Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[InSearchofGrace]

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

Who is arguing that Catholics should look away from the evil of abortion, or disregard the danger a smoking pregnant mom poses to her unborn child?

It seems that you wish to give a pass to the gay ‘marriage’ movement, to have it made legal in every state, the way you discount the reasons that gay ‘marriage’ is detrimental to the common good, which should concern the state as well as each citizen. Catholics who advance gay apologia in these threads usually want to justify their decided pet sin of active homosexuality or a close family member or friend’s pet sin. I am just trying to understand your posts, and this is not meant as an attack, but which is it in your case? Further, your disclosed faith affiliation is ‘catholic’ in the lower case. Is that a hint of the cafeteria kind of Catholic mentality to which you subscribe, as displayed in your postings?

You repetitively take the focus away from the OP, in all of your posts in this thread, whereby you logged the most number of posts. (Btw, you have yet to reply to mine #138.) If it’s not adultery and blasphemy that should get our attention according to you instead of gay ‘marriage’, it should be abortion or drugs, none of which is the subject of this thread. Or, claiming that Catholics want to replace our constitutional republic form of government with theocracy, which is a ridiculous proposition.

Now, you are in effect denying the fact that the AIDS epidemic in the early 80’s in the U.S. was due to promiscuous homosexual sex (mind you, within ten years that homosexuality was dropped as a diagnosis of a mental illness by the APA in 1973), even as it did get introduced and spread into the heterosexual population because of bisexuality and intravenous drug users. The most affected population remains the same, in homosexuals, if you check the latest CDC report. Yes, the African experience is different, the spread mainly in heterosexuals, stemming from the prostitution trade along the transportation routes that truck drivers used.
,

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

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

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

I’m sorry that you did not understand. The poster I was responding to was justfying abuse as being good simply because people had been doing it for thousands of years, and would be doing it for thousands more.

If that logic justifies abuse, then nothing is unjustified. Every abuse is OK.

No, I am not saying that problems should not be solved. Only that these problems are caused largely by abuse, and that abuse should stop. That would actually be the BEST way to solve these types of problems.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

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

Excuse me, have I justfied any of these terrible things that you describe? Those weren’t even a topic of this thread.

If you can find something worse than a particular abuse, does that then make the particular abuse OK?

Have you read about early history of HIV? It’s initial spread was not by heterosexuals. Books have been written about it. Denying what is true does not make it untrue.

Actually, you can use herpes as an ‘attack’ against promiscuity. Heterosexual behavior in the context of marriage only prevents practically all STDs.

 

[surritter]

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

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

SomePerson … look at what you wrote: “no one is saying that we shouldnt support something that is good.”

Yet your earlier posts were saying just that – that we shouldn’t try to uphold laws that forbid gay “marriage.” Your mantra has been that there are other things that are just as evil, or worse, so why bother.

No one else but you has tried to draw a dichotomy where one doesn’t exist. Let’s work to support all good things, and reject all bad things.

 

[Stephen168]

yes i mean acts. smoking during pregnancy is far more immoral than homosexual acts since you risk lifelong damage and even death to the fetus.
are you saying abortion is less sinful than homosexuality??

Would you rather hit your son in the head with a 3 pound hammer or a 5 pound hammer?

 

[Stephen168]

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

You just repeated what I said. You just added the source of human nature, so we agree.

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

Yes, it is false, which is why it is silly for the government to change nature by legislation.

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

I thought I answered, so again, Yes, the state can recognize what is real. But like I said, the state recognizing what is real doesn’t change it from real to civil. It is still real (natural). The state supporting something (abortion) might mean the state thinks it is good for us, but doesn’t mean it is in fact good or the state is supporting the natural law.

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

No you said, “deny.” If the state changes the definition of something they have “denied” the reality of it. I guess there are other ways the state could “deny” the reality of something without changing its definition. Either way the state is wrong to “deny” the reality of something.

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

You have completely misstated “my logic.”
My logic is: There is natural law.
The state can choose to support it or not. (it would be good if they did)
When the state chooses to support it; the state does not change it.
The state can try to change it by legislation but fail because reality cannot be changed by the state.

So by “my logic” murder being wrong isn’t made wrong by the state, but by natural law. The state chooses to support the ban on most forms of murder, and it is good that it does.

You have added the following to “my logic:”
God is the source of the natural law. (I agree)
The state is required to support the natural law (It would be good if they did)

Personally, I think we agree:
Marriage is defined by nature, not by the state.
Marriage is a civil “matter” because the state currently supports and regulates it.

 

[Stephen168]

SomePerson … look at what you wrote: “no one is saying that we shouldnt support something that is good.”

Yet your earlier posts were saying just that – that we shouldn’t try to uphold laws that forbid gay “marriage.” Your mantra has been that there are other things that are just as evil, or worse, so why bother.

No one else but you has tried to draw a dichotomy where one doesn’t exist. Let’s work to support all good things, and reject all bad things.

We can do more than one thing at a time

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

You have completely misstated “my logic.”
My logic is: There is natural law.
The state can choose to support it or not. (it would be good if they did)
When the state chooses to support it; the state does not change it.
The state can try to change it by legislation but fail because reality cannot be changed by the state.

So by “my logic” murder being wrong isn’t made wrong by the state, but by natural law. The state chooses to support the ban on most forms of murder, and it is good that it does.

You have added the following to “my logic:”
God is the source of the natural law. (I agree)
The state is required to support the natural law (It would be good if they did)

Personally, I think we agree:
Marriage is defined by nature, not by the state.
Marriage is a civil “matter” because the state currently supports and regulates it.

Based upon what you say, I now know that we agree much, much more than what I thought before. I misunderstood your posts to say that the state had no interest (it did not ‘matter’) in marriage at all. I now understand that you believe that the state has a responsibility to support real marriage, which is my tenet as well.

I am glad to agree with someone, and let’s continue to support marriage as it really is, rather than what it is obviously not.

 

[NeedImprovement]

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

:doh2::doh2:

Why would I need to squander further effort by writing responses to posts which already contradict themselves ? “Arguments” which contradict themselves decimate their own validity .(It is questionable whether those types merit any response at all) Perhaps if you were able to understand just how many holes I can see in, even this - your most recent response quoted above , you might tend to look upon my posting of the “Dohh!” smiley(s) more as an act of charity .

I provided two links in that post you’re responding to. The second was to an excerpt cited from that same report given by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center for Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Maybe you should’ve followed the second one. Anyone who had bothered to click on that second link (here it is again) Meth Use Surges Among Gay Men would’ve seen the following :

Meth Use Surges Among Gay Men

April 11, 2007 - Last year, 6,360 gay men were tested by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center for sexually transmitted diseases, and one in four had used methamphetamines at least once, the Los Angeles Times has reported (1).
That frequency is twenty times greater than in the general population.
The Times quoted the Center’s manager of crystal meth recovery services, Mike Rizzo, saying that the illegal street drug “lowers sexual inhibitions, increases arousal and helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas…it’s sort of the perfect gay drug.”
Methamphetamine is known for contributing to the transmission of HIV. Quoting Rizzo, the Times said, “Of newly infected HIV patients, 43% reported some meth use.”

Reference: “More Gay Men Using Meth, Study Finds,” by R. Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times, April 11, p. B6.

How , in your mind, could you ever construe this to fit the definition of “anecdotal” ? . . . Unless you’re claiming that 6,360 gay men who were tested by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center for sexually transmitted diseases are all lying ? If you are , you are simultaneously ruling almost every study which was carried out in the world to be non-factual.

I think it is sad that you attempt to argue so passionately , yet at the same time would be using such obtrusively irrational reasoning to do it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Here’s that link once more guys : Meth Use Surges Among Gay Men
In case anyone missed it, when we go to the article, there is a small link up in the left-hand corner, entitled “ from Medical Issues ”. If one clicks on that link, one is given a veritable plethora of linked articles (I think I counted over 80 of them) dealing with active homosexuality, the spread of HIV, and all kinds of related subjects ; some of the graphic titles really aren’t appropriate to list here at CAF, but to give an idea ; several examples:

**‘Versatility’ In Same-Sex Intercourse Spreads HIV in Peru
New Staph Infection Spreads Among Gay Males
Kaposi’s Sarcoma Reappears In San Francisco **

… and to dispel a myth about syphilis that was being perpetuated on this thread a little earlier –
**Risky Same-Sex Relationships Fuel Syphilis Come-Back In Pennsylvania
Syphilis On Rise In Virginia After Decade Of Decline **

In the previous post , the person quoted in reply to my post had said

furthermore even if homosexuals use drugs more, what the heck does that have to do with my comments? i was trying to say that drugs are a greater evil than homosexuality.

Indeed , the poster was trying to separate the two – *active homosexuality *and *drug abuse *. . . and chose the worst possible drug – crystal meth, in their failing attempt. The attempt implied that *active homosexuality *and *crystal meth *is an *either/or *category , while medical evidence says, on the contrary, the one continues to be closely linked to and is often found in conjunction with the other.

The more we read these articles , the more we see just how much suffering can come with that troubled lifestyle ; it becomes a constant reminder to us to pray for those who are actively homosexual – even for those among them who are persecuting us socially [Matt 5:43-45].

I really do struggle on occasion, trying to believe someone else could actually believe some of the acrid ,baseless theories they post here . This one comes to mind :

, you probably despertately searched the internet trying to find some kind of article that links homosexuality to drug use. but you failed. LOL

I guess it would come as a big disappointment to the person who said that, were they to discover the only time I ever really become “desperate”, is when I’m seeking out the sacrament of Reconciliation ().

But to illustrate to everyone else just how poorly grounded in reality that comment was (. . . continued

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . continuation)

Meth Use Fuels Higher Rates of Unsafe Sex, HIV Risk in Young Men Who Have Sex With Men

natap.org/2007/HIV/082807_01.htm

HIV-Positive Men at Higher Risk for Meth Use **Research Says **

BCCFE studies show that 8 out of 10 times, these men began using crystal after they had acquired HIV infection. Centre studies conducted with the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control also show that B.C.'s HIV rates among gay men increased 50 percent in 2000 and have not declined since. . . .

Another question gay men in this city need to ask themselves and each other is why, aside from the obvious pursuit of pleasure, are a substantial number drawn to a habitual use of crystal and other confidence- and/or sex-boosting substances. Can it have anything to do with self-esteem?

The Meth Menace

More than half of HIV patients at Long Beach’s two main treatment centers use meth.
Men high on the drug are four times more likely to have unprotected sex.

The number of gay men in Los Angeles who use crystal meth tripled from 2001 to 2004.

Syphilis, hepatitis C and other STDs are increasing among meth users.

Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Office of AIDS Programs and Policy,Crystal Methamphetamine Use Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in

An estimated 60 percent of HIV-infected patients at St. Mary Medical Center’s CARE program and 70 percent at the Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services use the powerful stimulant, health experts say

.

Crisis Among Gay Men: Crystal Methamphetamine
Use Linked to Rising HIV and STD Rates

The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) and the National Coalition of STD Directors (NCSD) are concerned
about a burgeoning public health crisis. Crystal methamphetamine (meth) . . . While we recognize that many populations are engaging in crystal meth use, recent evidence suggests that its use is contributing significantly to increases in risky sex and higher rates of HIV transmission and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM).

---

It would’ve been very easy to keep going . There are tons of corroborating medically substantiated articles out there.

Something to keep in mind guys: We’ve already seen how the gay militants try to cite studies in order *to deny parents their rights * in furthering their agenda. The other side of that coin, is that when legitimate studies are presented as evidence against the active homosexual lifestyle , activists will do their utmost to try and dismiss it (yes, often times using the buzzwords “anecdotal evidence”), or discredit it.

Anyone who denies the link between crystal meth and active homosexuality , is not only denying medical science ; they’re denying reality. In my limited opinion, adamant denial of such overwhelming evidence doesn’t even deserve one of these :doh2: in response .

 

[Dejagirl]

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…

I agree with your last statement. It’s important that as disciples of Christ we treat our brothers and sisters with love and non-judgement. Comments such as those are not acceptable and I don’t think that is how Jesus would want us to respond. It does not mean, however, that we do not have an obligation to do what we can to protect and promote God’s commandments. We can do this through our prayers, through our votes, through spreading God’s word with truth and kindness.

I heard an interesting statisic on the radio recently. It said that the actual percentage of gays in America is close to 4%. If you listen to the media today, they make it sound much, MUCH higher. I find it incredible how far and quickly the gay movement is progressing for a such a small percentage of our population.

No matter what the movement/agenda, I think it shows how as Catholics and Christians how cautious we must be to reports we hear from the secular left media. Secularism comes from Satan pure and simple…it takes root into a society little-by-little, and then before long people begin accepting these grave offenses against God because they’ve been convinced over time that if they speak out against them or believe they are wrong and openly say so, that they are not good people. This shows you how sly and evil Satan really is!

We must continue to defend God and marriage, and do so in a respectful way. We must also pray frequently that God will open hearts and minds to his truth, and ask for his help in best how to spread his message. He will show us the way.

 

[tonyinatl66]

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…

I would ask you to look into your heart and ask why you are against homosexuality. The original Hebrew and Aramaic Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. Modern versions of the Bible have been changed to include homosexuality as a sin. People, until recently, interpreted the Bible as saying interracial marrage is a sin. If there is hate in your heart for gays and lesbians, that is a sin. Jesus never says homosexuality is a sin. God wants us to love him and one another. It is not our task to judge, that is God’s task. I would encourge you to look into your heart first and start there. God will show you the way to his love and guidance and answer your prayers about how best to help to strengthen the family unit, of all forms that raise healthy, loving families.

 

[CopticChristian]

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…

Saved,

Be careful crossing the street, this is a parking lot and there are moving cars here, hold my hand, no you can’t go alone…and more…I am sure you can recall many of these things we tell our children to keep them “safe”.

As we think so we believe and as we believe so we act. Parents think and believe it is important to teach our children to be safe in daily activities.

If you agree with how the Church thinks on same sex marriage there is an element of what do you think? The LGBT community experience what they experience because of what they think and believe and how they act. This is not your doing or my doing. What is enough.

Opposition starts in your mind, extends to your family and then to others. The opposition becomes louder and stronger based on how you think and believe.

A parent opposes drunk driving quietly. A parent that has a child killed as a result of a drunk driver opposes it louder and with more energy. Something happened to that initial belief causing the actions to change.

The reason the opposition for some is quiet and for others louder and stronger is because while the beliefs are shared something happened to cause those beliefs to become stronger and the actions more evident. It may be experience, conviction, who knows.

Why must we fight? We must fight because Jesus is Lord and he commands us to love neighbor and God. You cannot love neighbor and God and approve of immorality and its consequences. How must you fight is determined by the conviction of your beliefs that in turn will determine your actions.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

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?

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

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

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

That’s a very unchristian thing to say.

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?

Belorg,

Please continue to inform me as to the country you refer to when you say “my country”.

Thank you

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

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

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?

Poe,

Your notion that a loving same sex couple vs a pathologic whatever does not wash.

Are we better off with Murdering/Thieving/Dishonest/Cannibalistic/White Supremacists parents that love their children and send them to school or whatever makes no sense. Your thinking is distorted.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

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.

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.

Catholic Adoption agencies have closed because of the possibility of same sex marriage couples seeking adoption. This affects society. I anticipate that Protestant run adoption agencies would follow suit and that would affect society.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

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

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”.

I find your attempt to portray marriage as you see it difficult to accept. This is Catholic Answers and as you might imagine filled with Catholics and you may want to look at this post #442 and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=673527&page=30

this link…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749

You want to dissociate sacramental marriage from civil marraige. This is tantamount to separating life from eternal life in my mind. They are one in the same. If you do not believe in eternal life then so be it. Your dialogue concerning an attempt to just discuss civil marriage has to be met with, well you are wrong…there is marriage…you don’t see it my way and I feel bad for you…

 

[CopticChristian]

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…

The one on the left could be improved with the ape scratching his head.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Wikipedia is not the source for morals, government, or education. There exists information put up by individuals and sometimes not accurate. This discussion has nothing to do with a

man & woman

athiest, sinner, Mormon, Hindu, uneducated, or any other modifier you wish to put in from getting married.