Arguments against Gay Marriage

[Seeker]

There are two major issues being discussed on the 24 hour news channels in the US right now.  The first is Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.  The other is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.  This is in response to certain states recognizing homosexual unions as being equivalent to traditional marriages.  I understand why homosexuality is wrong from a religious standpoint and why gay marriage is also wrong for the same reasons.  I was wondering if anyone could help me articulate a good argument against gay marriage and for the traditional definition of marriage that is not necessarily based on Scripture or religion.

The proponents of gay marriage argue that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is discriminatory against homosexuals and that they have the right to marriage and family as heterosexuals do.  The opponents of gay marriage have argued that if gay marriage is allowed, then why not also allow polygamy, or marriage between say, a man and his consenting daughter?  I see gay marriage as an attempt to further legitimize the homosexual lifestyle in society and as part of a moral relativism that is the enemy of all believers.

Can anyone add to the nonreligious based arguments here?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.  In order for a constitutional amendment to be passed in the US, I think it will be important to have convincing arguments laid out as to why it is not in the best interest of society as a whole, and also "wrong" from a secular standpoint, to recognize gay marriages.

Thanks.

[tklein1014]

The opponents of gay marriage have argued that if gay marriage is allowed, then why not also allow polygamy, or marriage between say, a man and his consenting daughter?

This is the best non-religious argument I've heard.  Hopefully maybe someone else here might come up with a better one.  I just wanted to say that I really don't understand what is discriminatory about civil unions, as opposed to marriage, not that I expect anyone here to know the answer to this, but I just thought I'd put the question out there.  If gay couples were to be recognized legally by civil unions, then they'd still get the same legal benefits of marriage, right?  I don't get it.  Just my $.02, but I think they just want to shove this down our throats, whether it makes sense or not.  I also agree with the statement above that it will open a Pandora's box.

I also came across this article...  Even though it's a Catholic website, the arguments presented in it don't sound religion-based, but study-based...

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=44115

HTH

Tina

P.S.  I'd also add that if they want to be married, I think they've got to learn to compromise, since that's generally a given in marriage.  I think civil unions are a good compromise.  Again, just my $.02...

[Seeker]

Tina,

My understanding is that there are already legal provisions for contracts that would equate to the civil benefits of traditional marriage.  I agree, I think it's being "shoved down our throats."  I also think we're being pushed to accept the homosexual lifestyle as being morally and socially equivalent to the traditional married life or single life.  Homosexuality already seems to be an accepted practice in some areas of the US.  At least, that's what television seems to tell us.  I believe that gay marriage is another step in the direction to erase traditional lines of sexual morality.  I may sound like a fanatic, but social acceptance of heterosexual couples living together before marriage was part of the beginning of the change in sexual morals of American society that seems to be getting worse, in my opinion.  The shift probably started way before that, though.  Just spouting opinion and conjecture.  Please forgive my tirade. If these things continue, it's my children I really worry about.  

Thanks for the link Tina. What I found real telling in the article was the trend to disassociate the procreative and unitive (i.e., loving biological parents) aspects in marriage for raising children (adoption and natural infertility not withstanding).  This seems to be a product of sexual promiscuity and high divorce rates.  Kind of shows the wisdom of the Church's idea of the purpose of sexual intercourse as a renewal of the marriage covenant that must remain procreative (open to life) and unitive (loving).

[Melody]

Hey Seeker

I can't think of anything really. Ulimately a religious truth has to be accepted by Faith. eg:What good non-religious argument can one make against fornication?

I have often struggled to do my bit to convince friends about what I believe is the truth. But to this a LOT of prayer must be added. Argument/Discussion without prayer will just be wasted or worse, it may have the opposite effect one desired.

If these things continue, it's my children I really worry about.

Don't worry about your children. Bring them up with love & prayers. Teach them the WORD of God & the Truth & try to bring them to experience Jesus in a personal way. Maybe your children will be the Beacons of light in their generation! Why not?! People have stood with God (biblically "Walked with God") & against the tide of society throughout the ages. It's hard, but then He warned us the road was narrow didn't He? And it's not like Eternal Life isn't worth it!

Finally,

I may sound like a fanatic

No you don't! You just sound like a concerned Christian, who's not afraid to state the truth as he sees it.

Remember you're not against any individuals, you're standing up for the truth.

[Seeker]

Thanks for the words of wisdom, Melody  

[Stigmata]

My opinion:

The government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage should be a religious ritual, and the various religions should make the rules as they see fit. The government should issue licenses for civil unions only, and marriage should not be recognized by the government unless it is accompanied by a c. u. license.

Currently, the majority of states in the US have laws that prohibit same-gender civil unions. That is discriminatory.

I have also heard it said that once homosexual marriage is legal, next will come pedophilia and bestiality. That is nonsense. A civil union is a legal contract between CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS.

[tklein1014]

The government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage should be a religious ritual, and the various religions should make the rules as they see fit.  The government should issue licenses for civil unions only, and marriage should not be recognized by the government unless it is accompanied by a c. u. license.

This would also be a good compromise, I could go with this. The only place I might disagree/question is the latter part, about the government not recognizing religious marriage cerimonies.

Tina

[jesusandyou]

If we Christians follow the right things and do the right things, why we do we need a law? The law is for someone who breaks it. Anyway, thats impossible. Constitutional ammendments come from the public who consider certain laws need to be passed which can't be done through religious rights. Why murder is a crime? Murder is punishable because the rest of the world should know that an innocent should be killed. If marriage is between man and a woman, then the marriage need to be protected. If marriage is between a man and a man, then that need to be considered as marriage and the rest of the world is a foolish onlookers.

[Rev. Eric]

I, like so many others, am concerned over where homosexual marriages/civil unions will lead.  As history teaches us over and over, once one group starts chipping away at social institutions, it paves the way for others to do the same, until the social fabric is completely disrupted.  Each new group simply pushes the envelope a little bit further.

Currently, the majority of states in the US have laws that prohibit same-gender civil unions. That is discriminatory.

I have also heard it said that once homosexual marriage is legal, next will come pedophilia and bestiality. That is nonsense. A civil union is a legal contract between CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS.

Polygamy involves consenting adult humans.  Should they be given marriage licenses or civil unions as well?  Are the current laws against polygamy discriminatory?

Incest can involve consenting human adults.  How about them?

And what about the danger of ephebophilia?  This is sometimes confused with pedophilia - but ephebophilia is the disorder in which a person is sexually fixated on kids who are over the age of puberty but still below the age of legal consent.  The problem is that, generally speaking, "adult" is a subjective term.  Although the law establishes a specific objective age to what an "adult" is, the specific age is not universally recognized and at times has been redefined in certain areas.  "Consenting" is also, generally speaking, a subjective term.  Once again, the law sets an objective age for a person to legally be able to consent, but this assumes a uniform maturity, and we all know that people mature at different rates.

From a historical viewpoint, an ephebophile could argue that puberty marks the transition to adulthood, and point out that until modern times many cultures married off people as soon as they were capable of reproduction.  In light of all this, there are movements currently underway in this country seeking to legally lower the age for consensual sexual unions.  Should we allow them to change our laws?  Should they be given marriage licenses or civil unions with kids?

If two college room mates share expenses and household responsibilities, should they be allowed to get a civil union and receive the same benefits as married couples?  If not, are they being discriminated against?

To grant homosexual unions legally legitamacy opens the door for many other groups to seek the same.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[mario]

Seeker
Civil union is a legal contract between consenting adult humans (such as homosexuals, hetro sexuals, college roomates you name it) civil unions do not specifically exist for gays. Civil marriage is a union  only between man and a woman.  Very few states have provisions for civil union( Vermont, Massachusettes, California are some states that have civil union).  Civil unions do not gurantee the same rights, benefits  that civil marriages get ( and these right or benefits vary  by each state) .  Tina although marriage between father and daughter is frowned upon, states do not have legislation on this , remember  Actor Woody Allen he married his own daugther.

Any ways, seeker,  to answer you question . There is a biological, scientific theory and it is called the Natural law of Propogation and selection, this law is very much debated . There are two parts to this theory they are Propogation and survival. Let me explain it to you, here it goes.  A male( could be dog, cat, human beiing) is judged by nature has being succesful by how many offsprings he can produce and how many of them survive from natural disasters  such as famine, earth quake you name it( this is called natural selection).  If a male A   has 6 offsprings and all of them die before they reach their reproductive age than male A was not a successful creature( becuase he was not able to pass on his genes), so basically Nature had a upper hand against man A. Now as you know reproductive sex between man and woman only gives birth to an offspring, which is a natural law and has to take place for man A to be successful, therefore homosexuality would not be a wise choice for man A if he wants to beat nature.    A religious marriage between man and woman works on this theory too.  For example in a catholic marriage, a man and woman should strive to progpagate (sex for recreation is a sin, contraceptives and abortion is sin, reproductive sex is the only sex you should have in a catholic marriage, you get the idea!).  The propagation part is the easy part since any male and female can have sex and propagate, its the survival of your offspring till they reach their reproductive age that is the hard part.  Therefore the male and the female have to look after their offspring till they reach their reproductive age (help their offspring avert natural dangers).That is why in a catholic marriage divorce is stricly forbidden and union between man and woman is needed for good upbringing of your children.

Homosexual civil unions are not able to satisfy the basic condition of the Natrual law of propagation.  Now the question arises since homosexuals cannot reproduce, can they adopt?.  How does adoption of kids by homosexuals affect the Natural law?.  It depends on how the homosexual couple raise( teach him/her how to survive till he/she reaches reproductive age) their adopted kid.  If the kid picks up on the homosexual behavior rather than hetrosexual behavior than the propagation clause of the Natural law would be violated.  On the other hand if the kid turns out to be a hetrosexual than the theory is not violated.  But remember, the intellectual, moral growth of the kids depends 90% on environment in which he/she is raised( The US courts use the 90% environment theory in delivering their judgments e.g if man is a wife beater his son turns out to be one too, some abused children turned out to be a serial killers when they grew up, and remember the court of law takes all this into consideration while delivering judgements ).   so what I am saying is if the adopted kid is affected 90% by the environment what's not to say that he would pick the sexual orientation of his/her homosexual parents.  These are some of the scienific arguments against gay marriages. I hope this was helpful.

[Seeker]

Yes, that was very helpful Mario.  Thanks!

[Melody]

Very interesting Mario, thx for sharing that with us.

Recently I was having this conversation with a family who loves this one gay boy. I know the boy myself and he's really such a nice person & I do like him so much myself. I started wondering whether I belonged to the group of "fanatics" they said were against gay people.

Having re-read this entire thread, I was edified by my own reply (how ironic is that?!) that we're not against any individuals, we're standing up for the truth.

We don't need to condemn a person - just an act that we believe is not correct. Just as we would condemn fornication and not the fornicators.

I've heard the line "If God was pro-homosexuality He wouldn't have made Adam & Eve, He'd have made Adam & Steve". Silly line, but it sticks in one's head. Now this point of procreation that Mario mentioned also seems a good non-religious argument.

If God was pro-homosexuality, wouldn't He have created some way for them to naturally pro-create? And since He hasn't, doesn't it show it's an unnatural union?

I know this argument falls short of incestual/paedofilic & so many other sexually unnatural unions, but it could possibly make sense in this case.

Blessings,

Melody

PS: I believe Jesus loves all of us equally, which mean He loves the next gay person as much as He loves me.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

I have these linked on my web page Links To Articles On Homosexuality.
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Franklin4YAHWEH/Homosexuality.htm

Homosexuality: Just Another Example of Trauma Conditioning by Roy Masters
http://www.fhu.com/popups/article_homosexuality.html

The Psychology of Homosexuality By Paul Cameron, Ph. D.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html

The destructive nature of homosexuality By Judson Cox
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/cox/040315

[Seeker]

Thank you for those links Frank4YAHWEH.