Are the protests against gay marriage mainly because of the word 'marriage'?


#1

My opinion is the same as the Church teaches: the only true marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is recognized as a public institution, with its attendant benefits and responsibilities. Marriage offers the State its most necessary common good: bringing children into the world and raising them in a family that includes the love of their mother and father. The State needs people (citizens) in order to flourish: no people = no State.

That said, are the protests against the word 'marriage'? Or because their 'marriage' is putted at the same level as THE marriage? If the Govs made a law that officialise a gay union and just called 'union', would it be better? Lets face it, gay people has the same desire for an official union just like a man and a woman wants... Help me build arguments :)


#2

Statistically, homosexuals don't desire official union. Where it's legal, homosexuals rarely take advantage of it.

[quote="fabio_rocha, post:1, topic:313873"]
My opinion is the same as the Church teaches: the only true marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is recognized as a public institution, with its attendant benefits and responsibilities. Marriage offers the State its most necessary common good: bringing children into the world and raising them in a family that includes the love of their mother and father. The State needs people (citizens) in order to flourish: no people = no State.

That said, are the protests against the word 'marriage'? Or because their 'marriage' is putted at the same level as THE marriage? If the Govs made a law that officialise a gay union and just called 'union', would it be better? Lets face it, gay people has the same desire for an official union just like a man and a woman wants... Help me build arguments :)

[/quote]


#3

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed


#4

Go to the industrial area of a medium to large city. Walk into any machine shop, where metal parts are made on lathes or milling machines. Ask them what the definition of marriage is. They will tell you, from the machinist's handbook, that it is the mating of two complementary parts.

Not the same parts. Not three parts. Two, which complement each other.


#5

[quote="fabio_rocha, post:1, topic:313873"]
My opinion is the same as the Church teaches: the only true marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is recognized as a public institution, with its attendant benefits and responsibilities. Marriage offers the State its most necessary common good: bringing children into the world and raising them in a family that includes the love of their mother and father. The State needs people (citizens) in order to flourish: no people = no State.

That said, are the protests against the word 'marriage'? Or because their 'marriage' is putted at the same level as THE marriage? If the Govs made a law that officialise a gay union and just called 'union', would it be better? Lets face it, gay people has the same desire for an official union just like a man and a woman wants... Help me build arguments :)

[/quote]

In my opinion, the protest is about not wanting to be legally punished for not recognising something that is a lie.


#6

I think the protest is also about the function that marriage is supposed to provide within a society. But ever since heterosexual couples started abusing this function, it started a landslide of abuse of what marriage is supposed to be. I’m not just talking from a religious standpoint, I’m saying, from a socio-economical standpoint, heterosexuals started the abuse, but now the abuse of what marriage is supposed to be stretches all kinds of borders. It’s only a matter of time before others will be pushing the boundaries even further.


#7

Please study some history, starting in 1967. The straights did it! Incorrect.

Peace,
Ed


#8

:thumbsup:
Yes, the arguments are not just because of the word marriage, but largely because it is good for society to have a legal institution which helps foster the growth of stable, mature, and moral citizens for the sake of sustaining the society.

And Ed, yes, the abuse of marriage did start with heterosexuals what with all the unjutified divorces and remarriages that have happened, people abused legal marriage and twisted it into an institution which lasts until one party gets tired of the other, and then they divorce and leave their kids all sorts of emotional and psychological scarring and trauma to deal with. What we see today is just a further attempt to abuse and twist the definition of legal marriage even more, and it is society which will continue to lose out because of it. :shrug:


#9

History goes back further than 1967. G.K Chesterton warned back in the early 1900’s, “The obvious effect of frivolous divorce will be frivolous marriage

As I was looking for an article I once read on LifeSite News about the homosexual movements move to re-define marriage and family, I ran into this recent article where I found the above quote. lifesitenews.com/blog/from-divorce-to-same-sex-marriage-g.k.-chestertons-prophetic-defense-of-mar

Because the vast majority of people are heterosexual, the growing movement toward legal recognition of homosexual “marriage” is only possible when straights fail to understand what marriage is. Divorce and contraception have critically wounded many people’s understanding of marriage and sexuality.

Homosexual “marriage” is the child of no-fault divorce and contraception. It did not birth itself–it needed the sins of heterosexuals to get this far.


#10

How going back to the Old Testament with having multiple wives for one husband. Is this not also an abuse of marriage? It stems back far, and the issues of today, though less acceptable in some ways, were around many many years ago, with the Egyptians and contraception and abortion, and so on. The issues with homosexuality has only recently been becoming more acceptable in society, but abuse of marriage has been around for a long time.


#11

Your opinions are not history. I lived through the time period in question.

The same tactics are being used today.

Peace,
Ed


#12

That is an incorrect assumption. I suggest you study the history of the “gay rights” movement. One day in 1973, what was a disorder until that time, suddenly became not a disorder. It was done by vote, with zero science to back it up, and removed Homosexuality as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association. That was what homosexuals needed to get from that point to today.

That way, they could go to judges, and the people, and start overturning sodomy laws. And convincing gullible people that something ‘changed.’ It birthed itself.

Peace,
Ed


#13

[quote="edwest2, post:11, topic:313873"]
Your opinions are not history. I lived through the time period in question.

The same tactics are being used today.

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

Are you denying that the way that heterosexuals treat marriage as though it is a temporary comitment until they decide for whatever reason they wish to divorce and so damage their children is an abuse of marriage? If not I do not understand what I said that you are disagreeing with.


#14

Ed, I wrote that history goes back further than 1967. What is incorrect about that? I understand that there is a history behind the homosexual movements, but all history flows from what came before it.

Nothing comes from nothing. The sins of the parents pass to the children, and it takes holiness to overcome the sins of previous generations. Psychologists and judges came from a society in the 1970s that had already started to accept divorce and contraception—and abortion, which is the *real *civil rights and social justice challenge of our day!

Most of us have lived through these changes, as most anyone reading this thread today was alive at the time of Lawrence v. Texas (2003). That case was only possible because of activist judges on the Supreme Court, (and the history behind that goes back a long way in history too!)

Back to the original question of why we’re objecting to homosexual marriage now. It’s not just about the misuse and re-definition of the word marriage. It’s that now–because some of our are more clearly see in the present what happened to society once we started re-defining marriage and society began widespread acceptance of immorality–that we realize that it will not stop at homosexual marriage. Some of us see where this is headed --and the forecase for society in general and women and children in particular–is *not *good.


#15

[quote="fabio_rocha, post:1, topic:313873"]
My opinion is the same as the Church teaches: the only true marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is recognized as a public institution, with its attendant benefits and responsibilities. Marriage offers the State its most necessary common good: bringing children into the world and raising them in a family that includes the love of their mother and father. The State needs people (citizens) in order to flourish: no people = no State.

That said, are the protests against the word 'marriage'? Or because their 'marriage' is putted at the same level as THE marriage? If the Govs made a law that officialise a gay union and just called 'union', would it be better? Lets face it, gay people has the same desire for an official union just like a man and a woman wants... Help me build arguments :)

[/quote]

Simply calling it some other name does not change the essence of what we are talking about. The problem is vice cannot sit next to virtue without corrupting virtue.


#16

[quote="edwest2, post:3, topic:313873"]
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

:thumbsup: The Church has already given us this great document on the problem with same sex civil unions. It's not just about a word.

Fabio, I would really encourage you to read this document.


#17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.