"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

Or so says my uncle.

What I explained was that gay marriage hurts society in many ways, being:

-Children being taught “gay rights” in public school (why not teach them religious freedom in general too then?)

-Future generations growing up with the idea that marriage can be anything, opening the gates to further future problems

-The imposing of the gay agenda onto Christians and the forcing of us to conform to their definition

-Only adds to the the further underpopulation of the world (hes a scientist and he insists that the earth is already overpopulated)

-The further desensitization and degradation of societys mentalities, whether gay or straight since its more than just gays who support gay marriage

Am I leaving anything out? And correct me if Im wrong at all too. Thanks.

not encouraging heterosexual relationships which should be the societal ideal.

Perhaps I would fine tune the underpopulation argument to be that of society than of the world.

People have been arguing the human population’s effect on the world’s resources for at least the last couple centuries and the debate is only getting more heated with current visibility and effects of the irresponsible use favored by many.

However, the pending societal collapses in Europe and Japan and the underfunded Social Security system (largely because of the lack of new workers to support retirees) can more clearly demonstrate your argument.

You can add that gay marriage is being encouraged as a better option than heterosexual marriage. Lately, there have been probably four studies (highly biased by the way) who have been giving high publicity indicating that lesbians are better parents than heterosexual parents, I have seen several publications indicating that gay relationships are most stable and better than homosexual relationships and the gay movement constantly points at the 50% (which is a myth) divorce rate of heterosexual vs. the long term lesbian relationship. If someone doesn’t see this as an agenda to push homosexuality on people, they are blinding themselves. I, also, found extremely funny that the same liberal people who are now pushing for gay marriage are the same who for many years were pushing the philosophy “marriage is just a contract” “you don’t need to be married to have real love” and the whole philosophy that co-habitation is better than marriage. How come that for heterosexuals marriage is not needed and now all of a sudden gays need to be married?

Religious freedom is taught, and is generally encouraged. It’s something that’s encouraged in society, and most children will be presented with new world views on a regular basis. Certainly where I live they teach ‘Religious Education’ which is essentially teaching children religious freedom. I also don’t believe it would lead to the teaching of gay rights in state schools. Why would it? And what on Earth would they be taught, anyway?

For the record, you’ve worded this quite oddly, as if homosexuality is a religion, which is quite funny.

Possibly, although many people already believe that now. It’s also true, to an extent, as we can change the definition of marriage at our own will. It’s only those who have some kind of spiritual or religious connection to marriage who believe otherwise, and in that case homosexual marriages are not really marriages to them. So what’s the problem?

This is the most valid point you’ve made, but I’d argue that it doesn’t necessarily need to be that way. Homosexuals can marry without religious folk having to partake in it. Though I will admit that many homosexuals expect quite a lot from religious folk.

Either way, it’s a lame argument. Homosexuals are already failing to reproduce, so whether they get married or not it won’t affect the population of the Earth. They’re not going to have children with or without marriage. I also see little evidence to suggest that the Earth is overpopulated, and it certainly isn’t underpopulated. There are also few homosexuals, when you consider the population of the Earth, so they’re unlikely to make much of a difference.

According to your own view of morality and your own definitions of what is appropriate. Is it fair to force others to conform to Christian standards?

It is not possible to have an honest and reasoned discussion on any moral topic with those who refuse (regardless to their insistance to the contrary) to be honest and reasonable.
There is no reason to be “gay” in the first place, it is an aberration, a misdirection of affection. But once a person has accepted that any object of affection is valid there is no point in trying to reason with them on other issues.

i.e. if Bob insists that 2 + 2 =5, there is no point in discussing algebra with him, the basis for the discussion is already flawed beyond hope.

We are not overpopulated, the problem is the powerful 1% who prefer that the powerless 50% live in poverty.

They claim its equivalent to interracial marriage, so they want to teach how at a point in US history people were bigoted against it etc yadda yadda.

Possibly, although many people already believe that now. It’s also true, to an extent, as we can change the definition of marriage at our own will. It’s only those who have some kind of spiritual or religious connection to marriage who believe otherwise, and in that case homosexual marriages are not really marriages to them. So what’s the problem?

This would hold more ground if homosexuals just called it something different. After all, its the rights theyre after not what its called. Secondly, by using the word Marriage that is dragging the religious aspect of it into this.

This is the most valid point you’ve made, but I’d argue that it doesn’t necessarily need to be that way. Homosexuals can marry without religious folk having to partake in it. Though I will admit that many homosexuals expect quite a lot from religious folk.

Correct, we also dont have to pretend its something that its not. This is what all the heat is over. They dont understand that in order to make Oj you need oranges and they keep bringing apples. Theu yhould make Apple Juice instead, but they want us to accept that its equivalent to Orange Juice, when its self evident that it isnt.

Either way, it’s a lame argument. Homosexuals are already failing to reproduce, so whether they get married or not it won’t affect the population of the Earth. They’re not going to have children with or without marriage. I also see little evidence to suggest that the Earth is overpopulated, and it certainly isn’t underpopulated. There are also few homosexuals, when you consider the population of the Earth, so they’re unlikely to make much of a difference.

By not adding to it, theyre using resources and allowing populations to decline. Much like heterosexual couples who contracept. And dont forget its not just gays, its the infectious mentality that has spread that is dangerous.

ive read in an unbiased study that the world is currently populated at 9 billion and perfectly capable of sustaining 37 billion. Id post the link but Im writing this thru my phone.

According to your own view of morality and your own definitions of what is appropriate. Is it fair to force others to conform to Christian standards?

And thats not what were asking anyone to do. The term has a standard regardless of it being secular or religious it has an objective meaning.

If the DMV denies a drivers license to a blind man, should the blind man conform to the laws or should the DMV conform to the blind mans will and endanger the rest and even him? No one is forcing the blind man to drive.

Marriage should be preserved and protected between 1 woman and 1 man because traditional marriage is the basis of a healthy society, it has many benefits and that is why is has and should continue to have a privileged place; stability to children, studies have shown traditional marriage increases the chance of children avoiding cohabitation and divorce which means they have happy long lasting marriages and bring continued benefits to society; reduces early sexual activity among teenagers and reduces teenage pregnancy among girls; increased chance children will gain qualifications and avoid poverty, traditional marriage reduces mental health issues of husband, wife and children, lowers infant mortality, substance abuse, depression, suicide (some studies suggest there may be a link between declining marriage rates and suicide rates among young men); lower rates of illness, disability, injury and longer life expectancy among men and women who are married; reduces risk of domestic violence compared to those who date to cohabitate. What state interest does gay marriage provide?

Redefining marriage leads to the redefinition of parenthood. When marriage occurs that attaches parents to children through ‘presumption of paternity.’ This is an ancient doctrine that means a woman’s husband is presumed to be the father of the children that would be conceived in their marriage

Those who want to redefine marriage want to redefine this to change to ‘presumption of parentage,’ which means that any children that would be born to either one of a gay couple during the course of their ‘marriage’ is presumed to be the child of both individuals. That means that every child will not be attached to least one of their biological parents. So now people are trying to ignore the biological fact that a child can not be born without a man and a woman in to law, natural parenthood is undermined

Civil partnerships and gay marriage harm society because of the religious liberty concerns that have been brought up already and gay marriage is legal in more than a handful of states

[LIST]
*]Gay marriage law in MY has 70 word on religious exemption but Discover Annapolis Tours owner Matt Grubbs was told by ahis attorney to close down the wedding part of the business because he could be sued for refusing services for gay marriage which could cost him $50000 annually so he is asking the AG in ME to give businesses like him the right to refuse on religious grounds services for gay marriage

Civil unions and gay marriage have influence on public policy which effects everybody. Gay marriage and civil unions have a naegative impact on religious liberty. Here are some examples and there are more than on this list and these were before gay marriage was legalised in WA, ME and MY

*]Catholic Charities of Massachusetts stopped adoption in 2006 because they refused to place children with homosexual couples. Catholic Charities of Illinois did the same and lost mollions in state funding

*]Julea Ward, a graudate student declined to promote homosexual relationships with a gay client she was having a discussion with in a counselling program and Julea Ward was kicked out

*]Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast owners, Jim and Beth Walder, in Illinois, because of their relgiious beliefs declined to a host a gay civil union. I read they are awaiting a hearing on discrimination allegation and if they lose could pay a fine

*]Pentecostal Christian, Victoria Childress, a wedding cake maker in Des Moines told a lesbian couple she would not make a wedding cake for them as she believes marriage is defined as between 1 woman and 1 man. Soon the lesbian couple went on a TV station saying they were considering a lawsuit against Childress and that they feld discriminated against. They chose not to lawunch a lawsuit but she has recieved emails and leter calling her a bigot and boycotts of her business

*]Christian Elaine Huguenin was sent an email by Vanesa Wilcock about photographing their commitment ceremony. Elain Hugunenin sent a message back

‘We do not photograph same-sex weddings,’ Huguenin wrote. ‘But again, thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day’

Elain Huguenin was found guilty of discrimination by the New Mexico Court of Appeals and ordered to pay $6000 for the oppsitions attorney. Gay marriage is not even legal in New Mexico

*]When the Massachusetts Supreme Court redefined marriage in 2004 that was used to force exposure of homosexual behavior to elementary students.

Parents in Lexington, Massachusetts 2006 filed a lawsuit because their second-grader was a read a book about two princes who fall in love called The King and King. That lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge. Federal appeals court affirmed that saying

‘It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage’

There was no opt out from the class. The son of the father who filed the lawsuit was later beaten in school and the father speculated it had to do with the lawsuit

*]Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in New York refused to allow gay couples to live in married student housing, which is in line with Jewish Orthodox beliefs. In 2001 the New York Supreme Court forced the university to allow gay couples to live in married student housing even though gay ‘marriage’ was not legal at the time

*]2 women decided to hold their civil union at a New Jersey pavilion owned by Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association which is a Methodist group. This group told the two women they could not ‘marry’ any building that use for religious purposes. The two women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First amendment protected their right to practise their religion without punishment from government. But when it went to court the Methodists tax exemption was revoked. Judge ruled the Church could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples who want to use pavilion for a wedding because it was viewed as a public place
[/LIST]

Civil partnerships and gay marriage harm society because of the religious liberty concerns that have been brought up already and gay marriage is legal in more than a handful of states. Here are examples and there are more than on this list and these were before gay marriage was legalised in ME, WA and MY

[LIST]
*]Gay marriage law in MY has 70 word on religious exemption but Discover Annapolis Tours owner Matt Grubbs was told by ahis attorney to close down the wedding part of the business because he could be sued for refusing services for gay marriage which could cost him $50000 annually so he is asking the AG in ME to give businesses like him the right to refuse on religious grounds services for gay marriage

*]Catholic Charities of Massachusetts stopped adoption in 2006 because they refused to place children with homosexual couples. Catholic Charities of Illinois did the same and lost mollions in state funding

*]Julea Ward, a graudate student declined to promote homosexual relationships with a gay client she was having a discussion with in a counselling program and Julea Ward was kicked out

*]Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast owners, Jim and Beth Walder, in Illinois, because of their relgiious beliefs declined to a host a gay civil union. I read they are awaiting a hearing on discrimination allegation and if they lose could pay a fine

*]Pentecostal Christian, Victoria Childress, a wedding cake maker in Des Moines told a lesbian couple she would not make a wedding cake for them as she believes marriage is defined as between 1 woman and 1 man. Soon the lesbian couple went on a TV station saying they were considering a lawsuit against Childress and that they feld discriminated against. They chose not to lawunch a lawsuit but she has recieved emails and leter calling her a bigot and boycotts of her business

*]Christian Elaine Huguenin was sent an email by Vanesa Wilcock about photographing their commitment ceremony. Elain Hugunenin sent a message back

‘We do not photograph same-sex weddings,’ Huguenin wrote. ‘But again, thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day’

Elain Huguenin was found guilty of discrimination by the New Mexico Court of Appeals and ordered to pay $6000 for the oppsitions attorney. Gay marriage is not even legal in New Mexico

*]When the Massachusetts Supreme Court redefined marriage in 2004 that was used to force exposure of homosexual behavior to elementary students.

Parents in Lexington, Massachusetts 2006 filed a lawsuit because their second-grader was a read a book about two princes who fall in love called The King and King. That lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge. Federal appeals court affirmed that saying

‘It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage’

There was no opt out from the class. The son of the father who filed the lawsuit was later beaten in school and the father speculated it had to do with the lawsuit

*]Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in New York refused to allow gay couples to live in married student housing, which is in line with Jewish Orthodox beliefs. In 2001 the New York Supreme Court forced the university to allow gay couples to live in married student housing even though gay ‘marriage’ was not legal at the time

*]2 women decided to hold their civil union at a New Jersey pavilion owned by Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association which is a Methodist group. This group told the two women they could not ‘marry’ any building that use for religious purposes. The two women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First amendment protected their right to practise their religion without punishment from government. But when it went to court the Methodists tax exemption was revoked. Judge ruled the Church could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples who want to use pavilion for a wedding because it was viewed as a public place
[/LIST]

I love the fact that you make this reference because I always thought that marriage is actually like driver’s licenses. Getting a driver’s licence is a privilege that is given to certain to certain people in order to protect something. Now a days the argument is that “we are denying gays the right to marry” but if you look at marriage, it shouldn’t be a right for everybody. If we are going to make marriage a right then older people should be given the right to marry children, poligamists should be given the right to have 20 wives/husbands if they want, people should be able to marry their mother and their close relatives, teenagers should be allowed to marry, etc. etc. The fact itself that there is a list of requirements for marriage – being over 18, of a sound mind, etc. – makes it a privilege with the intention of protecting certain groups. So, I totally agree with your point.

:thumbsup: Thanks for this! You should publish it!

My uncle also brings up the example of Divorce and how the Church has no problem with it it being a legal thing should treat SSM the same.

I am only thinking of this now as it occurs to me, but there is no Divorce within the Church obviously. So even if we disagree its not as huge of a controversy. It would be if they insisted that Divorce was an Annulment or tried to use that wording.

So like with Diviorce and Annulment, gays should come up with their own response to Marriage and leave us out of it by not using our wording.

I have read in Canada, that when they were debating whether to legalize gay marriage,
that religious exemptions would be respected. After the law was passed, there were
lawsuits against some Canadien states that discriminated against Christians these
lawsuits were overturned by the Canadien Supreme Court. I see this happening in the
United States. :mad:

Yes, what people dont understand is we’re not against the blind man receiving transportation, we’re not for him getting behind the wheel.

Love is an emotional state, If the only reason for marriage is to legalize love, then the state has no business legalizing love, with the institution of marriage.

Marriage is much more than a legal state of love. Marriage was conceived thousand of years ago, with out the benefit of the state, as an institution by religion for procreation and to sanctify the love of not only a man and a woman, but to give communion to children in that marriage, and family. We procreate not only for the survival of the species, but mostly for the worship of our Father in heaven.

Let’s examine societies in which it was practiced, or tolerated: Sodom. Gomorrah. Ancient Rome. Next question…

Good point. :thumbsup:

For those Darwinists among us, it runs absolutely counter to evolution. Rather than survival of the fittest, it appears to be elimination of the ‘unfittest’ by natural de-selection. You can’t have both things.

And if the Netherlands is any indication as to where we may be headed, they are considering Euthanasia for children (children are allowed to decide), Pedophilia is being considered, and Public sex is allowed. The gay marriage thing is accepted of course.

That doesnt sound like a harmless society.

Its a shame I remember to bring up such things after the fact :frowning:

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.