Hello all, long time no post! Anyways, I was wondering if calling gay marriage unnatural is a good argument. I ask because aren’t our lives filled with “unnatural” things? For instance, phones, lamps, heaters and A/C, internet, etc? If these unnatural things are okay, why isn’t gay marriage? I’m sure there is an easy anser for this, but I just can’t think of it. Thanks!
It’s the truth so it’s fine.
It’s not like you’re going to end a discussion with it though.
The average person has a vague idea of what “natural” or “unnatural” means, although the words do have a more precise use in Catholic theology. In Catholic theology, there is nothing “unnatural” about phones, lamps, heaters, internet, etc.
I think in a more casual discussion you might stick with the question: what is sex & marriage suppose to be about. Christians are at an inherent disadvantage on this subject because it is difficult (or impossible) to explain why homosexual acts (and SSM) are wrong without also explaining why contraception is wrong, and the issue of contraception is already a largely sunk ship. You can always default to, “because God says so,” and that is technically a perfectly valid statement, but it isn’t going to win over anybody that doesn’t already fear God.
Calling it unnatural as a good argument for what? It all depends on what you’re arguing for, and how you set up your argument.
One thing you’ll have to prepare for is someone questioning you what you mean by natural and unnatural. As other posters pointed out, these are vague terms. Once you’ve clearly defined what you mean by ‘unnatural’ you’ll then have to explain what work ‘unnatural’ does in your argument. This is for when a person could say “even if it’s unnatural, so what?” There might be an interesting argument at hand, once it’s fleshed out some.
While it is TRUE that homosexual acts (and thus marriage) go against the Natural law*, I don’t think an argument would resonate well with some opponents.
To be honest, a lot of people reject ANY reasonable conclusion from Scripture - Obviously because they don’t believe in it or reject its validity.
Many people believe that religion is something “to be kept in private,” and thus feel we are ramming our opinions down their throats - Not that the left-wing doesn’t already do that on a far more dramatic scale than we Christians.
Others will try and explain that the Scripture meant “something else,” and that we’ve interpreted it wrong.
A message from a prominent Rabbi in the last couple of years didn’t help things much.
In all honesty, the argument for Natural Law would work best as it is the least “preachy” of the above. Otherwise, you must PRAY for your opponents, as that is the best way to get a good result.
*i.e. What ‘bits’ fit where…
The primary function of the sexual act is to procreate.
This is the natural order of things.
Procreation only comes from the sexual act.
It is a law of nature.
Unfortunately today, there is a generation or two that have been led to believe that sex is first and foremost about pleasure, and that the unfortunate side effect is children.
Sex which is first and foremost about pleasure is the wrong way around.
It is disordered.
Therefore, homosexual sex is disordered.
Calling gay marriage unnatural is not only a good argument, it is also the correct one.
The vast majority of sexual acts do not result in procreation. Has a married couple with three children only performed the sexual act three times? Procreation is certainly one possible function, but there are others. Cementing the bond between the couple is an obvious one that has nothing to do with procreation.
Is it a sin to perform the sexual act with your spouse when the female partner is pregnant? No new procreation can result if the woman is already pregnant.
Must all older married couples abstain because the wife has passed her menopause? Must a married couple where one or both partners is infertile completely abstain from the sexual act?
There are different purposes to the sexual act, and the Catholic Church allows those other purposes to justify sexual acts in cases where no procreation is possible.
You need to develop your logic more fully here. Currently the case you are making is not strong.
When people say homosexual acts are unnatural, they mean that the sex organs and act are not *ordered towards *those actions. They are clearly ordered towards being both a unitive and procreative act, and male and females are biologically ordered towards complementarity during the sex act. The strictly biological direction of sex is reproduction and a closer union between the couple. I don’t think anyone could argue that children are an “unintended” (by nature) accident of sex. It’s one of the primary evolutionary purposes of it.
Ordered towards is the key point. Not every union need result in pregnancy. Avoiding pregnancy may even be intended, or the chance of pregnancy to be so low as to be near impossible. But the actions should still be open to what they are ordered towards by nature (where nature means OUR human nature, not limited to just refering to what’s “in nature” like trees or the environment, etc…). Sex isn’t just a biological function, it’s a sacred union where two become one. In a small way, man and woman coming together is an image of God, with love proceeding from both.
Calling it unnatural as an argument against SSM? I think is a very bad argument. Granted is truth, but if you are looking to use it to argue with someone who supports it and thinks it should be legal is bad because the idea of homosexuality has been so normalized through population brainwashing in our society that it is just not going to work. Unfortunately too many people are drinking the secular kool aid and see homosexuality as two people loving each other and the unnatural part won’t work in their brain. You either need a more straight forward argument or something that can throw off the secular brainwashing.
No, calling gay marriage unnatural will not convince those who support gay marriage because they will argue that animals engage in homosexual activity too and so it exists in nature and therefore is not unnatural.
How do you tell whether something counts as “brainwashing” or not? I’m sure that many non-religious folks believe that religious folks have been brainwashed and have been drinking religious kool aid.
I think it depends. Assuming this is about American culture, GLBTQ folks have been hit pretty hard with frank arguments about how they are doomed to hell or how sodomy should be banned.
The same can be said for straight gay rights activists, who I have to be as equally if not more angry when someone disagrees with so-called gay “marriage”.
I’ve found that promoting natural law works better.
Now, in comparison to different technologies, technology’s primary purpose is to make life better. So-called gay “marriage” does not make life better; it’s actually a selfish concept with negative consequences.
Well, it’s also natural for some animals to kill their mates and eat their young. Should we subsidize that behavior, give the participants in that court protection and have parades in our largest cities celebrating it?
I’m sure that marriage does make the lives of many gay folks better. It gives them legal protections that are not always easy to replicate by other means without the help of lawyers. Legally married gay folks also qualify for spousal and survivor benefits from Social Security and the military, health care benefits, etc. Perhaps you think that wanting all these protections and benefits is just being selfish on the part of gay folks, but do you also consider straight married folks who want these kinds of protections and benefits to be selfish? :shrug:
It is brainwashing when they are repeating like a parrot exactly the same argument that was used back in the day to push no fault.divorce and many others without even realizing that the history is repeating itself with the only difference that is now a different subject.
It is necessary to distinguish between those things which are not natural, that is, not originating in nature, and those things which are contrary to nature. To perfect nature is not a bad thing: the fundamental dogmas of Christianity (the Trinity, the Incarnation etc.) are not knowable by reason alone, and are therefore not natural. A/C, internet and the like are simiarly to our human nature.
Homosexuality, and even worse, those criminal and sacriligious unions called “marriages” by many, are directly contrary to nature, since the sexual organs were created by God for the purpose of reproduction, to which union with same-sex absolutely prohibits. Similarly with same-sex marriage.
So, there things which assist nature, and which add to it, but do not contravene nature, and there are thigns which frustrate nature, and homosexual conduct and the pseudomarriage contracted between two persons of the same-sex, is among the latter.
Now this is the best answer yet! :thankyou:
Thinking that solely by getting married you are going to get all these kinds of legal protections is foolish and a big error for anyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Of you believe that you are getting huge legal protections just by getting married and without seeing a lawyer you are heading towards major disaster the day that anything happens to your spouse.
The only actual issues that marriage do help is for social security purposes, to be able to get into your spouse’s insurance (though this is also not fully truth as there are many other ways and most insurances now a days recognize domestic partnerships) and probably two more matters, the rest is just lies that are told to sale the idea of SSM. And this is exactly what I refer to as brainwashing. You are just repeating like a parrot an idea that you heard on the media without having any actual knowledge of the laws or the real situations.
And as a gay man, I know quite a bit more than the real situation of LGBT people than most people here on CAF. :shrug: