Could someone please explain to me the danger of gay marriage?

mschrank · #1 Jun 3, '12, 2:04 pm

I'm a pretty conservative guy in general but I am having trouble understanding the problem with gay marriage. Oh, of course from a Catholic perspective, I understand wholly and completely why it is not okay, and why it's a problem. I'm talking about the problem that it poses to society etc. I want you to educate me, I'm not much one for debate. I just want to understand the anti-gay marriage side.

My attitude has always been pretty much live and let live towards gays. I can't say I have any gay friends, but some friends have gay friends, some are obnoxious and in-your-face about it, others I didn't even know until someone pointed it out. I dislike having it shoved down my throat, and I also dislike the Fred Phelps crowd. I think if people just left it alone, we'd be better off.

The way I see it, if 2-5% of the population is gay (that's what they say right?). Out of that 2-5%, the vast majority of them just want to hook up and live that carefree pleasure oriented life that most gays (men anyway, dunno about women) live. So legalizing gay marriage would actually only effect a tiny minority of people. You'd probably never even have a gay family on your street. I just don't see how this tiny minority being able to marry is going to destroy the fabric of society.

The only argument I have heard against gay marriage is the idea that once it gets legalized, then you'll have some kind of mandate for all kinds of crazy **** being taught in schools which is fair enough. I'd also be against that because it goes beyond tolerance and starts pushing 'acceptance'. I don't accept gay behavior, but I tolerate it.

Beyond that, I think the real destroyer of marriage in this country is no fault divorce. That to me, is the real plank in our eye, and trying to prevent gays getting married in a bizarre attempt to 'defend marriage' makes no sense at all. The idea that the individual is the basic unit of society and is free to leave a marriage for no good reason other than feeling unfulfilled or bored with one's spouse and even children to go 'eat pray and love' or whatever garbage is held up as life's greatest good, that is the real danger harming society today. I guess the idea of saving the institution of marriage by keeping it away from gays, while letting millions of divorces go on and families being destroyed for no good reason is really bothering me.

I guess I've hijacked my own thread now, but I would like to hear some cogent arguments about how gay marriage is bad for society which are reasonable (and secular) enough to carry weight with non-Christian friends and family if it ever gets discussed.

EasterJoy · #2 Jun 3, '12, 2:18 pm

As I see it, it is like this: Should the kid in the story, The Emperor's New Clothes, been forced to shut up so as not to embarrass the emperor?

In our state, when the civil union initiative was put on the ballot, the argument was that this was only fair to people who couldn't marry but wanted to love and take care of their children and so on. The problem was, the gay lobby did not want this fairness to be extended to adults who couldn't marry and whose sexual relationship would have had taboos on it: siblings, and so on.

In other words, this "civil rights struggle" is entirely about legally enshrining the falsehood that the procreative nature of heterosexual unions is totally and absolutely irrelevant because not every heterosexual couple will bear children, to the point that heterosexual and homosexual sex ought to be held not only equally valuable to society but in no way different from each other.

That is obviously false. The sexual faculty evolved around an act that is impossible for homosexuals to engage in. The opposite genders are absolutely necessary for procreation, and so unions of opposite gender couples are fundamentally different than same gender couples. Yet the insistence not only in giving certain societal benefits but also in giving the exact same name to a civil union between opposite and like gendered couples is seen as a civil right.

Homosexuals think that if they're not allowed to say "what we do is the same as you do", they're going to be 2nd class citizens. Never mind that unmarried people aren't 2nd class citizens, that people incapable of marriage aren't 2nd class citizens.

It's a movement rooted in one group of people coveting a status for themselves.

And yes, if there were no contraception, no IVF, no no-fault divorce, and no surrogate mothers, the gay marriage lobby wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They're arguing that the meaning of marriage ought to be expanded to include them because marriage itself has no meaning connected childrearing and inheritance any more. I hope it is obvious that society wouldn't benefit from giving into that cynical view of the function of marriage in a healthy society.

**buffalo** · #3 Jun 3, '12, 2:36 pm

The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex “Marriage”

**buffalo** · #4 Jun 3, '12, 2:41 pm

Marriage Unique for a Reason

Sullibe · #5 Jun 3, '12, 3:09 pm

the word marriage is supposed to define the unique union between a man and a woman that embodies the following two characteristics:

1)It is indissoluble – cannot be broken

and

2)It has the inherent potential to naturally produce children from that union (notice I said potential, age and infertility do not necessarily inhibit potential).

This is why same-sex unions are no more a marriage than a cohabiting heterosexual couple relationship. Neither of them meet both of these necessary requirements for marriage as it has traditional been defined.

Now if the word is redefined to include same-sex unions, then, in doing so, we are eliminating one of the two characteristics above, the inherent potential to naturally procreate. Which means all other unions that do not have that characteristic should must be included as well. This includes siblings, roommates, parent/child relationships, and yes cohabiting heterosexual couples. To do anything less is to be equally as bigoted as what supporters of ”same-sex marriage” accuse those who oppose it to be.

And of course, this doesn’t even get to the heart of the matter. Simply redefining marriage, by “eliminating” one of the characteristics that defines marriage, DOES NOT equalize homosexual unions with heterosexual unions. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to equalize them, precisely because a heterosexual union has the inherent potential to naturally procreate; it will always be a unique relationship. Therefore, it will be necessary for an entirely new word to be devised in order to describe the heterosexual union between one man and one woman whose union contains the above two characteristics.

If not the word marriage, what word should we call this unique heterosexual union between one man and one woman, because it IS unique and should be recognized as such – regardless of whether people feel left out or feelings get hurt.

But to answer the initial question, “How, exactly, does allowing gays to marry effect marriage?” Allowing same-sex marriage ignores, or worse, denies the uniqueness that is inherent in… well… marriage. It becomes a false attempt to equalize every relationship. If every relationship is equal and classified as “marriage”, then there is no marriage.

Of course, you can’t equalize that which is intrinsic.

In other words, it doesn’t matter the gender, age, quantity or relationality of the people seeking “State-recognized” marriages, the uniqueness that resides in every traditional marriage will always exist.

Disclaimer: I cut and pasted these from two different blog posts from my personal blog - mainly because I have a sleeping baby on my lap and that was easier then rewriting it all.

Gods_Peace · #6 Jun 3, '12, 3:24 pm

As soon as you allow Gay marriage, the issue will evolve into marriage with Animals

Yuck!

Homosexuality is disgusting anyway...

marlap2 · #7 Jun 3, '12, 4:03 pm

I am no theologian or as well versed as many who can speak to your question, however I am doing a bible study for the umpteenth time (because it needs to sink in, I need to take it more than once).

One thing that stands out is that when you dilute the tenets of our faith, what happens in one generation is something that is no longer faith at all.

I think of Solomon, who's faith although initially strong, marries many women who convince him that there's no problem in the worship of other gods. He loses his faith.

Our faith states clearly, and has stated clearly that homosexual activity is a sin. The action of the sin is a sin. The acceptance of it in any form dilutes our faith.

The Church teaches that homosexual desire is not sinful in itself, and that all sorts of people are tempted by sin and towards sinful lifestyles, and many of them are not sexual at all. It is the giving in to the temptation that creates the sin and blocks our relationship with God.

Yesterday, at a mission, a very wise man said that our church is a LOT SMALLER than we think. These are not times to be lukewarm. Remember what Jesus said about lukewarmness. We either follow Jesus in our Church or we are not Catholic. Jesus is not editable.

The danger of so-called gay marriage is simply the fires of hell.

Someone today called me a soldier of Christ with a flamethrower to set lukewarm people on fire. I like that.

We have to love, we have to have loving concern for our brothers and sisters, no matter where they are in their journey. We have to be willing to love and pray them into heaven, no matter what. Our cross is to be willing to take take the pain of persecution for our beliefs, even though 94% of the population thinks differently. Following Christ is not a democracy, it is a monarchy. Jesus is our King.

So love, and don't be afraid to look for the truth.

EasterJoy · #8 Jun 3, '12, 4:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gods_Peace

As soon as you allow Gay marriage, the issue will evolve into marriage with Animals

Yuck!

Homosexuality is disgusting anyway...

Homosexuality is not bestiality. Homosexuality is not pedophilia. It is not heterosexuality, either, though.

Bartolome Casas · #9 Jun 3, '12, 4:35 pm

The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s led to:

--No-fault divorce
--Widespread sex as a "normal" part of dating
--Gay liberation

If only women were gay, no one would care much about gays, because lesbians tend to have sex only as a part of relationship.

But gay men have lots and lots casual and even anonymous sex. That's what is so disturbing to many Christians, and, I do think the utterly hedonistic sex of many gay men has an influence on the larger society, given the high proportion of gay men involved in creating TV shows, movies, and Broadway musical, and so on.

Prior to the "renewal" commenced by the Vatican II Council, the members of the Catholic Church to a very large degree had their own culture, their own schools, and almost their own society. So, Catholics were not overly disturbed what non-Catholics were doing in the United States or elsewhere. But after the Vatican II Council, this Catholic identity mostly disappeared. Catholics just sort of merged into the general TV-, movie- and music-created culture of the United States. Thus, the more conservative Catholics started to become very distressed by all the immoral behavior in the general society, since, the general society had become their reference group instead of the Catholic Church.

Also, we here so much about gay marriage because it is sure-fire way to get the attention of conservative voters. Politicians have a huge need to get elected, so they use what will help them get their. All things "gay" are much more upsetting to the typical conservative vote than is no-fault divorce.

Anyway, hope those comments were of some use to you. Good, better and best wishes!

EasterJoy · #10 Jun 4, '12, 9:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

If only women were gay, no one would care much about gays, because lesbians tend to have sex only as a part of relationship.

But gay men have lots and lots casual and even anonymous sex. That's what is so disturbing to many Christians, and, I do think the utterly hedonistic sex of many gay men has an influence on the larger society, given the high proportion of gay men involved in creating TV shows, movies, and Broadway musical, and so on....

They tend to do what? Who told you that?

I wouldn't put lesbian sex on a pedestal. Lesbians can be promiscuous, too. As nearly as I can tell--how anyone could ever really measure this is beyond me, since one thing that is cross-orientational is that people are notoriously erroneous, if not outright deceitful, when self-reporting about their own sex lives!--lesbians are as promiscuous as other women, if not more so (presumably because two women are not going to get each other pregnant).

LittleFlower378 · #11 Jun 4, '12, 9:26 am

I believe these things like gay marriage go hand in hand with divorce as another threat to the family.

I have not read this whole document yet but this would be a good place to start.
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...unions_en.html

TheRealJuliane · #12 Jun 4, '12, 9:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

Homosexuality is not bestiality. Homosexuality is not pedophilia. It is not heterosexuality, either, though.

The poster was not equating homosexuality with bestiality, but was stating that opening marriage to practicing homosexuals would open the way for marriage between humans and their pets, for example. I think there would be a few steps between, such as "marriage" between men and boys, and multiple people in a "marriage," but I can see a time when a woman could "marry" her cat, for example.

tqualey · #13 Jun 4, '12, 9:41 am

Hi, Mschrankk,

I think there are 3 major problems: moral, societal, and medical.

Moral: Catholics view marriage as a sacrament. Most Christian and non-Christian groups think of it in highly specialized and ideal forms that involve God as they understand Him. Virtually all (at least until quite recently) viewed this union as only between a man and a woman. And, this view is based on God having joined Adam and Eve in the very beginning.

Societal: the only way this or any other society can continue is for there to be not only the birth of children but the nurturing and rearing of them until adulthood. No one has ever claimed that children were not impressionable - and for this reason, these young minds need to be exposed to the most healthy approach to love there is: and that would be our traditional concept of marriage. I think one of the biggest deceptions out there stems from the abuse of the word 'fairness'. There are all kinds of tax breaks given to those whose incomes are derived from investments - as opposed to W-2 (wage earner) income. And, the reason for this is that the US wants to encourage wealth - so the US can grow... and it can get more taxes! (Forget about the current attack on wealth - it really won't get very far mainly because most folks want to be wealthy and not poor.)

Traditional Marriage promotes benefits to society (stable family comes immediately to mind) that homosexual unions can not even begin to copy. Besides, the concept now is for consenting adults - but you know it did not stay that way in Ancient Greece - young boys were the favorite target of homosexual behavior. I would not rule out beastiality, as was previously mentioned. Yes, this is a major downward spiral.

Medical: homosexuality is simply not healthy because sodomy is essentially dangerous. There is a current item of interest from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) you may be interested in. There are many medical links that identify the inherent risks of this risky behavior. Here is the link: 2010 STD Treatment Guidelines Webinar
Update on Sexual Health in Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)

June 7, 2012 from 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm ET
Register here.

This live webinar is for clinicians who provide care for men who have sex with men (MSM). The webinar will review critical diagnostic and management challenges for specific STDs and an overview of the epidemiology of STDs among MSM. Recommendations to help MSM maintain sexual health, components of the 2010 STD Treatment Guidelines, and resources relevant to clinicians working with MSM will also be discussed. The webinar will conclude with responses to questions submitted by the audience. The event will be archived for future viewing. Various forms of continuing education will be available for live and archived webinar viewers.

Do you have questions for the presenters about sexual health in MSM? Submit them via Twitter to @NNPTC and use hashtag #CDCMSMwebinar at http://links.govdelivery.com:80/trac...r.com/#!/NNPTC or email your questions to nnptc@uw.edu. The speakers will try to respond to your questions during the webinar.

Finally your live and let live apporach is hardly a realistic approach when the recognized homosexual agenda is to promote every form of sexual pervsion that they can. Nothing that is in place today is good enough if someone cries 'discrimination' because their needs are not being met in some way. Get serious - these guys want to totally reshape the world and to say this isn't so is to truly underestimate the force they have - and the indifference that so many others have.

God bless

Quote:

Originally Posted by mschrank

I'm a pretty conservative guy in general but I am having trouble understanding the problem with gay marriage. Oh, of course from a Catholic perspective, I understand wholly and completely why it is not okay, and why it's a problem. I'm talking about the problem that it poses to society etc. I want you to educate me, I'm not much one for debate. I just want to understand the anti-gay marriage side.

My attitude has always been pretty much live and let live towards gays.

EasterJoy · #14 Jun 4, '12, 9:42 am

We can only hope the push for gay marriage goes the way of the Equal Rights Amendment. Sometimes, something doesn't happen one year because although people see that two different situations obviously needed to have adjustments made in the interest of fairness, they are not ready to proclaim the two situations to be exactly the same thing. Then 50 years later, the two still aren't considered the same thing. Women aren't men, homosexuals aren't heterosexuals, and maybe 50 years from now, that will still be held to be true.

Erich · #15 Jun 4, '12, 9:46 am

If there were truly no distinction between marriage and "gay marriage" then would there be any need for the "gay" modifier? Of course not. Spin a globe and pick virtually any place on earth at any previous time in human history; you will find that they do marriage one way -- between men and women. There may be other differences, but marriage has always required a husband and wife. Why? Marriage teaches that men and women need each other and that children need mothers and fathers. A loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless children, but no compassionate society intentionally deprives children of their own mom or dad. But this is what every same-sex home does -- and for no other reason but to satisfy adult desire.

In answer to the question, "What is the danger of gay marriage?" we can expect the following:
a) The law will teach our children and grandchildren that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.
b) Jonathan Yarbrough, part of the first couple to get a "gay marriage" in Provincetown, Mass, said, "I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner.... In our case, it is. We have an open marriage." Once you rip a ship off its mooring who knows where it will drift next?
c) The statement, "Children need a mother and a father" will be deemed hate speech. The Boston Globe already said so: "Governor Romney is denigrating gay families, practicing divisive, mean-spirited politics....by insisting that every child 'has a right to a mother and a father.'"
d) Consider an NPR story from Boston from several years ago. An eighth-grade teacher there teaches about gay sex "thoroughly and explicitly." When asked if parents complained about their children learning such explicit material, this teacher said, "Give me a break. It's legal now."