocialgroups."
-from wikipedia

There have been same sex marriages in other cultures.
Please stop trying to force the belief that Christianity is the only authority on marriage.

Christianity is the authority on marriage? That’s true if you believe in sacraments. (I do, but let’s leave that aside for now.) Let’s go back to the beginning, and look at it from a civil angle: Why does a government give out marriage licenses? I wish somebody from the pro-same-sex side would give a succinct answer to this; we could then build from there…

 

[religioismorals]

Christianity is the authority on marriage? That’s true if you believe in sacraments. (I do, but let’s leave that aside for now.)

I say that because christians are trying to ban it despite other cultures allowing same-sex marriages.
Marriage is not a creation of christianity so why should they decide who can marry?
Most of the anti-same-sex messages I have read contain “against my religion”, if that isn’t a group trying to claim authority on marriage then what is?

" The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos."
-wikipedia on u.s. marriage license

Marriage licenses used as a form of racism…now used against gays/lesbians… We have progressed so much!
(Kindle fires are a pain when copying and pasting.)

 

[religioismorals]

Just because something has not been done before, is no reason to assume it is not well worth starting now. That’s common sense.
If the world followed that line of thinking, we wouldn’t fly in airplanes and we wouldn’t have newly formed laws and in fact, we wouldn’t have the religion of Christianity.

Didn’t Jesus show up with new ideas and ways to live life, and many around him were stubborn to open their minds to fundamental changes because it was different from what they had known, what they had been taught, how people had lived for centuries?

Excellent arguement.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

I have only read the OP’s post and have not reviewed any of the other responses.

I believe Pope John Paul II said it best, “When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it deos not listen to the voice of conscience it turns against humanity and society.”

~ That’s why!

 

[religioismorals]

Just because something has not been done before, is no reason to assume it is not well worth starting now. That’s common sense.
If the world followed that line of thinking, we wouldn’t fly in airplanes and we wouldn’t have newly formed laws and in fact, we wouldn’t have the religion of Christianity.

Didn’t Jesus show up with new ideas and ways to live life, and many around him were stubborn to open their minds to fundamental changes because it was different from what they had known, what they had been taught, how people had lived for centuries?

Had he not had the small group of believers around him who were not afraid of change, I assume we would not have Catholicism today.

I guess christianity is now like the roman empire.
That is a scary thought.

“Violent hate crimes against LGBT people tend to be especially brutal,even comparedtoother hate crimes: “an intense rage is present in nearly all homicide cases involving gaymale victims”.Itis rare for a victimtojustbe shot;he is more likelytobe stabbed multiple times, mutilated, and strangled. “They frequently involved torture, cutting, mutilation… showingthe absolute intent to rub out the human being because of his (sexual) preference”.”

• wikipedia violence against lgbt people

Jesus wasn’t tortured… oh wait

 

[Charlemagne_II]

religio

I guess christianity is now like the roman empire.
That is a scary thought.

Yeah, if you mean it is now being persecuted. I know there is no federal mandate against being an atheist and following your conscience. But apparently there is now a federal mandate against being a Catholic and following your conscience.

The bishops of the U.S. are filing a lawsuit against Obama for mandating contraception coverage in Catholic institutions. That means an atheistic federal government is assaulting a religious institution, but I’ll bet you don’t think that’s a scary thought!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Plato and Aristotle were not Catholic. Some people who actually know how to think and have not lost their moral marbles would say they had something more than common sense … certainly more common sense than some of the folks in this forum.

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

Aristotle
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child.”

 

[religioismorals]

religio

I guess christianity is now like the roman empire.
That is a scary thought.

Yeah, if you mean it is now being persecuted. I know there is no federal mandate against being an atheist and following your conscience. But apparently there is now a federal mandate against being a Catholic and following your conscience.

The bishops of the U.S. are filing a lawsuit against Obama for mandating contraception coverage in Catholic institutions. That means an atheistic federal government is assaulting a religious institution, but I’ll bet you don’t think that’s a scary thought!

I would be fine with christianity if it didn’t try to limit people’s rights. If you feel persecuted it might be because your religion is trying to push some of your beliefs on others.
If muslims tried to make a law where women have to cover their face or jews tried to ban pork, it would be the same for them. It’s natural to fight back when your rights are violated but, passing a law based on a faith is wrong.
If catholics don’t like same-sex marriage don’t look or just preach about it in your place of worship and not try to force everyone to follow your beliefs.

I am an atheist and i’m not trying to ban christianity or persecute you. All I want is religion to keep its beliefs to themselves and not force people to follow them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

religio

**"Violent hate crimes against LGBT people tend to be especially brutal,even comparedtoother hate crimes: “an intense rage is present in nearly all homicide cases involving gaymale victims”.Itis rare for a victimtojustbe shot;he is more likelytobe stabbed multiple times, mutilated, and strangled. “They frequently involved torture, cutting, mutilation… showingthe absolute intent to rub out the human being because of his (sexual) preference”.

• wikipedia violence against lgbt people**

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Washington were Catholics. Some would even argue they weren’t particularly religious. They certainly weren’t trying to force their religion on others.

From The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799; John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor:
Quote:
Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. [Emphasis in the original]
memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/…+@lit(gw110081)

Thomas Jefferson, from a A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments
1778Papers 2:492–504

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

religio

I am an atheist and i’m not trying to ban christianity or persecute you.

But you’re also not offering to defend Christian freedoms when the government tries to end them, as in the present case with the requirement that Catholic institutions provide contraceptive devices in their health plans.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would be fine with christianity if it didn’t try to limit people’s rights.

Homosexual (pretend) “marriage” is not a societal right. Homosexual behavior is. It is part of the right of free association guaranteed by the Constitution. Heterosexuals also have the right to engage in orgies and in “open marriages” (characterized by concurrent adultery); and they have the right to limit their relationships to monogamous, committed cohabitation. It’s just that we don’t urge the State to institutionalize private behaviors which do not further the most stable goals of a society.

 

[religioismorals]

religio

**"Violent hate crimes against LGBT people tend to be especially brutal,even comparedtoother hate crimes: “an intense rage is present in nearly all homicide cases involving gaymale victims”.Itis rare for a victimtojustbe shot;he is more likelytobe stabbed multiple times, mutilated, and strangled. “They frequently involved torture, cutting, mutilation… showingthe absolute intent to rub out the human being because of his (sexual) preference”.

• wikipedia violence against lgbt people**

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Washington were Catholics. Some would even argue they weren’t particularly religious. They certainly weren’t trying to force their religion on others.

From The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799; John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor:
Quote:
Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. [Emphasis in the original]
memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/…+@lit(gw110081)

Thomas Jefferson, from a A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments
1778Papers 2:492–504

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

That wouldn’t hold up in court nowadays. As I said previously, You can believe what you want but it’s wrong to force everyone to follow your beliefs.
I’m pretty sure that if you tried to ban anal sex, no matter what faith or lack of, there would be a big debate about that too.

 

[Maristella]

Catholic Answers has a Q&A explaining why we should oppose same-sex marriage:

catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

 

[religioismorals]

religio

I am an atheist and i’m not trying to ban christianity or persecute you.

But you’re also not offering to defend Christian freedoms when the government tries to end them, as in the present case with the requirement that Catholic institutions provide contraceptive devices in their health plans.

I think that’s wrong too and i’ve signed petitions too. I sign any petetion I find that limits the rights of people.

Elizabeth502
If that doesn’t bother you why sould marriage(not a christian creation) bother you?
You don’t have to attend the wedding or see them in their bedroom and if you don’t like what you see you can look away or just tell them you think it’s wrong.

" The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos." -wikipedia on u.s. marriage license

Interracial marriage was banned before, that was wrong, why is something like that happening again?