Defending Marriage Resources- Homosexuality

I was looking for some resources on defending traditional marriage and I found these.
Any others ?


Here’s an oldie, but one of my favorites. I think this really jump-started the secular arguments and goes beyond “because the Bible says so”.


It slaughters the “equality” argument.

Just as official government recognition of counterfeit currency would inevitably debase the authentic coin of the realm and result in destruction of the nation’s economy, so too, legalization of same-sex counterfeit marriage inevitably destroys the value and role of authentic heterosexual marriage, which alone can naturally replenish and nourish the population of a nation.

Excellent information link

This website looks at the arguments, objections and debates regarding homosexual ‘marriage.’ There is also audio and video. It has a page on the infertility issue which is sometimes brought up by homosexual ‘marriage’ advocates

I’m finding the post count so far on this thread interesting. I think these kinds of threads draw a lot of attention from the diverse voices here on CAF.

I would also submit that many of the arguments on here for traditional marriage are very solid.

In a nutshell, yes. But because the article is now over ten years old, the part on “should at least give gay “marriage” advocates pause” has been significantly strengthened by research conducted at the University of Texas-Austin and the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, as well as any other? analysis showing most of the studies on so-called gay “marriage” to have bogus methodology.

You asked for resources defending Marriage:
“NFP is Contraception”; “Sexual Pleasure is Lust”; these are the best 2 ones. Don’t forget the Holy Book of Tobias in the True Catholic Bible. You can all these resources at the library of True Catholic Information, at,

We can all agree that the U.S. Constitution guarantees “freedom” in many ways
for posterity.

In reality, the future posterity – the children of the Revolutionists and all
the future descendents of these dedicated soldiers – is limited to biological
procreation between a man and a woman. Thus, the inherent intent to protect the
future posterity assures the basic freedom of both a man and a woman to marry
and have children.

On the surface, the above is a no-brainer. However, today’s proposal of same-sex
marriage can be considered in direct conflict with the Constitution’s original
goals for posterity insured by normal heterosexual marriage. If our nation is to
survive in freedom according to the Constitution, then posterity itself curcially
depends on strong family life flowing from heterosexual marriage When I used
the words “direct conflict” I refer to the direct truth that same-sex marriage
in itself does not produce human offspring.

It seems to me, when I go back to the American Revolution and the subsequent
Constitution, it is naturally assumed that marriage between a man and a woman is
the way to keep the new nation alive and functioning in the futre. That future
is today. It is time for our lawyers to support the Constitution’s intent.

Lawyers need to defend the Constitution itself. Please note that same-sex
activities still come under the concept of freedom. What is at stake is the
approval or disapproval of the extreme downplaying of the traditional marriage
role in our country’s future. It is the principle of non-contradiction.
Marriage cannot be both same-sex and heterosexual at the same time.

77** Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage

Order Copies for wider distribution and readability

Dr. Morse’s remarks re: a Marriage Amendment

The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. To see the importance of this purpose, we must take the perspective of the child: What is owed to the child? Unlike adults, the child does not need autonomy or independence. The child is entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought him into being. Therefore, the child has a legitimate interest in the stability of his parents’ union. But no child can defend these entitlements himself. Nor is it adequate to make restitution after these rights have been violated. The child’s rights to care and relationship must be supported pro-actively, before harm is done, for those rights to be protected at all.
Marriage is adult society’s institutional structure for protecting the legitimate interests of children. Without this public purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution.

We often hear the objection that some marriages don’t have children. This is perfectly true. However, every child has parents. Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child, and should not be done without some compelling or unavoidable reason. …
And treating different things differently is not discrimination.
… marriage becomes nothing but a government registry of friendships, a pointless legal convention that frankly doesn’t deserve any government benefits or recognition at all.
… same sex marriage is the vehicle that separates children from a parent.
… sperm donors … uncomfortable questions about their origins, and complex emotions about being partially purchased.

**The Distress of Same-Sex Attraction **
by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D

“ In a 1998 study in Pediatrics, students with six or more sexual partners in their life were 7.62 more likely to be classified as “GLB” (gay, lesbian, bisexual) than were students who had never had sexual intercourse. Of the self-identified same-sex attracted youth, 25% had used cocaine in the last 30 days and 22% had used injected drugs, compared with under 3% of straight youth.

Study finds children of same sex couples lag in school**

… “Children of same sex couples are significantly less likely to make normal progress through school than other children: 35% less likely than the children of heterosexual married parents, 23% less likely than the children of never married mothers, and 15% less likely than the children of cohabiting parents.”

** From Love, By Love, For Love**
Fr. Michael Schmitz****[](“”)****


The whole short document below is worth reading.
I have selected a few key quotes from it.

**The Meaning of Marriage **by Irish Bishops 2014

Married love is a unique form of love between a man and woman which has a special benefit for the whole of society…. To seek to re-define the nature of marriage would be to undermine it as the fundamental building block of our society. …

God’s Plan for Marriage

The Book of Genesis … As Christians our primary commandment is to love. Love always demands that we respect the dignity of every human person. That is why the Catholic Church clearly teaches that people who are homosexual must always be treated with sensitivity, compassion and respect. …

The debate at the core of the call for ‘same sex marriage’ is not about equality or about the separation of a religious view of marriage from a civil view of marriage. It is about the very nature of marriage itself and the importance society places on the role of mothers and fathers in bringing up children. With others, the Catholic Church will continue to hold that the differences between a man and woman are not accidental to marriage but fundamental to it and children have a natural right to a mother and a father and that this is the best environment for them where possible. It is therefore deserving of special recognition and promotion by the State.

The meaning of marriage

Marriage is a unique relationship different from all others. … orientated to the generation of new life. The union of marriage provides for the continuation of the human race and the development of human society.

… ‘marriage of a woman and a man is a fundamental building block of society which makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good and to society as well. It is therefore deserving of special recognition and promotion by the State’.

Why is marriage so important?

This committed, married love provides a stable and nurturing environment for children.

… A major challenge arises from any proposal which seeks to redefine the meaning and purpose of marriage on which the family is founded, … Any such proposal is based on the assumption that the institution of marriage on which the family is founded, which has always been recognised as ‘the natural, primary and fundamental unit group of Society’,5 has nothing unique about it and on the assumption that marriage can be stripped of that social standing without obscuring its irreplaceable social role.

… By introducing any amendment which presents homosexual partnerships as essentially equivalent to marriage, we would be saying that the permanent union of husband and wife and their generation of new life and their nurturing of it together is no longer to be seen as the foundation of society.

Protecting marriage is a matter of justice

…. Without protection and support for the unique place of marriage in society, the State could, in effect, deprive children of the right to a mother and father.
Religious and non-religious people alike have long acknowledged and know from their experience that the family, based on the marriage of a woman and a man, is the best and ideal place for children. It is a fundamental building block of society which makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good. It is therefore deserving of special recognition and promotion by the State.

Proposals to change the meaning of marriage effectively say to parents, children and society that the State should not, and will not, promote any normative or ideal family environment for raising children. It therefore implies that the biological bond and natural ties between a child and its mother and father have no intrinsic value for the child or for society. As Pope Francis stated recently, ‘We must reaffirm the right of children to grow up in a family with a father and a mother …

The Sacrament of Marriage

… the Catholic understanding of marriage adds a new ‘dimension’; it is a special blessing because of Christ. Marriage is a sacrament, a sign of God’s love. …
It is the vocation and mission of married couples to be a visible sign of God’s love, to one another, to their children and to the community through a faithful relationship which is open to life.

The love of God is eternally faithful and reliable. Married love seeks to reflect that love as a faithful, unbreakable relationship. Because it is a sacrament, marriage brings about and deepens the love it reflects. With the couple living the sacrament of marriage, their children are enriched by their sharing in God’s love.

…. Every family has its problems.

But instead of beginning with the problems and challenges, we might begin by reflecting on the meaning of marriage as a sacrament and the blessing that it can be to the couple and to society.

… The love of Christ for us, which marriage reflects, led him to betrayal, abandonment by friends and agonising death on a cross. But that was also the path that led him and leads us to the fulfilment where ‘Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more’ (Rev 21:4) and where God will make all things new. …

we ask that the principle of equality not be undermined by applying it inappropriately to two fundamentally different types of relationship. Marriage is a unique relationship different from all others for a reason.

The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis, as are all communities and social bonds. … Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will. But the indispensible contribution of marriage to society transcends the feelings and momentary needs of the couple….

Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread.

That is an awesome article. Thanks.
I have reproduced that article digitally in a PDF format, as I prefer it that way here


I’ll add the following:


The following was written by Dr. Dennis Bonnette.

It is worth a very careful reading.


Traditional marriage already has a legitimate and exclusive foundation in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution’s Preamble explicitly states that among its enumerated purposes is to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

According to Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, Fourth Edition (2007), “posterity” means, exclusively, entities, such as “later generations,” “children,” “progeny,” and other terms unequivocally identified with biological descendants.

Since the Preamble establishes the “legislative intent” that judges look to in determining the meaning of a law or constitution, it is clear that the U.S. Constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty to the biological descendants of the citizenry that constituted the United States at the time that the Constitution was enacted. This makes those biological descendants and whatever essentially pertains to them, including, presumably, the process by which they come into being as citizens of the nation, a central part of purpose of the Constitution itself.

“Equal protection” clauses are cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. But equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law. Since heterosexual marriage as a general institution can, at least potentially, further the purposes of the Constitution by securing the “blessings of liberty…to…our posterity” (biological descendants) insofar as traditional marriage is the only institution that is naturally able to produce society’s posterity (biological descendants) – and since homosexual unions cannot produce any “posterity” (biological descendants) by themselves, the potential litigants are not similarly situated.

That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself – the biological descendants of the present citizenry.

Anyone can make contributions to posterity, but the sexual union of male and female alone actually makes posterity itself. Marriage is the civil institution that regulates that union in civil society.

Thus, the Preamble’s wording establishes a distinct and special basis for traditional marriage, which does not obtain in homosexual unions.

This role of traditional marriage in producing society’s posterity is consistent with the classical meaning of marriage, even as understood by the pagan Romans.

Matrimony is taken from the Latin, “mater,” meaning “mother,” and “monium,” meaning “a state or condition,” thus defining the purpose of marriage as a man taking a wife in order to have children. In ancient Rome, this was understood as the purpose of marriage, the production of new citizens for the pagan Roman Empire.

While not every traditional marriage may actually beget new citizens for America, and while anyone may be able to adopt children, nonetheless traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the sole natural institution by which our “posterity” is begotten in order to replenish and perpetuate the citizenry of our nation. No merely arbitrarily-formed contract – including so-called “same sex marriage” – can fulfill that role as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when they created a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but also for our posterity.

Therefore, there is no legitimate basis for demanding “marriage equality” for homosexual unions – given the wording that expresses the legislative intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.


Children of gay and lesbian parents write letter of support to Dolce, Gabbana

Milan, Italy, Mar 19, 2015 / 12:08 am (CNA).- The designers behind luxury Italian fashion label Dolce & Gabbana triggered a barrage of controversy after expressing support for traditional marriage and families last weekend in an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama.

On Monday, six children (now adults) raised by same-sex parents in the United States wrote a letter supporting the designers, thanking them for speaking up for the rights of children to both a mother and a father.

“Every human being has a mother and a father, and to cut either from a child’s life is to rob the child of dignity, humanity, and equality,” the letter reads.

The signers said Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, who are openly gay, expressed what they’ve learned through their own life experience, which is that while gay parents can be very loving, children are best supported when raised by a mother and a father.

Even though some of the signers are themselves gay, they all raise their children with their opposite-sex parents.

“We know that gay parents can be loving, since we loved our parents and they loved us,” they wrote.

“Nonetheless, we have all had firsthand experience with the harsh backlash that follows when the dominant view of ‘gay parenting’ as universally positive is questioned.”

The letter was published on the blog, whose main author calls herself the “bigot”. The author was raised by her mother and her mother’s same-sex partner. She converted to Christianity in high school, and now writes about being raised within a same-sex home, and about how voices like hers are almost always silenced by the powerful gay lobby.

In her blog’s description, she writes: “The discussion about gay marriage deserves more than the one-liner and bumper sticker jabs that both sides lob into the debate. Having been raised by my mother who is in a same-sex relationship, this is my attempt to present my thoughts unapologetically but with sensitivity and fairness. …

“If you back down from what you said and apologize, it will leave the children of gay homes even more vulnerable and discredited,” the letter reads. “It is important for our sake, for the sake of Italian children as well, that you not apologize or capitulate.”

The comments from Dolce and Gabbana that sparked the firestorm were that the “family is not a fad” that society has “invented ourselves.” In addition to supporting traditional marriage, the couple condemned the use of artificial means of contraception, such as in-vitro fertilization, and said that pro-creation should be an “act of love” rather than an “experiment.”

“We, a gay couple, say no to gay adoptions. Enough chemical children and wombs for rent. Children should have a mother and a father,” the pair told the magazine. …

The six signers of the letter on the blog include Heather Barwick, contributor to Federalist; Rivka Edelman, co-author of Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family Equality; Katy Faust, writer at asktheBigot; Robert Oscar Lopez, co-author of Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family Equality; Denise Shick, author of My Daddy’s Secret; and Dawn Stefanowicz, author of Fuori Dal Buio: La Mia Vita Con Un Padre Gay.

Each of the signers plan on penning a letter to the United States Supreme Court, which is set to rule on gay marriage this summer, and said that the comments from Dolce and Gabbana provided inspiration.
Pope encouraged Malta bishop to speak out against gay adoption bill


The crucial question is – Whether we are denying equal protection to homosexuals who desire the civil institution of marriage.

When we review the Preamble, it becomes clear that there is no basis for the same-sex claim to civil marriage because same sex-marriage is obviously not in the same category as heterosexual marriage. It is solely heterosexual marriage that can create the posterity (biological descendants) who will enjoy the blessings of liberty into the future.

We do need to consider the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. However, post 13, “U.S. CONSTITUTION OFFERS EXCLUSIVE BASIS FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE” is against the improper use of the Federal Constitution in order to promote same-sex marriage – which is now before SCOTUS asking them to impose it on the states. Thus, the citation from the Preamble is relevant to showing that SCOTUS should not sanction same sex marriage for the entire nation, imposing it unjustly on the states in the name of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Same-sex marriage is not a part of the legislative intent.

Please note that post 13 is offering an additional essential view of the “legislative intent” in regard to the future of America. That is why careful reading, especially of the firsr seven paragraphs, is necessary.

The first paragraph names the issue which is “our posterity.” Which happens to be us! If we are interested in America’s posterity, the biological descendants, then we need to recognize that proper biological intercourse is necessary to have posterity.
Quote from fifth and sixth paragraphs, “U.S. Constitution Offers Exclusive Basis For Traditional Marriage” in post 13.

"That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself – the biological descendants of the present citizenry.

“Anyone can make contributions to posterity, but the sexual union of male and female alone actually makes posterity itself. Marriage is the civil institution that regulates that union in civil society.”


The Preamble is not endorsing same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage was not proposed as a civil institution bringing future posterity into being. There are not grounds for a new, totally unique, civil instituion of a same-sex marriage. Obviously, a same-sex union can come under “freedom of sexual choice.” It cannot be considered as established as a legislative intent under the Constitution. And in this it is clearly distinguished from heterosexual marriage.

Thanks Grannymh. Good job

Also see same? article here.

U.S. Constitution’s Preamble Upholds Traditional Marriage
by Dennis Bonnette

Here is another article that although the author did not recognize the argument from the Preamble, he does do a great job. Scroll down and see

Protecting Marriage as a Conjugal Union Is Not Analogous to Racism

Thanks MarcoPolo. I hope you don’t mind me copying your great link onto this thread. I had heard the talk in my car. It was very insightful.

Also, on my web page here


I added these great links as well

Children of gay and lesbian parents write letter of support to Traditional Marriage, and Dolce, Gabbana

Are kids just as well off with same-sex parents? Maybe not, studies say

Meet the Opponents of San Francisco’s Archbishop | Matthew Schmitz | First Things

"Sex Change" Surgery: What You Should Know

Pope Francis Defends Human Nature Against Gender Radicals

Priests must not be silent on marriage referendum



The Book Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyl. In my case it is not just to help defend marriage, but gives insights on the appropiate approach to love and intercourse in a marriage of a man and a woman.

I was watching William B May on EWTN.
He offered some great ideas which I found on the following web pages and pasted them here

Marriage Reality : How to focus the discussion. Excerpts by William B. May

Witnessing the reality of marriage****

***William May writes that the state has a big stake in protecting traditional marriage . .

Mozilla’s Brendan Eichs was not the first person to lose his job for supporting marriage, but he was the most senior and most prominent to do so. Attacked for having given $1,000 to support California’s Proposition 8 six years ago, he was forced to resign 10 days after becoming CEO.

With judges redefining marriage across the country and an increasing campaign of intimidation by secularists, how can faithful Catholics witness the truth about marriage …

More fundamentally, why are we talking about same-sex couples in the defense of marriage anyway? How can that help reveal the reality of marriage? The term same-sex “marriage” was a trap laid by opponents to frame the debate. To support marriage, one must be against the sincere aspirations of same-sex couples. Notice, measures to protect marriage are framed as bans on same-sex “marriage.” That leads judges, legislators and many in the public to think we are simply motivated by prejudice and bigotry against homosexuals. Never use that term.

So how do we express the reality of marriage in non-religious terms? Marriage cannot be defined, only described. How it’s described is critical to how it’s understood. The Catechism describes marriage as “the intimate community of life and love” (#1603). Pope Benedict XVI described it as an icon of the Trinity, and St. John Paul II as a communion of man and woman leading to a communion between parent and child. Many remember the “love” part but have forgotten “life.”

When the reality of God’s plan for creation was recognized by the state, a civil institution was created that specifically united children with their mothers and fathers. This is a fact that doesn’t depend on revelation or belief in God. It simply is. Not all married men and women have children, but every child has a mother and father. …
The attack on Brendan Eichs was so outrageous that people on both sides defended him.

Rather than being silent, what if he said, “My concern is not about relationships between same-sex couples, but the fact that redefining marriage eliminates the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads. Our moms and dads are part of our identity. Today, there are too many fatherless children with tragic human consequences. Half of children born to women under 30 are outside marriage — and 71% of high school drop outs, 85% children with behavioral disorders, 63% youth suicides, 71% teen pregnancies, 70% juveniles in state rehab, 90% of homeless and runaway children are all from fatherless homes. How can anyone justify eliminating this institution?”

Obviously these questions are just the beginning of a new discussion. We don’t know if such a response would have saved Eichs’ job, but it would certainly have clarified his motivation and perhaps even started the discussion about the reality of marriage that must take place.

**[Life Matters](""): Explaining the Reality of Marriage to Family And Friends****

By William B. May

The breakdown of marriage has reached crisis mode. Today more than 50 percent of births to women under 30 occur outside marriage. According to sociologists, the increased numbers of children in poverty, in fatherless homes, and who experience abuse and neglect all relate to changing attitudes about marriage. The phenomenon of the breakdown of marriage has spread rapidly into the segment known as Middle America and is now touching nearly every extended family.


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