Homosexuality And A "godless" Friend

[supernerd]

Here's the deal: My friend was talking to me yesterday about how gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. She said that marriage is an act of love, and if they love each other, they should be allowed to marry.

I tried to defend marriage using the term "holy matrimony" and branching off of that, but she wouldn't listen. She believes in God, but only to the extent that she won't have to feel guilty about sinning. He exists, but he doesn't care about her or what she does.



I need some way to defend marriage without going into religion. Any help?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='supernerd' date='Apr 14 2004, 06:54 AM'] Here's the deal: My friend was talking to me yesterday about how gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. She said that marriage is an act of love, and if they love each other, they should be allowed to marry.

I tried to defend marriage using the term "holy matrimony" and branching off of that, but she wouldn't listen. She believes in God, but only to the extent that she won't have to feel guilty about sinning. He exists, but he doesn't care about her or what she does.



I need some way to defend marriage without going into religion. Any help? [/quote]
Maybe ask if God is not involved, why bother with marriage?

If God is not involved, then marriage is nothing more than a legal agreement that can be ended? Why bother with marriage?

Since it hasn't been a norm for thousands of years, why change it now?

What is the point of marriage if God is not involved? Why would people need to make it legal?

If same sex marriage is allowed, then why not two brothers get married even though they are straight to save money on taxes, then get divorce when one finds a wife?

If same sex marriage is allowed the government will loose a lot of money... our health insurance will go skyrocketing because the insurance companies will loose a lot of money... not just because people with ssa will marry, but people who are just roomates will marry so that they can get the tax breaks and health insurance breaks... then everyone who stays single will get major increases in fees... many people will not be able to afford insurance anymore.

Marriage will no longer be something for life (which it's loosing now), but it will be more like finding a job, there will be marriage hoppers just like there are job hoppers...

It will be a mockery of marriage. What's to stop siblings from marrying next? What about people that want to marry animals? Where do we draw the line?


Hope that helps...

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Theoketos]

More then that...

Argue that the conjugal act must be total faithful fruitful if it is to be Love. Homosexual activity (and for that matter all sexual activity outside of marriage) is none of those.

If it is not all of these then the people become objects. Thus outside of marriage, sex is abusive and caustic to the Human Person.

Abuse, I would say, is far from Love.

And Marriage is an act of Love, thus it must be total (giving one's self, including fertility, forever binding and open to life), Faithful and Fruitful.

[Sojourner]

There needs to be a distinction in our thinking between the civil nature of a union and the religious nature of a union. I don’t see why we couldn’t allow domestic civil agreements between any two people, or three, or four, but leave the defining of “marriage” up to the Church. There is already a distinction between the civil and religious aspects of marriage – not every heterosexual couple who obtains a marriage license is married in a church. So instead of calling those “marriage licenses” let’s call them “civil union licenses.” Allow anyone who wants to enter a civil union to do so, then the church can determine which of these civil unions it will call “marriage.”

Again, we already do this. Priests and pastors refuse to marry couples in churches from time to time, thereby acknowledging that there is something faulty with the way a couple is approaching their union.

[quote]If same sex marriage is allowed, then why not two brothers get married even though they are straight to save money on taxes, then get divorce when one finds a wife?

If same sex marriage is allowed the government will loose a lot of money... our health insurance will go skyrocketing because the insurance companies will loose a lot of money... not just because people with ssa will marry, but people who are just roomates will marry so that they can get the tax breaks and health insurance breaks... then everyone who stays single will get major increases in fees... many people will not be able to afford insurance anymore.[/quote]

I'd love to see some stats on this. It makes no sense to me that this would occur … what if all these people were simply to enter a heterosexual marriage? Would our insurance rates suddenly skyrocket out of sight? And I don’t know where you work, but I’ve never seen health insurance breaks for being married at any place I’ve ever worked -- in fact, it's generally simply double the premium, and sometimes more, and the deductible is usually significantly higher.

As far as predicting that mass numbers of people would suddenly enter into "marriage," I think you’re overreacting slightly … I don’t know [i]any [/i]straight people who would be willing to enter a union that smacked of SSA just for the tax benefits.

And speaking as a straight single woman looking for a straight single guy, if I found out that a guy I was interested in was in a civil union with his brother or his male roommate, well ... let’s just say I’d keep walkin’. I am pretty sure I’m not alone in this.


[quote]Marriage will no longer be something for life (which it's loosing now), but it will be more like finding a job, there will be marriage hoppers just like there are job hoppers... [/quote]

And this is different from how things are now in what way? We’ve already got phenomenally high divorce rates – what do you call that but marriage hopping? Marriage is already being mocked by our culture, so why don’t we do something about it? Why don’t we, as a church, work to reclaim the beauty and symbolism of marriage? Let the secular world have all the civil unions they want, but let's re-instill value into the concept of marriage.

[phatcatholic]

supernerd,

in the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=6947"][b]Holy Matrimony[/b][/url] entry, there is a section on "Same-Sex Marriages" towards the bottom of the page. one of those articles in that section may help as well.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[BeenaBobba]

You see, marriage was first and foremost a religious institution. The State recognized the institution of marriage because of its benefit to society. Heterosexual marriage benefits society because of the collective procreative aspect to heterosexual marriage; the family is the foundation of society. With homosexual "marriages," the procreative aspect is collectively missing, meaning that [b]no[/b] homosexual couple is [b]ever[/b] capable of conceiving a child together. Because of this, homosexual couples do not contribute to society in the way that heterosexual married couples do.

People who support gay "marriage" usually say that gay couples should be able to marry merely because they "love" each other. So, does that mean that love is the qualifier for marriage? If so, then why shouldn't people be able to marry whoever or whatever they want, including animals, relatives, children, etc.? Gay "marriage" advocates will often argue that "consent" is needed, and because animals and children cannot give consent, people should not be allowed to marry them. But "consent" is just another limitation on marriage. The question to ask those who support gay "marriage" is why they are so arbitrary and selective when it comes to defining marriage. They insist that the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is too exclusive, that the definition of marriage should include gays. But why stop at gays? What is the basis of putting a limit on "consent?" Gay "marriage" advocates are usually unable to address the logical conclusions of their stance.

Legalized gay "marriage" is also an infringement upon the religious rights of those who disagree. In Canada, for example, the government censures those who merely disagree with homosexual behavior and activity. The day may come (and there is evidence that it's already coming) when disagreeing with homosexual activity and refusing to recognize gay "marriages" will be punishable by law as "hate crimes."

Gay "marriage" advocates often argue that gay couples can contribute to society by adopting and raising kids. But if God (or nature, for the atheist) made it so that men and women need each other to procreate, then there must be something about the union between a man and woman that is different from relationships with those of the same sex. Two men cannot procreate together. Two women cannot procreate together. Therefore, both a man and a woman are needed for procreation. Because children have been raised by both a mother and father throughout history, there must be a reason for this, i.e., it must be beneficial and even necessary for their full development.

I hope this helps.

God bless,

Jen

Edited April 16, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[cmotherofpirl]

2 thnigs:
There already is a case where a father and daughter were convicted for marrying each other, and they are going to appeal based on the right to marry whomever you choose.

Another interesting thing ( sort of related) in the sodomy case in Texas ruling, the judges did not base their decision on the US Cnostitution as required, but on UN human rights legislation. I don't recall giving the UN jurisdiction over us, do you?

[Dave]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 16 2004, 09:33 AM'] 2 thnigs:
There already is a case where a father and daughter were convicted for marrying each other, and they are going to appeal based on the right to marry whomever you choose.

Another interesting thing ( sort of related) in the sodomy case in Texas ruling, the judges did not base their decision on the US Cnostitution as required, but on UN human rights legislation. I don't recall giving the UN jurisdiction over us, do you? [/quote]
It's a slippery slope, I tell ya!

[BeenaBobba]

Hi cmotherofpirl,

Do you have any articles on the first thing you mentioned? I ask 'cause I always bring up the slippery slope argument, and gay "marriage" advocates always call me paranoid when I argue that if the traditional definition of marriage is broken down, it could open the door to other things, such as incest.

God bless,

Jen

[DojoGrant]

Is marriage based solely on love?

If you say yes, you create a giant problem for yourself.

[hyperdulia again]

The State marries many people the Church doesn't consider to be truly married. It allows the insane to marry. It encourages people who use artificial contraception to marry. In my state it allows first cousins to marry without a dispensation from the Catholic Church. It allows the divorced to marry without an annullment.

I don't really see a difference.

I also believe the state has a compelling interest in seeing to it that people don't lose custody of children they have cared for since birth at the death of their partner, and in encouraging its citizens apart from any moral consideration to establish stable relationships. Furthermore, I don't want any one's religious views or lack of religious views to become part of my government.