Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[Biblepoe]

But that’s just it; you are taking marriage and making it merely a business relationship.

No. I’m saying that you and your religion are free to call “marriage” whatever you like, but there are also a bunch of standardized laws that apply to people who live as a romantic and sexual couple that is called “marriage”. You may say that the latter does not necessarily fit whatever your religion calls marriage, but it’s clear from actually reading rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States that it’s something personal (not professional) and that there are good pragmatic reasons to limit it to two people.

my previous post showed you how the idea of two people being united always goes back to the generation of babies.

You baselessly claimed that. Actually, living together as long-term sexual and romantic partners predates our species. As far as we know, those primitive “marriages” if you want to call them may were probably preceded by a time when promiscuously mating without staying together as a couple was common, and there is no reason to assume that homosexuals were not among those who first started being long-term sexual and romantic couples. Seriously, this doesn’t even matter though because there’s no reason why we must confine ourselves to the original motives of humans (or pre-humans) for doing something. That has been my point by saying that in the Bible marriage consists sometimes of a woman being forced to marry her rapist and a man having many wives!

I would be in favor of same-sex couples having all those same standardized protections/privileges if their relationship was one that was objectively ordered to produce children.

As it has become apparent, by “objectively ordered to produce children” you include infertile couples and exclude same-sex couples for absolutely no practical reason. You’re for codifying discrimination into law.

Tell me what it is about a homosexual couple that inherently requires them to need this?

Same-sex couples have the same reasons for needing that as do infertile heterosexual couples. You have heard of adoption, aren’t you? Really, are there any practical reasons to grant these things to heterosexual couples who are known to be infertile but to deny them to same-sex couples?

Using the word “ordered” is meant to get through to people such as yourself who don’t believe in “design.”

Like I had guessed before, you’re trying to sneak your religious belief (“design”) in under the guise of what you call “science.”

No, it’s science.
. . .] But things can still have purpose, or call it function if you wish, and “ordered” simply points to that purpose, even if the purpose is not fulfilled in every instance.

Saying that something is “meant” or “designed” to or for something doesn’t have any place in science unless there is a known creator of it (such as an engineer). “Function,” , which doesn’t necessarily imply intention (unlike “design,” “order,” “meant,” and “purpose”), probably is the word that would be used instead. By using words like “design,” “order,” “meant,” and “purpose” you are injecting someone’s intention into it. Gee, I wonder whose intention it could be. It couldn’t be your god’s intention, could it?

We have sex organs, but gosh, nobody has any idea what they’re for!
I have eyes and ears, but they are not intended for any purpose?

Body parts have functions, but they don’t have purpose until someone wishes them to do something.

That someone, in the case of eyes and ears, is everyone who makes use of them. A person may intend his ear for the purpose of listening to the radio (a function that has emerged due to evolution), but may also use them some something completely unrelated, such as holding up glasses.

That someone for sex organs is everyone who make use of them. If two adults choose to used their genitals for procreation, than that’s a purpose they have given it. If an infertile straight couple or a same-sex couple have sex knowing they aren’t going to make a child, they are doing it for some purpose other than procreation.

Your position is one that even Darwin would scoff at. He might not say that an active agent designed a biological feature, but it sure has an intended function or it wouldn’t have survived the evolutionary process.

Unless you inject a god into it, the people doing the intending for the “intended function” were the particular individuals copulating. Their intentions are irrelevant to this discussion.

Things can have “meaning” even if there were no designer.

“Meaning” is necessarily individual. A same-sex couple may derive as much meaning out of their relationship as an infertile heterosexual couple does.

Ah, here we go. No such thing as natural law? Then you believe that what’s right for you is right for you, and I can decide what is right for me.
You might be able to get away with that for a short time, but eventually that idea leads to chaos, and like other laws it is a dangerous idea for society. This isn’t religion, it’s common sense. (Why is murder wrong? Please give an answer that isn’t based on natural law, since “there’s no such thing.”)

I love how some people will jump to silly conclusions about the positions of others when they don’t buy into their beliefs.

We don’t have to buy into “natural law” in order to set up a society where 99.99999% of us disvalue murder (which is what “murder is wrong” means) and where it is outlawed to further our goals of living peacefully.

 

[He_Man]

We don’t have to buy into “natural law” in order to set up a society where 99.99999% of us disvalue murder (which is what “murder is wrong” means) and where it is outlawed to further our goals of living peacefully.

So you’re defining the intrinsic value of something based on people being able to achieve consensus, statistically? Really? “Murder is wrong” means there is an intrinsic value that defines that action as wrong or evil, regardless of personal belief. Does that mean people who support unrestricted abortion believed that the prohibition on abortion was “good,” by your definition, prior to Roe vs Wade? Of course not, they believed it was wrong. The action, or ban, had differing levels of esteem depending on the holder of the viewpoint, and thus, that cannot be what determined its intrinsic value of good or ill.

And who is “us?” Society cannot be “the world” in your scenario, since various societies have differing opinions on a whole host of moral issues. If consensus is all you need, you can simply form your own mini-society, and create rules based on a common belief system - we have no issue with rape, murder (outside our group, of course, for the sake of sustainability), and/or child pornography. All three concepts looked upon with disgust by most of the world. But not because of Natural Law, but because we got consensus on a vote tally? So they suddenly become “not wrong?”

This would mean enslaving Blacks was ethically and morally fine, until and elected official said it wasn’t one day…

 

[surritter]

Actually, living together as long-term sexual and romantic partners predates our species. As far as we know, those primitive “marriages” if you want to call them may were probably preceded by a time when promiscuously mating without staying together as a couple was common, and there is no reason to assume that homosexuals were not among those who first started being long-term sexual and romantic couples.

Back to basics, one last time: why do two people even participate in sexual and romantic activities? You really can’t admit that the whole notion of the biological urge to copulate is tied to a species’ need to procreate? Any serious student of evolution would be bewildered at your stubborn stance. You have to erect the roadblock to this obvious premise in order to shore up subsequent points.

As it has become apparent, by “objectively ordered to produce children” you include infertile couples and exclude same-sex couples for absolutely no practical reason. You’re for codifying discrimination into law.

You’ve read the explanation over and over, but refuse to hear the difference between something having the innate, species-specific or sex-specific building blocks; and something where the building blocks were never there. I wish to go to a well for a drink of water: darn, the well dried up years ago. You, on the other hand, are also thirsty yet you are pounding a bunch of rocks with a hammer looking for water. Are the rocks being discriminated against because they lack water?
(All analogies fail if pushed far enough – I’m not saying that a well is species-specific or sex specific. But at least consider this simplistic comparison to learn the relevant philosophical concepts.)

Like I had guessed before, you’re trying to sneak your religious belief (“design”) in under the guise of what you call “science.”
…
I love how some people will jump to silly conclusions about the positions of others when they don’t buy into their beliefs.

We don’t have to buy into “natural law” in order to set up a society where 99.99999% of us disvalue murder (which is what “murder is wrong” means) and where it is outlawed to further our goals of living peacefully.

You’re wearin’ me down, man. We obviously won’t come to any consensus on the main issue. Suffice it to say that the we agree that the foundational purpose of marriage (whatever than may be) is something that is always, everywhere, must-at-all-times be limited to just two people. (Correct me if you disagree with that.) Why it requires just two people is where we diverge.

And regarding the last point – if 99.99999% of us think murder to be wrong (sorry: disvalued), then there must be a reason. That percentage doesn’t sound like chance.
If you follow the reason, you’ll admit that there is such a thing as universally accepted right vs. wrong. That doesn’t apply to every nook and cranny of life (there are many things that are simply subjective), but it’s simply a logical fallacy to posit that there’s no such thing as an absolute truth. And that is what you have said by denying such a thing as natural law.
Why is that a fallacy? Because to make such a statement is a declaration of an absolute truth! So there must be at least one thing as an absolute truth. And when we acknowledge that there is such a thing as absolute truth, we must use science and reason to sort out what truths exist and how they apply.
Therefore, there are such things as absolutes in the realm of philosophy, just as there are in the realm of physics. It’s unfortunate that you think of philosophy as a synonym for religion.

 

[Biblepoe]

So you’re defining the intrinsic value of something. . .]

I said nothing of intrinsic value, so re-read what I wrote.

Value is subjective by definition.

If consensus is all you need, you can simply form your own mini-society, and create rules based on a common belief system - we have no issue with rape, murder (outside our group, of course, for the sake of sustainability), and/or child pornography.

One could create such a society, but it probably wouldn’t last (because of lots of violence), and even if it did last people probably wouldn’t like to live in that society.

Even aside from the issue of morality, it society wouldn’t necessarily fall into chaos (as surritter claimed) as a result of people not believing there is a thing called “natural law”, because that isn’t necessary for implementing prohibitions on things such as murder, slavery, and rape.

 

[Biblepoe]

Back to basics, one last time: why do two people even participate in sexual and romantic activities?

Because they enjoy it and believe it to be in their best interest.

You really can’t admit that the whole notion of the biological urge to copulate is tied to a species’ need to procreate? Any serious student of evolution would be bewildered at your stubborn stance.

I’m not doubting that the function of procreating is something that has an obvious evolutionary advantage because it tends to be passed down. That’s irrelevant to whether civil marriage should be granted to infertile heterosexual couples but denied to same-sex couples.

I am doubting that sex is “designed,” “ordered,” “meant,” or has the “purpose” of being for reproduction (beyond the purpose the individuals copulating give it) in any way that implies that civil marriage aught to be denied to same-sex couples to granted to infertile heterosexual couples, because those things all imply intention.

You’ve read the explanation over and over . . .]

As far as I remember, you’ve either brought up design/order/meant/purpose or used some silly analogy that I’ve shot down.

You’ve read the explanation over and over, but refuse to hear the difference between something having the innate, species-specific or sex-specific building blocks; and something where the building blocks were never there.

Whether the genitals aren’t working (never to work again) or the genitals aren’t the right ones (if the goal is to reproduce) is completely irrelevant to whether or not same-sex couples vs known infertile straight couples should be granted the rights and responsibilities of marriage, because it makes no practical differences.

I wish to go to a well for a drink of water: darn, the well dried up years ago. You, on the other hand, are also thirsty yet you are pounding a bunch of rocks with a hammer looking for water.

There are no practical reasons to bang to rock together, but there are practical reasons to grant the rights and responsibilities of marriage to both gay couples and straight couples.

Why [marriage] requires just two people is where we diverge.

There problems could arise if we allow marriage laws to expand beyond two individuals. As someone not terribly knowledgeable about law and its effects, when I scrolled through the list of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, I thought of the following:

Groups of people abusing marriage laws to get/buy citizenship.
Abusing veteran’s disability.
People getting added to an existing marriage license in collusion to become exempt from federal unemployment tax.
A large number of people filing for bankruptcy to get rid of debt (that would be a huge mess).
Allowing for tax-free transfer of property.

That’s some things I came up with by just looking at some of the rights and responsibilities of marriage for a few minutes. Look through it and try to convince me that there wouldn’t be any major practical problems.

And regarding the last point – if 99.99999% of us think murder to be wrong (sorry: disvalued), then there must be a reason. That percentage doesn’t sound like chance.

That’s because we don’t like our lives being taken against our will.

it’s simply a logical fallacy to posit that there’s no such thing as an absolute truth.

I never said there was not such thing as absolute truth, I said there was no such thing as “natural law”. Those are two different things.

Why is that a fallacy?

Jumping from, “No such thing as natural law,” to, “Then you believe that what’s right for you is right for you,” is a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

there are such things as absolutes in the realm of philosophy, just as there are in the realm of physics.

There are no absolutes in physics or in any other science. There are facts that we know about the science, but we know these things not because they are absolutes, but because they have been rigorously verified by testing, experimenting, and observation.

 

[vsedriver]

You haven’t admitted to doing it, but you haven’t explained how you can go from the premise:

A man and a woman are needed for procreation

to the conclusion:

therefore, a same sex couple should be denied the same protection under the law as a married heterosexual couple,

without injecting your religious beliefs. So it certainly seems like you are injecting your religious beliefs.

you don’t need religious beliefs to follow that logic. A heterosexual couple receives special protection under the law for one reason and one reason only… they have the potential to produce children. A gay couple can’t do that and therefore don’t need special protection.

In fact a gay person can get married in any state as long as they marry under the same rules. Sexual orientation is not a requirement to be married. A gay person married to the opposite sex can have the potential to produce children and would then also deserve special protection.

Besides, if two gay men can marry then two straight guys can marry. Why should the state afford special protection to these unions when they have no chance or potential to produce children or even provide the natural genders for parents for adopted children?

Of course words often have multiple meanings. Feel free to use the word ‘union’ with regard to marriage how you want, just don’t deny same-sex couples the same protection under the law as married heterosexual couples without an extremely good reason.

Having the potential to produce children seems like a really good reason to give heterosexual couples special protections.

Since you have earlier indicated that “objectively ordered to produce children” excludes gay couples but includes known infertile heterosexual couples, it is clear that you do not mean ‘able to produce children’ and are injecting your belief that couples who don’t have both male and female genitalia should be denied civil marriage rights without consideration of whether they can have children. Can you come up with any non-religious reason why to do this?

because even sterile male/female couples can provide the natural parenting genders for adoptive children. The children would have the same ‘experience’ of a mommy and a daddy if they had remained in their biological family. Gay couples can not supply the two gender parenting that nature ordered for human development.

Then heterosexual couples without children should have the exact some protection under the law as a same-sex couple without children (including the eligibility for adoption), and a straight couple who adopts should have the exact some protection under the law as a same-sex couple who adopts.

Same sex couples can not supply adopted children with their basic human right to a two sexed parenting experience.

This was done largely to gain or maintain social status and/or wealth. Good thing we don’t have to confine ourselves to that approach today!

I thought it was done for the benefit of children.

It depends on which two people you’re talking about. Many times people married because they were forced to (as noted above). Other times (more recently) some people have done it because they love each other and want to live a fulfilling life as a recognized couple.

You don’t need legal priveleges to be a recognized couple.

Exactly! By “ordered to reproduction” you mean something other than ‘able to procreate’. It’s your stealth way of justifying, without any practical reasons, denying marriage rights to same-sex couples while giving them to heterosexual couples.

No ordered to reproduction means just that. Even if there is a secondary reason why their natural order malfunctions doesn’t change the fact that they are still the natural order for parenting. Which same sex couples are not.

However, you don’t have the right to deny someone else equal protection under the law because you disvalue it for religious reasons.

but you do have the right to deny someone special priveleges if they don’t fall under the catagory that is assigned those priveledges. Just as you shouldn’t deny a child the natural right to have both a mother and a father.

 

[vsedriver]

No. Saying something is “designed” is to say that it was intended to be a certain way. In other words, it’s a way to invoke either a god or another designer. That’s religion, not science.

Not necessarily, nature designs by natural selection. Nature has designed human beings to reproduce via two opposite sexes. The state recognizing that two opposite sex couples more often than not tend to produce children. It is in the state’s best interest to support and encourage the biological parents to remain together to raise their offspring.

The fact that you use the word “meant” after “designed” confirms what I said about “designed” above and that your use of that word was not an accident. You are inserting the will of whoever “meant” it that way.

He could have been using the darwinian concept of designed.

It seems to me that unconsciously, the will of whoever “meant” and “designed” sex to be a certain way (aka, god) is how you go from, “[Two men having sex] is not the blueprint which could allow fertilization of an egg,” to, “Ergo, they have no marital rights to begin with.”

again, I don’t need to use a god to come to that conclusion. Nature clearly shows that you need a male and a female to produce offspring. It is in society’s best interest to keep biological parents as a recognized pair bond with special privileges for the benefit of children whether or not individual pairs actually produce offspring.

Also in the state’s best interest is to place adoptive children in homes that closely resemble a natural biological home.

There is no benefit to the state to accord privileges to a pair bond that can’t ever produce offspring and can’t provide a two sexed parenting experience for adoptive children.

There’s no such thing as Natural Law. It’s part of your religion, which is super for you, but keep it to yourself when it comes to creating laws that people who aren’t part of your religion have to live by. You haven’t said anything about science beyond saying that male and female genitalia is needed to reproduce, which isn’t relevant unless and until you thrust religiously inspired prohibitions against sexual activities with the right genitals for procreation.

It is a law of Nature that you need a male and a female to reproduce. It is the product of the marital union ie the kids that are the reason behind the special privileges the state gives to married couples.

So that’s the non-religious argument against same sex marriage.

 

[djeter]

My reasons for opposing same-sex marriage aren’t strictly religion-based in thinking that it is immoral or ‘unchristian.’

The thing is you are still locked into gays, gay lifestyles and behaviors. That argument is going nowhere and you need to become more familiar with people who present more relevant and successful arguments such as Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, she of the Ruth Institute. Check this out: This powerful video captures her testimony to the Rhode Island House Judiciary on March 1, 2011. Reportedly, silence followed her testimony in our nation’s most Catholic state. See if she doesn’t blow you away, too…

youtu.be/ifUSSt–gLg

The argument is about MARRIAGE.

dj

 

[vsedriver]

As it has become apparent, by “objectively ordered to produce children” you include infertile couples and exclude same-sex couples for absolutely no practical reason. You’re for codifying discrimination into law.

Same-sex couples have the same reasons for needing that as do infertile heterosexual couples. You have heard of adoption, aren’t you? Really, are there any practical reasons to grant these things to heterosexual couples who are known to be infertile but to deny them to same-sex couples?

Yes, there is a very, very important practical reason to grant these things to heterosexual couples who are known to be infertile but to deny them to same sex couples. Heteros can still supply a 2 gender parenting experience for children. Each child has a human right to the love of a mommy and a daddy. A gay couple can’t provide this.

That someone for sex organs is everyone who make use of them. If two adults choose to used their genitals for procreation, than that’s a purpose they have given it. If an infertile straight couple or a same-sex couple have sex knowing they aren’t going to make a child, they are doing it for some purpose other than procreation.

Unless you inject a god into it, the people doing the intending for the “intended function” were the particular individuals copulating. Their intentions are irrelevant to this discussion.

no matter what the individual’s intentions are, nature has determined what the function of the sex organs are for. It doesn’t take much of a scientist to know that a penis works best with a vagina and very poorly with an anus.

“Meaning” is necessarily individual. A same-sex couple may derive as much meaning out of their relationship as an infertile heterosexual couple does.

Yes, individuals have meaning to their relationships but that shouldn’t involve the state. Only the potential to produce children or be potential adoptive parents should concern the state.

I love how some people will jump to silly conclusions about the positions of others when they don’t buy into their beliefs.

We don’t have to buy into “natural law” in order to set up a society where 99.99999% of us disvalue murder (which is what “murder is wrong” means) and where it is outlawed to further our goals of living peacefully

.

But we do have to buy into the law of nature. Form follows function.

 

[vsedriver]

There are no practical reasons to bang to rock together, but there are practical reasons to grant the rights and responsibilities of marriage

so you feel that marriage should be limited if it might be used to abuse the state? I mean, if these people love eachother and want to have families why couldn’t they do so a legally married?

As for me, I intend to marry my elderly mother as soon as gay marriage is legal in my state. I’ll get the house, all her savings. The sibs will get nothing of course but then maybe we could all marry each other!

 

[NeedImprovement]

Short Refresher excerpt from Dr. Michael Brown’s , A Queer Thing Happened to America :

Semantics / Lexicon / Terminology / War of the Words / Words Have Power

When it comes to any campaign to sway public opinion, it is well known that the one who defines the terms, defines the debate. And if there’s one thing the GLBT activist community is good at, it’s reframing the issues and redefining terms to suit their political agenda. This strategy was laid out by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their 1989 public relations playbook, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer it Fear and Hatred of Gay in the 90s, and has been followed to the letter by America’s gay activist organizations ever since.

Specifically, GLBT activist leadership has mastered the art of redefining the words associated with homosexuality and transgenderism to be more euphemistic, neutral and emotional, and less graphic, offensive, and threatening to the average American who would normally be inclined to have serious reservations about the topics.

A key component in this strategy to reframe the arguments and win the public relations battle has been the enlistment of academia, the media and other opinion-influencing elites to unquestioningly adopt the GLBT lexicon and, thus, get them to carry the bulk of the load in terms of changing the way people think about the issues of homosexuality and transgenderism.

There’s even a GLBT activist organization within the media ranks called the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association which has developed a “stylebook” of preferred terms and usage for the media to follow as they write their stories.

And if this isn’t Orwellian enough, there is even a *Rapid Response Task Force * in place to punish the offenders in the event that a journalist or other media player fails to get the memo on the politically correct wording and usage of their preferred terms – as dictated by the GLBT activists themselves. . . .

So when we see a post supporting the normalization of homosexuality or promoting same sex -]marriage/-] (why do these people feel such a need to come and post their - - - - here at CAF . . . ) it’s beneficial for us to know what we’re really looking at. The first point in the excerpt is the one I’m contemplating at the moment , specifically :

We need to remain aware that, right from the beginning , the gay militants and their minions are going to try to define the terms so they can define the debate.- something to be keep in mind before and while responding .

 

[NeedImprovement]

So I was thinking, (after several rosaries ) how helpful it would be to us on this thread if we were to have a working model which could be held up for our scrutiny ; one which might clearly demonstrate how the gay militants try to set us up by defining the terms for debate so that they can define ( read control) the debate . . .

And then, it was almost like . . . Pow ! – right out of the sky drops this gift :

A few posts back when I reiterated to a poster

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 guilty school boards 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 ?

NeedImprovement:

That is a direct consequence of pushing for same sex marriage and for the normalization of active homosexuality. It isn’t a “church” issue - it’s parents’ rights and the protection of their children.

And you don’t have an answer for it do you ?

And it was followed directly with

People who are in favour of same sex-] marriage/-], and the homosexual agenda, particularly those who are promoting it, refuse to face what they are doing to other people’s children . . . That is absolutely heartless.

You guys should really be ashamed to post any of your arguments here (or anywhere) in favour of same sex -]marriage/-].

Anyone with a half a brain is able to conclude at this point that we’re speaking of parents’ rights here. But look at the question (not answer) someone else posted in response :

Would you mind mentioning some things you believe marriage equality proponents are doing to children as well as back it up with studies that shows that its harmful.

Seriously guys , look at it . Do you see any parents’ rights in there ? – No ! The sacred right of a parent, their authority to ensure the education and formation of their own child is stripped and thrown into the garbage ! And then it is replaced with . . what – another parent . . ? – No , it’s replaced with a study !

What’s the underlying message here? It is that parents don’t even have the right to educate their own child. That right is supposed to be sacred. But you note how the response was framed : It further implies that only a study – not a parent may decide whether something is harmful to children – particularly their own children.

There we have the sheer lunacy of the driving mentality behind the normalization of homosexuality on display. :doh2:

That, my dear brothers and sisters is one more solid reason “Why We Must Fight Against Same Sex -]marriage/-]."

 

[PumpkinSeed]

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

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

Whats wrong with a gay person adopting a child? Would you rather that child grow up in an orphanage or a nice loving home?

 

[fix]

Whats wrong with a gay person adopting a child? Would you rather that child grow up in an orphanage or a nice loving home?

The child has a right not to be subjected to two same sex persons acting as two opposite parents. The choice you offer is a false one.

The real question is why do same sex persons think they have a right to play mother and father?

 

[someperson555]

The child has a right not to be subjected to two same sex persons acting as two opposite parents. The choice you offer is a false one.

The real question is why do same sex persons think they have a right to play mother and father?

pope john paul 1 would have disagreed with you…

“Luciani allegedly permitted the adoption of children from orphanages in his diocese by homosexual couples reasoning in a letter to a colleague, “that we have found that homosexuals will take handicapped and less than healthy and attractive children. Most importantly they will take bastards.” It was in part due to his lobbying in the Italian Parliament that it became legal for single persons to adopt children in Italy, and he clearly accepted that this would include homosexuals [13]. In a letter to his mother he bemoaned that “There is something terribly wrong with a society that thinks one’s sex is what makes one a good parent”.”

 

[someperson555]

regardless of wether or not you agree with gay marriage or not, it must be treated as a civil matter. we cannot and should not go back to a theocracy. the issue of sexuality is so personal that it would be unwise to try and force a uniform sexual norm on everyone, it has been tried and failed miserably. i myself oppose gay marriage, but if my neighbors wish to live together and form a civil union, that is none of my business. however, i would agree that gay couples should only get any sort of tax breaks if they are also raising children.

 

[fix]

pope john paul 1 would have disagreed with you…

“Luciani allegedly permitted the adoption of children from orphanages in his diocese by homosexual couples reasoning in a letter to a colleague, “that we have found that homosexuals will take handicapped and less than healthy and attractive children. Most importantly they will take bastards.” It was in part due to his lobbying in the Italian Parliament that it became legal for single persons to adopt children in Italy, and he clearly accepted that this would include homosexuals [13]. In a letter to his mother he bemoaned that “There is something terribly wrong with a society that thinks one’s sex is what makes one a good parent”.”

Where is your source?

BTW, JPII called so-called homosexual marriage a new ideology of evil.

 

[fix]

regardless of wether or not you agree with gay marriage or not, it must be treated as a civil matter. we cannot and should not go back to a theocracy. the issue of sexuality is so personal that it would be unwise to try and force a uniform sexual norm on everyone, it has been tried and failed miserably. i myself oppose gay marriage, but if my neighbors wish to live together and form a civil union, that is none of my business. however, i would agree that gay couples should only get any sort of tax breaks if they are also raising children.

From the Vatican:

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings…

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good…

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral …

 

[religioismorals]

Animals do not make moral choices, which is what we mean by free will. They act on instinct, not on whether or not they should or shouldn’t do/say/think something. This is why they are called innocent. They cannot decide whether or not they will serve God, for instance. Just their being what God made them is serving him. The Genesis account tells us that only human beings were given any command by God requiring they make a moral decision, therefore only human beings could decide whether to obey God’s command or not. We’re speaking here about physical beings, not the angelic spirits who also had free will when they were created.

From forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=452159

i.imgur.com/CeZtY.jpg

Just saw this and decided to share it

 

[someperson555]

Where is your source?

BTW, JPII called so-called homosexual marriage a new ideology of evil.

heres the source:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_theology_of_John_Paul_I

and your point is? that was from jp2’s book , i dont think he was speaking infallibly.
and you know, i find it funny how so many catholics (both laycatholics and clergy) are railing against homosexual marriage as “evil”. yet a single pope has yet to condemn the sale of tobacco. which does far greater damage to society and the individual than two people living together and having theire names on a state issued marriage certificate. its downright absurd! this is why i find it difficult to take the church seriously on certain questions. i mean give me a break, if youre not going to condemn the greater evils in society, then dont try to just single out the issue of homosexuality since its inconsistent.

@your following comment,
then should we also criminalise adultery? or perhaps masterbation? if its gravely immoral for the state to grant CIVIL marriage to gay people, then the church must also admit that its gravely immoral for the state not to criminalise adultery, or masterbation, or blasphemey, etc.