Same-sex Marriage

[Treehugger]

Does anyone have any advice on how to defend the sanctity of marriage between one man and one women to an atheist who claims to be gay, for example?

Obviously, the arguments should be presented with a level of sensitivity and with reason, societal issues, etc. being emphasized more so than faith and biblical sources.

Any tips?

[eagle_eye222001]

Well it's good you understand the fact that you can't use the Bible or Church Teaching to much effect as they discount any objective moral code.

Below are a few links to help get you started. They do not provide a full argument, but they will help you start thinking in the right direction of how to argue. Part of the links contain stuff on God, however between the religious references is the basic secular argument that a man and a women are better for society than two of the same sex.

[url="http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage_and_family/marriage.aspx"]http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissu...y/marriage.aspx[/url]

[url="http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage_and_family/marriage/cause_for_concern.aspx"]http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissu...or_concern.aspx[/url]

[url="http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage_and_family/marriage/our_position.aspx"]http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissu...r_position.aspx[/url]



Another direction is to ask atheists who support gay marriage what do they think of polygamy. If an atheist supports gay marriage, they should have no problem supporting polygamy as its just another form of adult relationships. To support one over the other is hypocritical for an atheist as they have no solid moral code. This argument boils down to relative truth versus absolute truth and is a whole other discussion in of itself.

I'm sure there is more out there but that should help get you started and maybe someone else will know of some other source.

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/linkin+park/track/new+divide"]Linkin Park - New Divide[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Treehugger]

Thanks for the links.

I've definitely used the polygamy argument before. It's a good one.

I find same-sex marriage so much more challenging to defend compared to pro-life issues. (Even though marriage is very much linked to respect for life and pro-family.)

[CatherineM]

One of my biggest reasons to be against gay marriage is personal experience. I came to understand the wisdom of the church's teaching on the subject after having dozens of gay clients. Of all the couples I dealt with, I truthfully didn't meet any that were really happy. Most were horribly broken. Even couples that had been together for decades, seemed so unhappy in their lives. I'm a firm believer in looking at the fruits of our actions. In gay relationships, I saw no good fruit, only chemical dependency, and barrenness, male or female.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1937247' date='Jul 31 2009, 07:33 PM']One of my biggest reasons to be against gay marriage is personal experience. I came to understand the wisdom of the church's teaching on the subject after having dozens of gay clients. Of all the couples I dealt with, I truthfully didn't meet any that were really happy. Most were horribly broken. Even couples that had been together for decades, seemed so unhappy in their lives. I'm a firm believer in looking at the fruits of our actions. In gay relationships, I saw no good fruit, only chemical dependency, and barrenness, male or female.[/quote]

It's not even really a true "marriage" right? I had a friend in college who told me that a girl he had a HUGE crush on in High School -- rejected him... But now he'd found something "better". Yeah right... He didn't seem all that happy either. In fact I'm a skeptic of the whole thing. I don't believe that there are special people who are only interested in partners of the same sex. At least people who call themselves "bi" give themselves an out.

I think that a heterosexual marriage is not only a commitment which provides for children, I think that it is also something needed by the human psyche.

Edited August 1, 2009 by southern california guy

[Varg]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1937247' date='Jul 31 2009, 08:33 PM']One of my biggest reasons to be against gay marriage is personal experience. I came to understand the wisdom of the church's teaching on the subject after having dozens of gay clients. Of all the couples I dealt with, I truthfully didn't meet any that were really happy. Most were horribly broken. Even couples that had been together for decades, seemed so unhappy in their lives. I'm a firm believer in looking at the fruits of our actions. In gay relationships, I saw no good fruit, only chemical dependency, and barrenness, male or female.[/quote]Ah, because it would be so much [i]better[/i] if they never had relationships at all!

And how is polgamy comparable to gay marriage, I don't understand that...

And another thing, if marriage is needed by the human psyche then why do so many marriages fall apart?

Edited August 1, 2009 by Varg

[VeniteAdoremus]

I know several gay couples who, at least as far as my acquaintance with them goes, seem genuinely happy. So for me personally, that argument doesn't work - unless it would be that they are missing out on the true happiness of following Christ, but that doesn't apply to atheists either... they wouldn't be following Christ outside of their relationship, and maybe the incomplete happiness they experience actually does bring them nearer.

It's a very hard question for me I think it's wrong, but if you're not Christian, staying celibate is so tough that chances are it'll backfire spectacularly.

[Skinzo]

This is a tough one. I think I would focus on trying to overcome the atheism first. Aristotle's proofs for the existence of God made sense to me once they were put into language I could understand.

S.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Varg' post='1937790' date='Aug 1 2009, 04:32 AM']Ah, because it would be so much [i]better[/i] if they never had relationships at all!

And how is polgamy comparable to gay marriage, I don't understand that...

And another thing, if marriage is needed by the human psyche then why do so many marriages fall apart?[/quote]

Those born with some degree of SSA can have relationships. I've known two, one male and one female, who decided that they were going to straighten out their lives, live according to the church rules, and both have been happily married to a member of the opposite sex for many years now.

Polygamy is comparable to gay marriage because both create new rights under the guise of not discriminating against someone because of who they love. If it is discriminatory to not let a man marry a man he loves, then it must also be discriminatory to not let a man marry the two women he loves.

Marriages fall apart because people aren't taught anymore what marriage is really about. Kids are now trained that if something breaks, just throw it out and get a new one. Our entire society is about getting rid of things that are too difficult. Marriage is hard. It takes persevering in the hard times. Very few of us are being raised to have that kind of maturity.

[tinytherese]

Perhaps these websites might help.

[url="http://couragerc.net/"]http://couragerc.net/[/url]

[url="http://www.narth.com/"]http://www.narth.com/[/url]

Overall though, I don't think that the argument against same sex marriage can be done for anyone who is not a Chrisitan. Also, studying the Theology of the Body, how God designed man and woman and His plan for them might help. It really touches at the core of what the human heart truly longs for.

[iheartjp2]

I blogged about this not too long ago. Have a look if you wish: [url="http://real-patriot-37.xanga.com/706761159/marriage-right/"]Marriage: Right?[/url]

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1938037' date='Aug 1 2009, 01:52 PM']I blogged about this not too long ago. Have a look if you wish: [url="http://real-patriot-37.xanga.com/706761159/marriage-right/"]Marriage: Right?[/url][/quote]


It's quite wrong an any number of points.


Start by looking up Loving v. Virginia and move on from there.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Hassan

[iheartjp2]

I'd like to point out that my argument is compatible with the ruling of Loving v. Virginia. I simply stated that people didn't have the RIGHT to marry based on race. No one has the RIGHT to marry based on anything. That was my entire argument: marriage isn't a right.

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1938126' date='Aug 1 2009, 04:15 PM']That was my entire argument: marriage isn't a right.[/quote]
[i]
While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment....

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.


It is so ordered. [/i]



[url="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1"]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...388&invol=1[/url]

[iheartjp2]

If marriage were a "right" in the same sense in which you're trying to make it seem, one wouldn't need a license to be wed. The possibility of the revocation of said license proves that marriage is not an inalienable right. Marriage laws dictate who can marry and how the process is to be carried out. If marriage were, in fact, a right in the same sense that life or liberty are rights, the two paragraphs that you just quoted would be contradictory.