Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[someperson555]

Originally Posted by DWGarvin

Wow...
You do realize that marriage is a civil institution, right? One that has never, EVER, been homosexual in any of its forms? And that it is the building block of human society, right?

so you just blindly follow tradition?
so then should we re-legalise prostitution? because the roman Catholic church tolerated prostitution on the basis that "prostitution was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evils of rape, sodomy, and masturbation". yet at the same time in some roman catholic countries homosexuals recieved the death penlty. do you believe that same sex marriage is a greater evil than prostitution?
you cannot claim that " traditional marriage is the building block of society". since it is evident from history this is not always the case. there were very happy polygynous marriages for example. and its better for an orphan to be raised by a gay couple than to be wasting away at an orphanage.

[someperson555]

Originally Posted by DWGarvin

What valid point do they raise? They are judgmental, and they use a false dichotomy.

Please, help me see what point this poster raises that is valid.

the valid point they raise is that many christians freak out over gay marriage but they rarely ever address the worse evils of society. for example i have YET to see a conservative christians speak out against tobacco, i have YET to see christians calling to bring back prohibition. (yes drinking and smoking are MORTAL sins) and they cause far more damage to society than a couple of gays deciding to move in together.
but ofcourse its not just conservative christians who are in the wrong here, its the gays too. the problem here is more universal, the prolem is with human nature, what we see here is typical "group warfare" mentality. both sides are programmed to react emotionally and irrationally to the other's views, therefore making honest debate impossible.
do you know what the best solution would be IMO? i really like the stance of the people's republic on China on this issue, which the three no's: "No approval; no disapproval; no promotion."
that is by far the most common sense approach i have heard on the subject. why cant both sides here in america reach such a consensus?

[vsedriver]

[quote=someperson555;9342171]

ah the slippery slope fallacy.

how can this be a slippery slop fallacy? if you can change the basic nature of marriage which has always been between a male and female then you can change any aspect of marriage. You have no legal justification to discriminate against any social union.

actually, this is why i believe the state should not hand out marriage licenses. we have a separation of church and state. as catholics and (hopefully) rational people we must recognize that civil matters are to be judged differently than religious matters. the state must be blind to religion or irreligion when making its laws. now thats not to say that some of the aspects of religion couldnt be incorporated into state law (for example thou shalt not kill).

Perhaps the state should only hand out parental licenses. You get a license for every child you birth or father. The license outlines your fiscal responsibilities and what rights the child has to parental property.

Yes, some aspects of religion should be incorporated into state law for example leaving marriage as it has ALWAYS been between male and female.

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by someperson555

at one point in catholic societies slavery was also accepted. so was burning 5 year old children at the stake for alledgedly being "heretics". need i remind you, St. Joan of arc was also burned at the stake for her challenging traditional views on gender roles.

Catholic societies are not the Catholic Church. St. Joan of Arc was burned because the English wanted revenge. They simply used the Church as an excuse. Many people have misused the Church to justify doing evil.

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by someperson555

at one point in catholic societies slavery was also accepted. so was burning 5 year old children at the stake for alledgedly being "heretics". need i remind you, St. Joan of arc was also burned at the stake for her challenging traditional views on gender roles.

Nonsense. The Pope was the first European leader to categorically condemn the African Slave trade. The church never approved of slavery-it tolerated it as a part of the fabric of the times. The Church NEVER burned anyone at the stake, children or otherwise. And finally Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by civil authorities-not because of grenadier issues but because she led a rebellion.

I am sure we will soon see posts justifying sodomy while referring to the inquisition and Gallelio. <SIGH>

[Gift from God]

Originally Posted by estesbob

And finally Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by civil authorities-not because of grenadier issues but because she led a rebellion.

Joan of Arc was tried for heresy and was interrogated by a Cardinal, not exactly a civil authority

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by someperson555

St. Joan of arc was also burned at the stake for her challenging traditional views on gender roles.

Gender roles have nothingi to do with marriage. Gender has everything to do with marriage. Gender is hard-wired, radical, and cannot be overriden by artificiality, posing, pretense, propaganda, and experimentation. Gender roles are a completely different category, and have never been an element of legitimate marriage.

[fix]

Originally Posted by someperson555

ah the slippery slope fallacy.
actually, this is why i believe the state should not hand out marriage licenses. we have a separation of church and state. as catholics and (hopefully) rational people we must recognize that civil matters are to be judged differently than religious matters. the state must be blind to religion or irreligion when making its laws. now thats not to say that some of the aspects of religion couldnt be incorporated into state law (for example thou shalt not kill).

Slippery slope is not always fallacy.

Once you artificially redefine marriage there is no logical
Reason it cannot be done so again.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by fix

Slippery slope is not always fallacy.
Once you artificially subjectively redefine marriage there is no logical
reason it cannot be done so again.

...Actually, the real consequence is that there is then no logical reason why any two or more collections of people cannot marry, based on private, subjective reasons.

[Biblepoe]

Originally Posted by surritter

Where did any of my posts refer to sacraments or religion?

Here you are injecting your religious definition of a marriage:

Originally Posted by surritter

Even if every same-sex couple in the world is outstanding and deserving of every benefit, it's simply impossible to ever call that relationship a marriage.

A civil marriage is a set of contractual agreements between two sex partners that is recognizes by the state as having a set of standardized protections/privileges under the law (hospital visitation rights come to mind). Otherwise, your just dropping in your religious definition that says that one person must have male genitalia and the other female. You are free to have that as one of your church's teaching and to only marry those in your church who meet those conditions, but your aren't free to impose your religious beliefs on others.

Originally Posted by surritter

I have discussed marriage purely from the governmental and biological point of view.

No you haven't. Saying that one partner must have male genitalia and the other female to reproduce is not the same thing as discussing biological reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage. You also haven't discussed any practical reasons to not allow them to marry.

Originally Posted by surritter

A bulimic has a "disorder" because he or she circumvents the natural biological end.

That's not why it's a disorder. Bulimia Nervosa is considered an anxiety disorder because a person who binges and purges has lost control, gone the excess, develops compulsive behaviors, and tends to bring guilt and shame. A better analogy is between bulimia and having promiscuous sex all the time.

Your analogy is like saying, “Eating is ordered to nutrition. Since oral chemotherapy isn't ordered to nutrition it 'circumvents the natural biological end' and hence is bad.”

Originally Posted by surritter

Homosexual sexual acts are "disordered" because they not only circumvent the procreative aspect, but the biology of such aspect is not even there.

Your not making any sense. There's nothing in biology that suggests that it makes sense to allow a couple known to be infertile to marry if the purpose is procreation, but to deny it to gay couples. Both are just as “disordered” if your criteria is to procreate. If your criteria is that one partner must have male genitalia and the other female genitalia, then that is a religious definition of marriage, not one determined by practical or biological reasons.

Originally Posted by surritter

Wouldn't you say that food is "ordered" toward helping our bodies grow?

No. That's a use that food may have. Just because a thing generally serves a useful purpose doesn't mean it aught to every time it's used. I would not automatically say that someone eating food for a reasons entirely different from nutrition (such as a person who taste-tests milk from a truck for contaminants, only to spit it out) is necessarily doing something wrong.

Would you say that a taste-tester who is working for a major ice cream company is doing anything wrong by sampling milk from a truck for contaminants only to spit it out?

[Biblepoe]

Originally Posted by vsedriver

No one knows who will do a good parenting job however, no child should be deliberately deprived of experiencing a mommy and a daddy.

That's a slap in the face to all singles who have adopted. Do you think an injustice was done to children who were adopted out to a single parent?

Originally Posted by vsedriver

It has already happened.

When and where was a church in the US forced to marry a gay couple?

Originally Posted by vsedriver

SSM can endanger the rights of a child to a male and female parents.

Obviously the government and most people in this country don't agree that having both a male and female parent is a right, since single adaption is considered OK.

Do you think that a single adult is violating a child's right when he or she adopts as a single? I'm especially interested in your answer to this one.

Originally Posted by vsedriver

Well if you don't make the child you don't need to worry about how to raise one.

You evaded answering the question, so I'll try to re-phrase it so you can answer.

Is it more important for our society that the number of children produced goes up, or that the percentage of children who are produced being properly/lovingly raised goes up?

[religioismorals]

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.

[surritter]

Originally Posted by Biblepoe

Here you are injecting your religious definition of a marriage:

A civil marriage is a set of contractual agreements between two sex partners that is recognizes by the state as having a set of standardized protections/privileges under the law (hospital visitation rights come to mind). Otherwise, your just dropping in your religious definition that says that one person must have male genitalia and the other female. You are free to have that as one of your church's teaching and to only marry those in your church who meet those conditions, but your aren't free to impose your religious beliefs on others.

The fact that a baby is created by sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is -- to you -- injecting a "religious definition." Strange conclusion, to say the least.
The "standardized protections/privileges under the law" such as hospital visitation rights can easily be handled by other legal means.

If those protections are what marriage is BASED on, then you obviously have no problem with a "marriage" between 4 people, if I so choose. If that sounds like a ridiculous statement, please prove why marriage must be limited to just 2 people, but two people of any sex.

Originally Posted by Biblepoe

No you haven't. Saying that one partner must have male genitalia and the other female to reproduce is not the same thing as discussing biological reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage. You also haven't discussed any practical reasons to not allow them to marry.

Again, why did governments even begin to start certifying love relationships of any kind? You claim it has nothing to do with children resulting from that love relationship, so please share why governments began doing this.

Glad to address the other concerns once we iron out these foundational things: You say that marriage is limited to two people, but that it has nothing to do with sex. But why only two people?

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by savedbygrace92

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...

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by savedbygrace92

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.

I disagree : There never should have been a debate over it. Same-sex marriage makes a mockery of marriage and of everyone in society who gets duped into supporting it. It , with the complicity of certain judges and politicians , is also making a mockery of nations' Constitutions. It undermines marriage, families , strips parents of their rights , harms children, (did you get that one – HARMS CHILDREN) . The initiative of the homosexual agenda is to intimidate everyone into admitting a lie – namely that active homosexuality is normal. The damage might have been limited to a certain extent if the gay militants had never intruded upon marriage and decided they wanted themselves included in a definition which never could include them, but the very day they launched this asinine reckless initiative it became a continuous invasion into everybody else’s lives.

Originally Posted by savedbygrace92

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.

Intimidation again ? If you’re afraid to even post in a Catholic forum that homosexual marriage is wrong , perhaps you should consider asking the Holy Spirit for fortitude (and maybe ask as many members as possible here to pray for you [never a bad idea – either of those] )

Originally Posted by savedbygrace92

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.

So don’t bring your personal faith beliefs into it at all. A bunch of other reasons are already listed above in this post. The fact that homosexual activists’ agenda is harming other peoples' innocent children should be more than enough reason. It actually should have been enough to convince them to discard the idea of same sex marriage.

Why should you feel bad saying it ? More than a few LGBT think same sex marriage is a very dumb idea and they aren’t afraid to say so publicly. I would surmise it could likely be much more than a few LGBT who believe adamantly that same sex marriage is a foolish idea, but they’re probably afraid and intimidated too( If the gay activists do such an intimidation number on heterosexual society, I imagine they just might come down a lot more severely on LGBT’s who can think for themselves ).

One opinion I was reading from an openly gay person who is opposed to same sex marriage says there are many homosexuals who aren’t in the public eye but who oppose same sex marriage; he says they just don’t happen to be as vocal about it. Another openly gay man who is no stranger to the media , in the same article, spoke of those activists as those who want to force others to accept their social view. These openly gay people also speak of a Gay Elite fringe who try to control the whole LGBT community.