Why should same-sex marriage be illegal?

[anon98328916]

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.

In my heart of hearts I cannot be supportive of this as it is going against my beliefs. The Holy family is our role model and who we are meant to try and Base our families on. Same sex marriage is changing the whole structure of marriage which God had intended to be between one man and one woman, I have done some reading this last few months this looks like the final attack from satan! an attack on the family. He wants to destroy the family in any way he can. Where will it end!? Then adopting children, transsexuals marrying and adopting the list is endless. The evil one is trying to change what God intended to something that is against God in every way.

 

[Wretched_One_1]

I have to question the sincerity of the OP. It seems that one who has access to this forum would have access to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church which could not be more clear on the Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior:

2357Homosexualityrefersto relationsbetweenmenor between womenwhoexperienceanexclusive orpredominantsexualattraction towardpersonsof the samesex. It hastakenagreatvarietyofforms through thecenturiesand indifferent cultures. Itspsychologicalgenesis remainslargelyunexplained.Basing itself onSacredScripture, which presentshomosexualactsasactsof gravedepravity,140traditionhas alwaysdeclaredthat "homosexual actsareintrinsicallydisordered."141They arecontraryto thenaturallaw. Theyclosethesexualactto thegift oflife. They do notproceedfrom a genuineaffectiveandsexual complementarity. Under no circumstancescan they be*approved.

So given that homosexual acts are prohibited that leaves NO question to the Catholic Church’s opposition to so-called "gay marriage. " Now I don’t know the OP nor do I have a window to what is in their hearts. It is unfortunately clear however that this particular forum has been infiltrated by some seeking to “dialogue” which amounts to nothing more than yet again forcing the pro gay agenda position down our throats. The pro gay agenda position is in direct opposition to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church specifically and even to not an insignificant number of Christian Churches who had not yet succumb to the world’s erroneous pronouncements. For those who are unaware when Pope Francis made the infamous comment “who am I to judge?” he was speaking about a same-sex attracted individual attempting to live a chaste lifestyle, NOT active practicing homosexuals or a so-called gay married couple. Lest one claiming to be Catholic yet ascribing to the pro gay agenda call me intolerant for finding being exposed to the gay agenda in this forum objectionable, I would just remind you that posting what the Cathechism says about homosexuality would probably get one banned from Facebook or MySpace in this so-called “tolerant” culture in which we live.

 

[Thorolfr]

I have to question the sincerity of the OP. It seems that one who has access to this forum would have access to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church which could not be more clear on the Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior:

2357Homosexualityrefersto relationsbetweenmenor between womenwhoexperienceanexclusive orpredominantsexualattraction towardpersonsof the samesex. It hastakenagreatvarietyofforms through thecenturiesand indifferent cultures. Itspsychologicalgenesis remainslargelyunexplained.Basing itself onSacredScripture, which presentshomosexualactsasactsof gravedepravity,140traditionhas alwaysdeclaredthat "homosexual actsareintrinsicallydisordered."141They arecontraryto thenaturallaw. Theyclosethesexualactto thegift oflife. They do notproceedfrom a genuineaffectiveandsexual complementarity. Under no circumstancescan they be*approved.

So given that homosexual acts are prohibited that leaves NO question to the Catholic Church’s opposition to so-called "gay marriage. " Now I don’t know the OP nor do I have a window to what is in their hearts. It is unfortunately clear however that this particular forum has been infiltrated by some seeking to “dialogue” which amounts to nothing more than yet again forcing the pro gay agenda position down our throats. The pro gay agenda position is in direct opposition to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church specifically and even to not an insignificant number of Christian Churches who had not yet succumb to the world’s erroneous pronouncements. For those who are unaware when Pope Francis made the infamous comment “who am I to judge?” he was speaking about a same-sex attracted individual attempting to live a chaste lifestyle, NOT active practicing homosexuals or a so-called gay married couple. Lest one claiming to be Catholic yet ascribing to the pro gay agenda call me intolerant for finding being exposed to the gay agenda in this forum objectionable, I would just remind you that posting what the Cathechism says about homosexuality would probably get one banned from Facebook or MySpace in this so-called “tolerant” culture in which we live.

Maybe when Pope Francis said, “Who am I to judge,” he meant all gay people. After all, during his recent visit to the US, Pope Francis didn’t seem to mind giving a private audience to his former gay student, Yayo Grassi, along with Mr. Grassi’s partner of 19 years:

…the Vatican said that Francis gave only one “real audience”: to someone later identified as one of his former students, Yayo Grassi, a gay man in Washington who says he brought his partner of 19 years to the Vatican’s embassy in Washington for a reunion. They even shot video…

…Mr. Grassi, a 67-year-old caterer, told The New York Times that he and the pontiff have known each other since the 1960s, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the future pope was then called, taught him literature and psychology at the Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepción, a Jesuit high school in Santa Fe, Argentina.

Mr. Grassi said that he had resumed contact with the future pope years later, when he was the archbishop of Buenos Aires. He also visited the pope at the Vatican in September 2013, and later contacted his office to ask for an audience in Washington.

“Once I saw how busy and exhausting his schedule was in D.C., I wrote back to him saying perhaps it would be better to meet some other time,” Mr. Grassi said. “Then he called me on the phone and he told me that he would love to give me a hug in Washington.”

Mr. Grassi said that he had been accompanied by his partner of 19 years, Iwan Bagus, as well as four friends, and that the meeting took place at the Vatican Embassy on Sept. 23 — a day before Ms. Davis met the pope.

Mr. Grassi said that Francis had told him to arrange the visit through the office of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio, or envoy, in Washington.

“It was a private meeting, for about 15 to 20 minutes, in which I brought my boyfriend of 19 years,” Mr. Grassi said. His boyfriend, Mr. Bagus, worked on a video that was posted online that showed Francis hugging Mr. Grassi and the others.

nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/europe/pope-francis-kim-davis-meeting.html?_r=0

He even gave Mr. Grassi a hug…

 

[chris62]

I have to question the sincerity of the OP. It seems that one who has access to this forum would have access to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church which could not be more clear on the Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior:

2357Homosexualityrefersto relationsbetweenmenor between womenwhoexperienceanexclusive orpredominantsexualattraction towardpersonsof the samesex. It hastakenagreatvarietyofforms through thecenturiesand indifferent cultures. Itspsychologicalgenesis remainslargelyunexplained.Basing itself onSacredScripture, which presentshomosexualactsasactsof gravedepravity,140traditionhas alwaysdeclaredthat "homosexual actsareintrinsicallydisordered."141They arecontraryto thenaturallaw. Theyclosethesexualactto thegift oflife. They do notproceedfrom a genuineaffectiveandsexual complementarity. Under no circumstancescan they be*approved.

So given that homosexual acts are prohibited that leaves NO question to the Catholic Church’s opposition to so-called "gay marriage. " Now I don’t know the OP nor do I have a window to what is in their hearts. It is unfortunately clear however that this particular forum has been infiltrated by some seeking to “dialogue” which amounts to nothing more than yet again forcing the pro gay agenda position down our throats. The pro gay agenda position is in direct opposition to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church specifically and even to not an insignificant number of Christian Churches who had not yet succumb to the world’s erroneous pronouncements. For those who are unaware when Pope Francis made the infamous comment “who am I to judge?” he was speaking about a same-sex attracted individual attempting to live a chaste lifestyle, NOT active practicing homosexuals or a so-called gay married couple. Lest one claiming to be Catholic yet ascribing to the pro gay agenda call me intolerant for finding being exposed to the gay agenda in this forum objectionable, I would just remind you that posting what the Cathechism says about homosexuality would probably get one banned from Facebook or MySpace in this so-called “tolerant” culture in which we live.

I whole heartedly agree.

 

[Rau]

… It is unfortunately clear however that this particular forum has been infiltrated by some seeking to “dialogue” which amounts to nothing more than yet again forcing the pro gay agenda position down our throats.

You language is a tad dramatic, but what you describe has ever been thus. The misrepresentation of those pretending to be neutral, or even pro-Christian, adds nothing to the arguments proffered.

For those who are unaware when Pope Francis made the infamous comment “who am I to judge?” he was speaking about a same-sex attracted individual attempting to live a chaste lifestyle, NOT active practicing homosexuals or a so-called gay married couple.

The Pope was not expressing doubt or ambivalence about the immorality of homosexual behaviour, but rather his incapacity to judge the heart of any individual:
“If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?” the pope asked.

 

[EnterMeJesus]

According to your definition, you have perfectly described yourself as a bigot, as you strongly and unfairly dislike people who adhere to the belief that homosexuality is a disorder. But I won’t call you that. I love all people (well, try to) but it is what some people do that I dislike. I love homosexuals but dislike homosexuality. I love drug addicts but dislike the taking of drugs. I love alcoholics but dislike it when they are drink-dependant. The world is full of people who dislike the actions of others.
Yet you call people who disagree with your opinion a bigot. “That sounds like a double standard,” to use your words.

You say how you love how I’m so confident in my beliefs. Thank you, but I did not mention anything to do with my beliefs. The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate is a decision made by Mother Nature. That is why homosexuality is a disorder. It is not part of the Natural Order. As I have said before, that is why SSM should be illegal, and is in the vast majority of the globe, as it normalises a disorder.

If you want to read what SSM does when it is legalised you should read the following:

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/SSM_Mass_2012.pdf

There is a whole thread on this website about the Disorder of Homosexuality (probably several) which ran for months.
In it, there was a post which was a recording from a member of the AMA as to why homosexuality was de-listed as a disorder.
The decision, he reveals, had nothing whatsoever to do with a medical or psychological finding, but it was changed after a demonstration by gays.

You can also listen to a talk on the impacts of children and society when marriage is redefined.

ruthinstitute.org/podcasts/the-impact-of-re-defining-marrriage-on-children-and-society

Hopefully, in the interests of fairness, you will hear that other side of the argument and not be so “close-minded,” as you put it.

So calling someone a bigot makes one a bigot? Right. Can I use “person of bigotry” instead? Also, replace homosexual/gay with Catholic or black in that pdf you sent me, and you’ll see that, really, it’s just people rebelling against unfair discrimination and people being punished for bigotry. A link to that interview would also be nice, since the only thing I can believe in with only testimony is God.

 

[vz71]

It is not discrimination to refuse to accept sinful behavior.

 

[Ph0enix]

they should be legal period

freedom of religion goes both ways

It is not discrimination to refuse to accept sinful behavior.

what if they follow a different religion that says it isnt sinful?

 

[vz71]

what if they follow a different religion that says it isnt sinful?

I am sure that is a comfort to them.
Do not expect me to cater to the sin.

 

[Rau]

they should be legal period

What? Marriage? It is - and just as well given society’s very dependence on it!

But what about two men? Is that the same?

 

[Thorolfr]

What? Marriage? It is - and just as well given society’s very dependence on it!

But what about two men? Is that the same?

Is society really all that dependent on marriage?

Marriage rates have fallen dramatically in most major European countries over the past decade, as austerity, generational crisis and apathy towards the institution deter record numbers of young people from tying the knot.

The number of weddings has fallen to historical lows in France and Spain and has tumbled in other Catholic countries such as Italy, Ireland, Poland and Portugal, according to national and European data. But people have also fallen out of love with marriage in countries as varied as Greece, Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands and Britain. Only in parts of Scandinavia, the Baltic republics and Germany is the institution retaining its allure.

In Italy there were fewer than 200,000 marriages last year, the lowest number since the first world war. Numbers have fallen by 24% in the past decade and halved since 1965. Preliminary data indicated that the rate of marriages in Italy last year was 3.3 per 1,000 citizens, said Istat (Italy’s National Institute of Statistics), compared with 4.6 in 2003. It was, it said, “the lowest in modern history”.

theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/25/marriage-young-europeans-austerity

 

[Rau]

Is society really all that dependent on marriage?

Yes, to the extent that most jurisdictions will deem a couple married after a period of time living as though they are.

The State (unconsciously) recognizes that they have married, absent the usual protocols.

 

[vz71]

Yes, to the extent that most jurisdictions will deem a couple married after a period of time living as though they are.

The State (unconsciously) recognizes that they have married, absent the usual protocols.

The state has a consciousness?