Why should same-sex marriage be illegal?

[EnterMeJesus]

Wretched_One:
I’m fairly sure marriage hasn’t existed since the beginning of time, otherwise we would have knowledge of dinosaur marriage. Just because something has not existed before, it does not follow that it shouldn’t exist. By your logic, phones are an abomination because the Greeks didn’t use them.

Now, now deary. Aren’t all of mankind equal in the eyes of the Lord? Equality, by its very definition, involves extending the same rights and civil liberties to all homo sapiens, and that includs everyone! You really should read the Bible more silly.

 

[DrTaffy]

Because it is an abomination that has never existed before not even amongst cultures depraved enuf to not discourage homosexuality like the ancient Greeks.

Yes it has. I won’t go over all this yet again, but see here.

Cue someone citing “follow the footnotes” - I am on a tablet right now which makes it awkward to look up the reference, but it is an article from a Catholic student publication attacking some of those examples. But regardless of its other faults, the main point is that that article does nothing to show that the examples I cite were not marriages, in the eyes of that culture, between people of the same physical sex.

 

[Wretched_One_1]

I’m fairly sure marriage hasn’t existed since the beginning of time, otherwise we would have knowledge of dinosaur marriage.

Time as a concept was handed down by the
Lord to man.

Just because something has not existed before, it does not follow that it shouldn’t exist. By your logic, phones are an abomination because the Greeks didn’t use them.

No technology is a gift by God that should be used to spread the gospel. The abomination of homosexuals playing @ marriage with someone of the same sex is an affront to the Lord.

Now, now deary. Aren’t all of mankind equal in the eyes of the Lord? Equality, by its very definition, involves extending the same rights and civil liberties to all homo sapiens, and that includs everyone!

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Two men don’t have the “right” to get married any more than a man to marry a platypus or a little girl to marry her father all of which are just other depravities the way of which we have paved by rationalizing the abomination of letting homosexuals play @ marriage.

You really should read the Bible more silly.
Yes I should as should you

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

What reason do you have to believe this? I always find this belief to intriguing, but have yet to see good evidence to support it.

There is no evidence. It is his opinion, and is of course wrong, as we know from the Church’s teachings. But since the poster isn’t Catholic, it isn’t really relevant to the dicussion on this site anyway, frankly.

 

[EnterMeJesus]

Wretched_One:
I’m fairly sure that phones weren’t gifts from God.

Now that I’ve got that out the way, comparing gay marriage with marrying platypuses and children is a false equivalence, since they are unable to consent to marriage while two adults of the same sex are. In a strictly Biblical sense, the only legitimate marriage may be of a heterosexual nature, but marriage has evolved from its sacred origins and has clearly become much more secular.

Also, why do you believe homosexuality to be an abomination? Surely such a word cannot be used to describe the omnipotent and omniscient God’s creation? Do you believe yourself worthy to judge which of God’s creations are abominations and which aren’t? That sounds blasphemous to me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m fairly sure that phones weren’t gifts from God.

Now that I’ve got that out the way, comparing gay marriage with marrying platypuses and children is a false equivalence, since they are unable to consent to marriage while two adults of the same sex are. In a strictly Biblical sense, the only legitimate marriage may be of a heterosexual nature, but marriage has evolved from its sacred origins and has clearly become much more secular.

Also, why do you believe homosexuality to be an abomination? Surely such a word cannot be used to describe the omnipotent and omniscient God’s creation? Do you believe yourself worthy to judge which of God’s creations are abominations and which aren’t? That sounds blasphemous to me.

Before you can answer the question of same-sex marriage, it would be helpful first to answer the question of why there should be governmental recognition of marriage of any kind at all. If you posit that marriage has evolved beyond its sacred origins, then perhaps you should consider that marriage has evolved beyond the need for any government involvement.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Also, why do you believe homosexuality to be an abomination? Surely such a word cannot be used to describe the omnipotent and omniscient God’s creation? Do you believe yourself worthy to judge which of God’s creations are abominations and which aren’t? That sounds blasphemous to me.

Do you think it is blasphemous to judge that a broken leg is not normal? Homosexuality is also an instance of something not working properly, much like a broken leg. We don’t celebrate a broken leg. Why should we celebrate homosexuality?

 

[chris62]

How does same-sex marriage being legalised affect you in any meaningful way?

Try asking that to the wedding cake bakers who was sued for standing by their religious beliefs.
Or the clerk who was sent to jail.
Or the Australian archbishop who is in the docks in Tasmania forced to explain Catholicism’s stance on homosexual marriage.
Or the Canadian resort owners sued for refusing to host a gay marriage, etc etc etc

How ignorant can you be?

 

[Rau]

I have found myself questioning why exactly same-sex marriage should be completely illegalized. I mean common sense is telling me that it’s always been one man/one woman, and redefining marriage doesn’t change that… but still. We don’t advocate illegalizing not going to church on Sunday, using the Lord’s name in vain, pre-marital sex, and even things such as pornography and adultery. So, why is the same-sex marriage issue stressed so much? Maybe I just need to get my position secured on this one.

Don’t misinterpret this question. I don’t like the idea of same-sex marriage, and I’m not asking why it’s wrong according to Catholicism, I’m asking why exactly it should be illegal.

Why ought the State to endorse the sexual relationship of two men and offer it special accommodation?

If a legal institution is warranted for two (or more?) persons wishing to operate in a form of domestic partnership - perhaps to share assets, establish primacy of inheritance or provide for mutual care, then I have no objection to that being considered. It ought not be masqueraded as marriage, however.

 

[EnterMeJesus]

Before you can answer the question of same-sex marriage, it would be helpful first to answer the question of why there should be governmental recognition of marriage of any kind at all. If you posit that marriage has evolved beyond its sacred origins, then perhaps you should consider that marriage has evolved beyond the need for any government involvement.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

 

[EnterMeJesus]

Try asking that to the wedding cake bakers who was sued for standing by their religious beliefs.
Or the clerk who was sent to jail.
Or the Australian archbishop who is in the docks in Tasmania forced to explain Catholicism’s stance on homosexual marriage.
Or the Canadian resort owners sued for refusing to host a gay marriage, etc etc etc

How ignorant can you be?

So, legalising gay marriage means you can’t be a bigot anymore? Is that it?

 

[Rau]

I’m not a supporter of polygamy, but from a religious standpoint, I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. After all, Abraham had two wives, as did Jacob and Elkanah, the father of Samuel. David and Solomon and Gideon all practiced polygamy.

But what has Revelation had to say on this point? Was Christ ok with polygamy?

 

[EnterMeJesus]

Do you think it is blasphemous to judge that a broken leg is not normal? Homosexuality is also an instance of something not working properly, much like a broken leg. We don’t celebrate a broken leg. Why should we celebrate homosexuality?

There is a difference between celebration and acceptance. But the real question is this: Is God dead? I think your awful analogy is evidence for that being the case.

 

[Rau]

Having two good and loving parents, whether they are a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers is what is important.

The ideal scenario is obvious - good loving mother and father. Acquiring a child (eg surrogacy) guarantees that one element of the ideal is forsaken and does not itself ensure superior goodness or lovingness. How can that act be justified? The would-be parents place themselves ahead of the best interests of such a child.

In the case of adoption, the agency should find the best available candidate parents. It only makes sense that “mother + father” is preferable to other arrangements - and this should be factored into the assessment. But again, the child’s best interests are subordinated to some perceived issue of discrimination - the interests of the would-be same sex parents.

 

[Rau]

So, legalising gay marriage means you can’t be a bigot anymore? Is that it?

It means you can be sued for politely declining to assist in a ceremony you and your religious faith find offensive. For example the videographer cannot give an honest answer for why he wishes to decline a commission to make a “beautiful commemorative video” of the ceremony.

 

[chris62]

So, legalising gay marriage means you can’t be a bigot anymore? Is that it?

Why do you gay activists always resort to hatred and name calling?
It doesn’t do your cause any good.
And by the way, it is against forum rules, but you are only a newby here.
There are new gay activists pop up regularly here, think they know everything, only to run away with their tails between their legs after a dozen or so posts.
Perhaps it is because you just can’t form a proper argument.
Let me try to educate you.
Contrary to what Hollywood tells you, it is not bigotry to say homosexualty is a disorder.
It is a disorder because a male and a male cannot procreate.
This was decided by nature.
It is a fact of life.
I am sorry I have to break the news to you this way.
But homosexuals can’t procreate the human species.
Mother Nature has disciminated against you, in her infinite wisdom.

 

[EnterMeJesus]

It means you can be sued for politely declining to assist in a ceremony you and your religious faith find offensive. For example the videographer cannot give an honest answer for why he wishes to decline a commission to make a “beautiful commemorative video” of the ceremony.

So, you want to be allowed to be a bigot because you’re a Catholic? That’s not very Christian of you.

 

[EnterMeJesus]

Why do you gay activists always resort to hatred and name calling?
It doesn’t do your cause any good.
And by the way, it is against forum rules, but you are only a newby here.
There are new gay activists pop up regularly here, think they know everything, only to run away with their tails between their legs after a dozen or so posts.
Perhaps it is because you just can’t form a proper argument.
Let me try to educate you.
Contrary to what Hollywood tells you, it is not bigotry to say homosexualty is a disorder.
It is a disorder because a male and a male cannot procreate.
This was decided by nature.
It is a fact of life.
I am sorry I have to break the news to you this way.
But homosexuals can’t procreate the human species.
Mother Nature has disciminated against you, in her infinite wisdom.

Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. That’s not name calling, it’s what someone is. And tell me: how is calling homosexuals abominations acceptable but calling that person a big not? That sounds like a double standard.

I love how you’re so confident in your beliefs. The arrogance is almost visible. Homosexuality is not a disorder, and yes, although two men cannot procreate, that does not mean they cannot be discriminated against. Also, you don’t have to be gay to care about gay rights. Just not close-minded.

 

[Wretched_One_1]

Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. That’s not name calling, it’s what someone is. And tell me: how is calling homosexuals abominations acceptable but calling that person a big not? That sounds like a double standard.

The abomination is the behavior NOT the person, but you know this, you are merely here to poison this forum with pro gay agenda filth. I suspect the great majority of homosexuals suffered traumatic events as children or young adults. Although they would not publicly admit it or even realize it half the same-sex attracted people I know were traumatized as youngsters by same-sex attracted predators/rapists.

I love how you’re so confident in your beliefs. The arrogance is almost visible. Homosexuality is not a disorder, and yes, although two men cannot procreate, that does not mean they cannot be discriminated against. Also, you don’t have to be gay to care about gay rights. Just not close-minded.

Homosexuality IS a disorder. It was recognized as such as little as a few decades ago by the American Psychological Association, until it was infiltrated by degenerates who much like yourself in this forum sought to poison the minds of those in that profession.

 

[EnterMeJesus]

Homosexuality IS a disorder. It was recognized as such as little as a few decades ago by the American Psychological Association, until it was infiltrated by degenerates who much like yourself in this forum sought to poison the minds of those in that profession.

So, you believe that “degenerates” infiltrated an organisation and tricked them into thinking that homosexuality is not a disorder? And not the more likely scenario that psychologists were wrong before 1973 due to the widespread misconceptions, lack of significant research, and social stigma attached to homosexuality and, after learning that they were incorrect, changed their stance on the issue? The mental gymnastics needed for you to come to your conclusion is stunning.

While I’m here, how do you define a “degenerate”? Anyone that disagrees with you on this topic?