I am so scared of same sex marriage

I get frightened whenever it is mentioned. I feel an obligation to speak the truth. I usually tend to use a natural law argument against same sex behavior/marriage. Every time it’s mentioned though, I always look like the bad guy, a horrible person, a jerk. The thing is, the arguments I’ve heard from people who argue with me are not convincing at all. And I try to use a natural law argument, but I tend to get shaky and usually screw up the logic of the argument by worrying that I’ll say something “offensive.”

I was recently stopped by someone when I said in my argument that same sex behavior is unnatural in the sense that it doesn’t fulfill our natural end of procreation but rather acts contrary to it. I was ridiculed for that one word “unnatural” and then I lost my train of thought and couldn’t carry on with the argument.

Imagine the HMS Beagle came upon an island of all one gender. When Darwin returns in one generation, what is the evolutionary conclusion?


You’re in luck.

I personally do not see what is wrong with homosexual relationships, BUT I am level headed enough that I won’t get offended.

So let’s hear your thesis.

Not all of us have a gift for apologetics or more complicated moral discussion. Natural law arguments in particular can be very ticky and easily misunderstood. The Church has people who are very skilled at this and they are the ones to entrust with developing, representing, and defending the Church’s position on this and other complicated moral matters.

For many of us, these are not the arguments we should seek to have. You can simply state that you are Catholic and favour a traditional view of marriage, and can say it’s a topic that is often emotionally evocative and you generally prefer not to discuss it on that basis.

I commend you for trying to keep with the Churches’ teaching. It’s hard to argue with those that think SSM is OK. They gen. wear moral blinders. You are probably making good, valid facts based on Biblical teachings. They just don’t want to hear it or accept it. Walk away at the pint of the non-receptive attitude and pray for them instead. I am sure that you do allready. Peace.


Not see how that would work.

Edit: Hang on, I think I see. You are using the fact that an island which consisted of only one specific gender wouldn’t be able to survive because they wouldn’t be able to reproduce. So what you are saying is that we should avoid any scenario that results in the human race being all one gender because then we’d go extinct!

Gosh, lucky for us only a small percentage of the population is gay, otherwise…well, your worst case scenario would be, umm, relevant?

The only way to solidly hold the line is to say marriage isn’t about love it is about making babies, but few heterosexuals want to admit they’ve sodomised the institution into something else entirely.

If marriage was only about making babies, then no woman past child bearing age should be allowed to get married. :shrug:

If you want to sell that same-sex relationships are contrary to nature you’re going to have a big long uphill battle because your argument rests on a teleology (going towards an end, goal, or purpose) that likely won’t be granted. There is a deductive disconnect between ‘sex can produce babies’ and ‘the purpose of sex is babies’ if the people you are arguing against do not grant the idea of natural law. Which sounds like it’s tied in to the ridicule you received using the word ‘unnatural’.

If you want to argue with these people you need to couch your argument in something they agree with. I’m wracking my brain trying to come up with a suggestion or example of what this can be - I’ll try again after a good night’s sleep. Ideally it should be something without the epistemtic and metaphysical problems that natural law has.

What you don’t want to do is memorize a rote-argument from an apologist without really understanding the logical underpinnings of it because your debater can pick past the surface of a flow-chart and once they do, you’re on your own to explain the objection they brought up.

Are you suggesting that people who are offended by SSM are not level headed?

You are confused, understandably, due to the current culture.
But women getting married past the child bearing age aren’t closing the door on children.
It is just that it probably won’t happen.
Unlike homosexual marriage where mother nature prevents it happening, 100 percent.
The door is closed. It is not of nature. It s not the natural order. It is disordered.

Thornton Wilder wrote: “Of all the forms of genius, goodness has the longest awkward age.”

It’s normal to feel embarrassed and awkward when trying to present a concept that is not generally accepted. You might want to take Underacloud’s advice and let it go for now. You will probably not convince anyone by argument.
Just pray for them.


This is just a shot in the dark, but I’d guess that you aren’t married.


You can cull some arguments from there, but if they do not accept the Truth (truth) you have a challenge. All apologetics has to struggle with our fallen consciences. Sexual sins are one of the first (fig leaf) sins that lead to man acting as if he is the measure of all things.

I make the point that what is being attempted is NOT marriage equality but marriage
re-definition. I ask the challenger to name the culture, tribe, nation etc. that before the year 2000 included same-sax couples in it’s definition of marriage. I haven’t found any. Some (such as the Greeks) were comfortable with such associations prior to marriage but none included it as part of the definition of marriage.

SSM may be declared legal, but it is by no means ever going to be natural. It should be allowed only as a legal formality to allow for rights of inheritance and such. It shouldn’t be called marriage, as that is a religious union.

While you may feel compelled to say something, we are not obliged to speak up whenever anyone says something that is contrary to our faith or natural law. Wisdom requires discernment of when to speak and when to remain silent.

Proverbs 9:7-8
“He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you.”

And here are some words of Jesus found in Matthew 7:6
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

No; I’m suggesting that whenever there is a hot-button debate, there are those on both sides who let their emotions dictate their arguments instead of their reason.

Also, the person who started this thread mentioned being unable to make his point due to the people he talks to getting offended.

Marriage has been deviated way off course, and quite frankly, homosexual marriage is just a side effect of the original deviation, which began with the contraceptive mentality among so-called “straight marriage.”

What needs to be done is we need to talk about contraception as much as we talk about gay marriage now. “Straight people” who contracept are just as wayward. We’re not against gay marriage because we “hate gays” … we’re against it for the same reason we’re against straight people contracepting… either way, the relationship is not open to life.

This is what bugs me about politicians like Ted Cruz lately, openly advocating for the contraceptive culture on the campaign trail

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.