hopeful1 Posted October 10, 2004 Share Posted October 10, 2004 ok, i know we're going to be discussing this issue in one of my classes in college. It seems like the majority of reasons to oppose same sex marriages are religious ones (or at least the ones i can think of). However, when i argue something i don't really like to argue it from a religious point of view (unless if it's something the majority of religions are for/against-depending on the issue) because not everyone obviously holds the same beliefs and b/c you'll always have the separation of church and state nuts that'll try to shoot it down. Are there any secular arguements to use against same sex marriages? I know that logically only a man and a woman can reproduce (one of the purposes of marriage), but once someone implies that a marriage between a man and a postmenopausal woman (or infertile couple) is immoral or throws in the possiblity of IVF or artificial insemination, that agruement seems to fall through. Of course those are unnatural means of concieving and one could argue that homosexual actions are unnatural, haven't there also been a few reports of homosexual animal activity? could they be flawed? If anyone can think of anything else to help me out, i'd really appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted October 10, 2004 Share Posted October 10, 2004 postmenopausal really isnt a very strong arguement at all. and an infertile couple most likely has tried to conceive and a lot of times, if their economic situation will allow, adopt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeful1 Posted October 11, 2004 Author Share Posted October 11, 2004 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 (At least with male homosexuality) - health!! The facts remain that AIDS and other STDs remain quite high among homos. Sodomy is an unhealthy and very risky practice. Fewer are dying of AIDS now due to advances in drugs, but many drug treatments for AIDS have horrific and miserable side effects themselves. Secular liberals have no problem with campaigns against unhealthy practices such as smoking or even junk food. Why should sodomy be any different?! From a pure health perspective, sodomy is a disaster. To fight against such practices, is to fight for the health and well-being of those who would commit them! Nothing "hateful" about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Here is my only concern with people using disease as a reason against homosexual sex: it happens with heterosexual sex as well!! Yes, the numbers are higher and the average life expectancy is much lower for a homosexual person but it still does not say much because homosexuals are not the only ones to contract HIV or AIDS. Homosexuality, whether any one would like to admit it or not, is usually thought of as a mix up in genes. Some sort of chemical imbalance. And yes, there have been reported cases of homosexual behavior among animals but they are very rare!! It is natural instinct to be heterosexual. It is part of the natural law!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StMichael Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 The union of marriage between a man and a woman starts with love, not lust (marriage, not attraction, etc.). The union, if it becomes unfruitful due to infertility, was brought together to bear fruit. The land may be fertile, but the seeds are not. This happens and is God's will. [b]Gay "marriage" is like trying to plant a seed in hardened concrete.[/b] There is no senisble argument for homos to marry as the "union" can NEVER bear fruit nor was it intended to do so. Nor can we as Catholics promote such a mortal sin. As for their "love," the next steps in this can be "love" of a pet, do we allow folks to "marry" their dogs. Or is I "love" the 2005 Ford Mustang GT, can I "marry" it. We have allowed the definition of marriage to be controlled by others and we shouldn't have satan's secularist disarm us of our religion and truths that have existed for 2000+ years. If I must tolerate what they do, on the streets of NYC, on TV, in movies, etc. then they certainly have no choice but to tolerate that IT IS AGAINST MY RELIGION FOR SUCH SINFUL BEHAVIOR AND NO, I WILL NOT BACK DOWN BECAUSE IT IS WRONG AND HAS BEEN FOR 1,000'S OF YEARS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 (edited) [quote name='hopeful1' date='Oct 10 2004, 12:45 AM'] ok, i know we're going to be discussing this issue in one of my classes in college. It seems like the majority of reasons to oppose same sex marriages are religious ones (or at least the ones i can think of). However, when i argue something i don't really like to argue it from a religious point of view (unless if it's something the majority of religions are for/against-depending on the issue) because not everyone obviously holds the same beliefs and b/c you'll always have the separation of church and state nuts that'll try to shoot it down. Are there any secular arguements to use against same sex marriages? I know that logically only a man and a woman can reproduce (one of the purposes of marriage), but once someone implies that a marriage between a man and a postmenopausal woman (or infertile couple) is immoral or throws in the possiblity of IVF or artificial insemination, that agruement seems to fall through. Of course those are unnatural means of concieving and one could argue that homosexual actions are unnatural, haven't there also been a few reports of homosexual animal activity? could they be flawed? If anyone can think of anything else to help me out, i'd really appreciate it. [/quote] Just because a couple is in menopause or infertile doesn't mean God can't intervene and bless them with a child. Homosex "unions' have no such possibility. Remind the separation between Church and state people that they are mis-reading the Constitution on that one. Congress shall make no law infringing on relegion is a far cry from the silliness of today. Animals can engage in homosexual activity -sure. What does that prove? I am not an animal with an animal soul, I am a human with an immortal soul. Big dif. Edited October 11, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 The only problem I see with trying to argue this is that taking God out of morality is like taking an engine out of a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 [quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Oct 11 2004, 12:30 AM'] And yes, there have been reported cases of homosexual behavior among animals but they are very rare!! [/quote] 'Homosexual' behavior among animals is not about sexual enjoyment. It is about showing the other guy who is boss. It is domination, pure and simple. The same reason that your dog does it to a stranger's leg. It shows who is the master. Homosexuality among humans is simply a disordered lust. It is a want. It is a want of sexual gratification, absent of true love- which comes only from God. We are pretty confident that God does not have a high opinion of homosexual acts. Now, simply being a homosexual is not enough to be a sinner...as a sin of lust, acting on it is giving in to your base instincts, and rendering yourself an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Oct 11 2004, 05:24 PM'] 'Homosexual' behavior among animals is not about sexual enjoyment. It is about showing the other guy who is boss. It is domination, pure and simple. The same reason that your dog does it to a stranger's leg. It shows who is the master. Homosexuality among humans is simply a disordered lust. It is a want. It is a want of sexual gratification, absent of true love- which comes only from God. We are pretty confident that God does not have a high opinion of homosexual acts. Now, simply being a homosexual is not enough to be a sinner...as a sin of lust, acting on it is giving in to your base instincts, and rendering yourself an animal. [/quote] I would add that, in a sense, homosexual activity among humans is very similar to that domination type among animals, mostly in that it is selfish, if not totally about domination, properly speaking, it is about having someone else subjected to you, i.e. a possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emils06 Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Why am I against gay marriage? Because it is wrong for the children! Just as we do not want kids growing up in unhealthy families, we do not want them growing up without a father or mother. Sure, people can say kids don't need both parents, but it's proven that children with a 2 heterosexual parents are simply more well rounded. So, if liberals take over the world and allow gay marriage then at least do not let them bring kids into it too! Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 11 2004, 05:26 PM'] I would add that, in a sense, homosexual activity among humans is very similar to that domination type among animals, mostly in that it is selfish, if not totally about domination, properly speaking, it is about having someone else subjected to you, i.e. a possession. [/quote] I was shrinking from making that statement, but I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeful1 Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 bump, will try to post with more responses to what's already been said later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 [quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Oct 10 2004, 11:30 PM'] Here is my only concern with people using disease as a reason against homosexual sex: it happens with heterosexual sex as well!! Yes, the numbers are higher and the average life expectancy is much lower for a homosexual person but it still does not say much because homosexuals are not the only ones to contract HIV or AIDS. Homosexuality, whether any one would like to admit it or not, is usually thought of as a mix up in genes. Some sort of chemical imbalance. And yes, there have been reported cases of homosexual behavior among animals but they are very rare!! It is natural instinct to be heterosexual. It is part of the natural law!! [/quote] I don't see how these go against using my disease argument. Smokers are not the only ones who die of cancer, etc. The fact that rates of fatal diseases are so much higher among homsexuals should be reason against it (probably not the best reason, but from a secular, "nonjudgmental" standpoint). And yes, diseases are high among people who practice promiscuous (hetero)sex as well. This can be an argument against sexual promiscuity (which the Church also condemns, by the way). It in no way negates this as a determent from sodomy. In fact, the low risk of STDs makes a strong secular case for faithful married relations (or chastity)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 (edited) [quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Oct 10 2004, 11:30 PM'] Homosexuality, whether any one would like to admit it or not, is usually thought of as a mix up in genes. Some sort of chemical imbalance. [/quote] Whoever "thinks" of homosexuality in these terms has nothing to back them up. There is no clear scientific basis for a genetic cause of homosexuality. (Though this is a "politically correct" explanation.) It is not a chemical imbalance. Homos injected with testosterone, etc., in tests did not change their "orientation." Sure, like every other vice, some people proabably have greater tendencies toward it than others, but genetics is not the whole story with human behavior. Proponants of the genetic theory like to point out that identical twins of gays are more likely to be gay than other people. I say the fact that many identical twins (who are genetically identical) of gays are, in fact, straight blows the theory of genetics as a predetermining factor straight to hell!! Start listening to real science, instead of the "gay rights" propaganda! Edited October 12, 2004 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now