Alright, the contraception question I asked you answered. That made some sense, so I can imagine why you don’t like gay activity or why you don’t do gay marriage.
But what about people who aren’t Catholic? They get divorced and do all kinds of other things that you don’t agree with. Why can’t two men get together and the state can call it marriage or whatever else they like? They do this sort of thing anyway about divorce, with a lot less arguments and protests from you guys.
True. And I think that one of the reasons that so many people are quite agitated about many different issues in our society today is that back when the changes were made, we didn’t protest or protest enough, thinking that one small change would not matter, or that what people did on the provacy of their own homes wouldn’t have much of an effect on society, etc.
Why should you care if other religions want to recognize gay marriage?
Back whrn birth control was starting to become acceptable and legal ( no Christian denomination thought it was all right til 1930 when the Episcopalians caved, and there were various legal restrictions for decades after that), the Catholic Church protested somewhat, but mostly a lot of theologians thought the Pill might be moral and by the time that was investigated and decided, a lot of Catholocs had already been told that they could use it. It was the 60s…
But when it was decided, it was through a statement by the Pope called Humanae Vitae. He predicted that no good would come to society if birth control were widely used: that families would break up and abortion become common. He really hit the nail on the head!
When society separates sex from children, things go horribly awry. When there is no natural consequence of having sex outside of marriage, when sex becomes “safe” from having children, well, there’s little risk to premarital sex, to extramarital sex, and families are unformed or broken.
Before the advent of fairly reliable birth control, marriage was not a bigger form of going steady accomapnied by a big party; marriage was the creation of a new family, the building block of society and the producer of society’s children.
For
those reasons, the law protected marriage and gave married people certain helps. There was family health insurance
because children, the future of society, were involved–maybe only in a theoretical way, but that was what marriage was about. There were tax breaks
because the married couple was making sacrifices benefical to society.
So the issue of homosexual “marriage” is spurious, aside from being unable truly to exist as a social institution since no children can result. Marriage is not about celebrating two people’s love. The government doesn’t give tax breaks because two people have decided to “make a commitment” only to each other.
Marriage is for bearing and raising children, but it has become terribly twisted in our contracepting society. So homosexual “marriage” is like a mockery of true marriage, devaluing it even further than we already have.
What about gay adoption? Why not allow it for limited cases, to see what effect it has, and if its a good idea overall, or not?
It is a bad idea to start making life-changing experents with children and see how they turn out, don’t you think? Adoption is for the benefit of the child involved, not the adults, and the government is supposed to protect the children, not put them into the position of guinea pigs, so we can see what happens and then change it back if it turns out to be a bad idea, because if it is a bad idea, then we’d know because of the harm to the vulnerable children we placed in that situation.
