A great list and some solid reasons.
Thanks; worth bookmarking.
Super, thank you. Nicely formatted, too.
Be sure to read this one, in order to put the list into historic perspective:
God is against homosexuality** not **interracial marriage. Nice try.
Until the Love/Virginia ruling, God was also against interracial marriage, if you read the arguments of the opponents.
Yes, history does repeat itself. The situation is more analogous than it was even a few years ago. Once again, the courts are standing up for social justice, while some religious groups oppose progress, and they use religious dogma to justify their opposition.
Nice try, but thanks for illustrating my point so succinctly.
A lot of these are also solid arguments against the institution of marriage as it exists today.
God was/is **not **against interracial marriage, some people were. Your argument is irrelevant to this discussion because God is against gay “marriage” and not against interracial marriage. Nice try.
To reiterate, what he is saying is that in the past the exact SAME arguments were used to say God was against interracial marriage, the exact same ones by the exact same people.
It wasn’t just a “nice try” it was a complete owning and dismantling or your arguments, which happens a lot.
Quote one of God’s laws against interracial marriage. Don’t quote something that people have said. Quote one of God’s laws that denounces interracial marriage.
- This applies to the first five reasons: through this logic, single parents should not be allowed to have kids, as a single parent would deprive kids of having two parents.
It also seems to not support adoption by anyone.
- Numbers 6-8: So, apparently, there’s no studies that show having same-sex parents Is bad for a child. These are invalid. (Number 8) Plus, why does it matter? Two good mothers or two good fathers are better than an abusive mother or/and father.
- Numbers 9-21: I’d like to adress that my extremely close friend is adopted from Asia. Whenever the subject of adoption is brought up, she seems fine. However, it’s better for children to be adopted by gay or straight parents than to remain in a situation that’s detrimental to their health. Many children of same-sex parents know their biological parents. Also, this ignores single parents again.
- Numbers 22-28: Well, that’s because stepparents and same-sex couples are not the same thing. Clearly, there is going to emotional problems, because there is emotional problems with divorce, because a child is not going to want to be separated from a loved one. Comparing same-sex couples and stepparents is an invalid argument.
- Number 29: Again, you have no proof that mothers and fathers aren’t interchangeable.
- Number 30: Yes, some people are attracted to the genitals of the same-sex. Your genitals don’t define who you are, especially in terms of being a good person.
- Number 31: What if it was against the law for adults to what they wanted, namely marry the opposite sex?
- Number 32: Because clearly, women need to teach daughters how to sew and clean, and fathers need to teach boys sports and growing mustaches. (Sarcasm) This conforms to gender roles, which should be left in the 18th century.
- Numbers 33-36: A. Again, this does not address single parents, and B. Giving no solid statistics=invalid argument.
- Numbers 37-43: On redefining marriage: when women were able to vote, it didn’t change the definition of voting. Besides, sometimes change is necessary. Same-sex marriages does not marginalize fathers.
- Number 44: However, the law cannot dictate if you can create children.
- Numbers 45-51: I fail to see why how someone is created matters. I’m sure someone who has been created through artificial reproductive technology would argue against it violating the child.
- Numbers 52-58:You cannot just say “That is false.” At least, explain why. And, once again, your genitals don’t define who you are as a person, so marriage should not be a gendered institution as you stated.
- Number 59-60: No, a same-sex marriage is not the same thing as being friends or roommates.
- Number 61: Same-sex marriages don’t take away one of a child’s parents as they still have two parents.
- Number 62: Ah, the slippery slope argument. No, same-sex marriage is not the same as polygamy as it is between two people.
- Number 63-67: Again, biological parents are not always best for a child, and you are claiming over and over again how necessary biological parents are without giving solid proof, as well as not addressing single parents.
- Number 68: Same-sex marriages does not cause straight marriages to divorce, and does not cause them to stop loving their children.
- Number 69: So, if a infertile straight couple wants children, adoption should be denied to them because they “want” them?
- Number 70-71: This does not matter, as gay couples don’t want to be married organically, they want to be married legally, which happens to involve the government.
- Numbers 72-76: Telling people that being gay is normal is fine; in almost all cases, being gay is like being born with naturally blond hair. Governments “enforce” the belief that two people with blond hair can marry.
- Number 77: No, there is nothing “hostile” about wanting equal privileges for everyone.
Darn, that took a long time to type on this tiny keyboard. I hope that covers pretty much everything. I may have skimmed some areas as this took long enough to type as it was. Please excuse any typos, again, as this is such a tiny keyboard and I have clumsy thumbs. Please don’t nitpick over my wording. Thanks for reading this, which is mostly just common sense. Remember, marriage should be between two consenting adults who love each other.
Homosexual so called couples will never be equal to heterosexual ones. They shouldn’t have equal privileges because they are not equal.
An infertile couple is still a natural couple.
If they are adults Why can’t a brother and sister marry? Or two brothers? Are we not just forcing our morals on them? People used to marry their cousins why can’t they marry now? Is that denying them so called equal privileges and rights?
Being born gay is like being born with blond hair? I didn’t realize hair color makes you more likely to commit immoral actions. I guess me being born with black hair is like someone being born prone to addiction.
I was just listening to this one song when I read your post. The song goes:
“I’ve got friends locked in boxes.
That’s no way to live.
What you’re calling a sin isn’t up to them.
After all, I thought we were all God’s children.”
Anyway, everyone is equal, regardless of race, gender, religion, and sexuality. Why are homosexuals and/or their relationships inferior?
I never said an infertile couple is unnatural; but gay couples are natural too.
I asked for no nitpicking but I suppose it’s going to happen no matter what. So, a marriage should be between two consenting, non-related, adults who love each other.
When I equated being gay to be born with blond hair I was referring to the fact that almost all gay people don’t choose to be gay, and that having an attraction to others of the same-sex is not a sin; the same way having blond hair is not a sin.
Same sex attraction by itself is not a sin.
The sexual relationships are inferior, the people, friendships, etc are not.
Gay couples are not natural.
For example, a sociopath is born without emotions or feeling emotions. Just because they are born this way does not mean it is natural.
Why can’t they be related? If they really love each other why is that relevant? Why are same sex so called couples perfectly moral and okay but incest is condemned if the couple is sterile and loves each other?
Why are the sexual relations inferior?
Why are they not natural?
Gay people are not usually sociopaths or psychopaths. Do your research. I would say being gay is more like being born with a certain color of skin. It’s natural for some people to have darker skin colors than others.
Well, in that case, why can’t a straight couple love each other sexually and not be related? Why are opposite-sex so called couples perfectly moral and okay but incest is condemned?
See what I did there?
Anyway, being gay and incest are completely different.
What is the purpose of eating? To give ourselves energy, sure things like enjoying good food can be a secondary reason but it can’t be the only reason. Otherwise anorexia and bulimia would not be disorders. What is the purpose of sex? The end is to procreate and unify the couple. Males are made to be sexually complementary to females and vice versa. Their bodies weren’t made to be sexually complementary to people of the same sex.Homosexual sex will never naturally procreate. Infertile couples can not procreate but they still participate in the act that naturally results in procreation.
I didn’t say homosexuals were sociopaths. I used that as an example because sociopaths could claim that’s it’s natural to not have emotions because they don’t. Melancholics never feel happiness. That doesn’t make being sad all the time natural even if they were born with the condition
Why is an inclination to do immoral, unnatural acts like a different skin color? Could someone who is sexually attracted to animals claim it is like they have a different skin color than people attracted to humans?
Incest is condemned because sex violates the role the family members have to one another while sex of opposite sex couples does not violate their roles if it is done in marriage, without contraception, etc
Ok, the sociopath thing is a reference to- never mind.
I still don’t understand your belief that two consenting, non-related, adults that love each other should not able to get married if they are of the same gender; I don’t understand your belief that is immoral or unnatural; but, mostly, I don’t understand why you’re such a bigot.
Why is incest immoral if they love each other? What is marriage?
Read this for a better understanding of the Catholic teaching on gay “marriage”
Let’s start with just one and see if we can come to agreement on just one thing.
Single parents can’t have children. Single parents start as a man and woman who help create a child together, uniquely, as no other union can do. And the couple then splits up to be single parents raising children.
So your assertion that single parents shouldn’t be allowed *to raise *kids doesn’t quite follow. Single parents can and do raise kids, they simply don’t (can’t) create them outside of a man/woman relationship.
Do you agree that a man/woman is a unique relationship that creates children?
(What do I mean by unique?
Unique means that no other relationship can, by definition, be the same thing.)