homosexual marriage

Thanks in advance for any and all responses,
My daughter will be debating homosexual marriage in school next week and I am helping her to prepare for the debate. She will be arguing against homosexual marriage. We would like to hear any good arguments that may assist her, biblical or not. She will be arguing mostly from a biblical perspective but it would be great to hear arguments that a non-religious person might find compelling.

Thanks and the peace of Christ be with you all,

Marriage is only between one man and one woman in the eyes of God. It has been that way for all of history and it will always be that way in the eyes of God.

While homosexual “marriage” doesn’t and can’t exist, my first question to her is why would non-religious people find a biblical argument compelling at all? Would you find an argument from the quran or eastern religious book compelling.

That aside I would present the historical basis for marraige between man and woman which is entirely unitive and life-giving by being open to the possibility of Children as the norm(which it is) in a way homosexual unions are not.

That and the fact ones dignity and equality are not based on the ability to marry but rather on the very fact that they are human beings would be the basis for my argument.

There is no such thing as “homosexual marriage”. You can’t marry your dog, and you can’t marry someone of the same sex. It’s not natural.

Biblically, there are passages sprinkled throughout condemning the act of homosexuality. It is clearly a sin in the Bible.

Go to the US Bishops website…

I just think “Why do they need a paper to be together”

Why do they need marriage? It wont make a difference, they are still together either way.

I suggest you look up things they will argue back with such as ive heard that they are denied hospital care (something like that) or homing.

God Bless and Good Luck.

I have posted these links in other threads. Since the proponents do not accept the authority of the pertinent Biblical verses, it does no good to quote them. Dr. Morse uses secular arguments, starting with the public purpose of marriage and moves on to show how SS"M" cannot serve that purpose. My only criticism is the “Why not?” since I believe the burden of proof is on the advocate of change, IOW, “Why?”. I would suggest your daughter keep this in mind as she debates. Each one is about 15 minutes long. Good luck to her!

Jennifer Roback Morse, Phd

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=atsAiYpyI9M&feature=related
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=VwyOHhJAYko&feature=related

People evolve, concepts evolve, so an appeal to history alone won’t do it.
In most countries, people can be legally married without wanting children. So, it may have been historically so that marriage was live-giving etc. but nowadays this isn’t always the case anymore.
So, what if the concept and the word marriage evolves into ‘a legal union between two partners?’

That and the fact ones dignity and equality are not based on the ability to marry but rather on the very fact that they are human beings would be the basis for my argument.

Of course people can have dignity while not being married, but if there are no other arguments, why not let people choose how to have dignity?

One resource that’s helpful to go with religious and ethical points is the secular arguments against gay marriage.

You can find them in this well-written article at this link.

Non religious arguments against gay marriage

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage


What is Marriage?


**Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization **


Dr. Morse’s testimony to MN Senate Judiciary


Catholic view of gay ‘marriage’

Gay Marriage


The Case Against "Same-sex marriage"


How to argue against same-sex marriage


The Catholic Church’s Teachings on Marriage


This is an excellent article.

Here is the last paragraph, which I find very compelling:

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

I recommend reading the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons. Section III is particularly helpful. It gives arguments from reason (not just Scripture), which I think is necessary in this debate.

Also, the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property have put together a book Defending a Higher Law, which is free to view on their website. That presents answers to many of the common arguments raised by those in favor of the recognition of same sex unions.

Both of these would be valuable in preparation for a debate on the subject.

I didn’t read the whole thread, but as far as secular arguments go, you first must address the premise. And there are 2 main ones I see.

  1. What is marriage (define it)?

  2. Why does the state recognize it or give those in a married state certain privileges?

The answers to these questions inform each other and (in my opinion) destroy discrimination arguments.

Generally the state recognized marriage because they saw it as beneficial to society. Married people had children, their children were taken care of within the family and the state didn’t have to take care of them. The state wanted to promote children (future workers) especially those brought up in stable families who would become productive stable workers. For many years there was actually tax penalties for married couples. The state realized that they could often get more tax revenue out of married couples.

There was also the standard social justice issues. Women and children tended to be left out in the rain if a separation happened. Things like alimony, equitable division of property, protected women who stayed at home with the children and often had little to no earning power.

These days you don’t even have to get married to get most of the benefits that married couples do. All you really need to do is consult (and pay) a lawyer to draw up the necessary documents, such as a power of attorney, living will, a will, a contract for property, and to move the deeds and assets into joint accounts (or keep them separate). The things you don’t get are social security death benefits, and being able to file your taxes jointly, or other social benefits like welfare.

That is very informative. Thanks.

Another helpful link:


Friend you speak my mind.

Homosexuals are not dogs, or comparable to dogs. This is offensive. Catholics also believe you cannot marry a previously-married person. Would you use the dog analogy if talking about whether it was acceptable for your married parents to remarry?

Incorrect. Catholics believe that you cannot marry a person who is currently married to someone else.

A person who was previously married (i.e. widowed) is certainly free to marry again. A person whose putative marriage was annulled is free to marry (for the first time). :wink:

You could formulate some arguments around analogies:

Do you redefine driving laws because some people choose to drink and drive? After all, it’s not fair that you have to be sober to drive because that discriminates against alcoholics. Do you hate someone who is an alcoholic because you tell them he/she can’t drive? Redefining marriage would be like changing our driving laws to be more “fair” to drunk drivers.

Drink driving is harmful. It kills and injures people and destroys property. Gays getting married harms no one.

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.