Same Sex Marriage: RIGHT Or WRONG?

This has seemingly become a global debate between two factions; those who support gay rights and those who don’t. This article however attempts to project why same sex marriage may not be the best camp to support. We hold no grudge against those who support it, we do not condemn people, we only try to condemn the act.

Here are TEN ways to argue against Same Sex Marriage:

1. “We’re equal under the law, so we’re
getting married.”

It is true that everyone is equal under the law. This
equality, however, is juridical, not biological. It does
not and cannot eliminate the anatomical, physiological and psychological differences between
the sexes, which create the conditions for marriage
and constitute its natural foundation.
Regarding marriage, juridical equality means that all
those with the natural capacity to marry have the
right to do so. This juridical equality does not create
the biological conditions required by nature for
marriage. Now the conjugal act is intrinsically related
to marriage, and nature requires two individuals from
opposite sexes for its performance. This natural
requirement is totally lacking in two people of the
same sex who wish to marry, so the principle of
equality under the law does not apply.

2. “Homosexuals are born that way.”

The argument that homosexuals are “born that way”
has led to a quest for a homosexual gene. Three
research projects have been commonly misinterpreted to support that conclusion, namely
those of Dr. Simon LeVay, Drs. J. Michael Bailey and
Richard C. Pillard, and Dr. Dean Hamer.
The Catholic Medical Association summarizes the
facts in Homosexuality and Hope:
The media have promoted the idea that a “gay gene”
has already been discovered…but, in spite of several
attempts, none of the much-publicized studies… has
been scientifically replicated. A number of authors
have carefully reviewed these studies and found that
not only do the studies not prove a genetic basis for
same-sex attraction; the reports do not even contain
such claims… If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions.

3. “Homosexual acts between consenting adults don’t hurt you.”

Consent does not necessarily legitimize an act. The
morality of an act does not depend only on the intent
and consent of those who perform it; the act must
also conform to moral law. Thus, the mutual consent
of homosexual partners can never legitimize
homosexual acts, which are unnatural deviations of
the sexual act from its true and natural purpose.
Consensual homosexual acts do hurt. The spread of
homosexuality undermines public morality and the
family. It “hurts” the common good of society and
the perpetuation of the human race.
We are social beings. John Donne rightly declared
that no man is an island. As social beings, we cannot
disassociate ourselves from society or its decadence.
If we do not fight for traditional marriage today, when
the death bell tolls for our dissolute society, none
should ask for whom the bell tolls. It will toll for us.

4. “What we do in private is nobody’s business.”

The privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, but
not absolute. When an evil act is done in public, the
ensuing scandal compounds its intrinsic evil.
However, an evil act does not become good when it is
performed in private. Its evil nature remains
unchanged.
Though homosexual acts are graver when they are
public, they continue to be “intrinsically evil” when
done in private. Likewise, the inviolability of the
home does not protect immoral and socially
destructive acts such as child prostitution, polygamy,
and incest.

5. “Morality is none of the government’s business.”

According to natural law, the State has the duty to
uphold public morality. This does not mean that the
State must enforce the practice of every virtue and
proscribe the practice of every vice, as supposedly
attempted by the ayatollahs of today. Rather, it
means that, when legislating on moral matters, the
government must decide when something directly
affects the common good, and then legislate so as to
favor virtue and obstruct vice.
Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and
pornography undermine the foundations of the
family, the basis of society, the State is entitled to
use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in
the interests of the common good.

6. “Same-sex ‘marriage’ does not threaten traditional marriage. They can coexist side by side.”

Same-sex “marriage” destroys the integrity of true
marriage by turning traditional marriage into a
species within the marriage genus. This broad
marriage genus would supposedly encompass
traditional marriage, homosexual or heterosexual
unions, and whatever other bizarre new relationships
might arise. This new “marriage” genus, however, is
not marriage.
Marriage is the permanent, sacred bond uniting a
man and woman who desire to constitute a family
and face life’s trials together. Marriage entails
selfless dedication, devotion and sacrifice. Marriage
and the family are sacred institutions that foster the
common good of society.
The legalization of same-sex “marriage” and its
placement on equal footing with traditional marriage
subverts and destroys the latter. When public
authority and society in general deny true marriage’s
uniqueness and irreplaceable contribution to the
common good, and when individuals can find its
legal incentives and rewards more easily in
counterfeits, then true marriage is on the road to
extinction.

7. “Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a about civil rights, not morality.”

This is tantamount to affirming that civil rights have
nothing to do with morality, which is not true. While
many today disassociate the expression “civil rights”
from morality, the fact is that there can be no “civil
rights” without a moral foundation.
Man’s actions must conform to right reason and
natural law. “Nothing more foolish can be uttered or
conceived than the notion that, because man is free
by nature, he is therefore exempt from law.”
Morality is broader than the law. Law needs to be
justified in morality. Laws that are not founded on
morality have no purpose, since laws exist for the
good order of society. In his famous treatise on
natural law, Fr. Taparelli D’Azeglio affirms:
The moral order is the basis for society, because
every duty is grounded in a moral order that results
from the natural order. Now, order is the natural rule
for the intellect. In the intellect, order is simply truth,
and insofar as it compels the will, order is goodness.

8. “The church allows sterile people to marry, so it should allow same-sex ‘marriage.’”

This argument is frequently used by “Catholic”
homosexual activists. There is no possible
comparison between the natural sterility of a married
couple and the unnatural sterility of a homosexual
union.
In the first case, the conjugal act performed by
husband and wife has the possibility of engendering
new life. Conception may not occur because of some
organic dysfunction in either spouse or due to the
wife’s natural periods of infertility. This lack of
conception stems from accidental or circumstantial
reasons. Thus, in cases of accidental and undesired
sterility in the spouses, nothing is done to frustrate
the purpose of the conjugal act.
In the homosexual act, however, sterility is not
accidental. It stems from the very physiology of the
act, which is infertile by nature. As a Vatican 2003
document states:
Such [homosexual] unions are not able to contribute
in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the
human race. The possibility of using recently
discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond
involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,
does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

9. “To forbid homosexual ‘marriage’ is discrimination.”

It is not discrimination. “The denial of the social and
legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that
are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to
justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.”

10. “It is unjust not to allow homosexuals to marry one another, forcing them to practice chastity unwillingly.”

As Saint Paul teaches, the unchaste will not enter the
Kingdom of Heaven. Everyone is obliged to practice chastity according to his state in life. This obligation proceeds from natural ethics and revealed morals and the Church cannot change this. Married spouses must live chastely in observance of matrimonial fidelity, and the unmarried must live chastely, abstaining from sexual intercourse.
If a person lacks the physical, psychological or other
conditions to contract matrimony, he must practice
perfect chastity in celibacy. Not only is there glory in
choosing celibacy out of love for the Kingdom of
Heaven, there is also merit in accepting the chastity
that circumstances impose as a means of subjecting
oneself to God’s holy will.

You either support these claims or you oppose, leave your comments here or join the discussion via facebook or twitter

Thanks.

GlowVille Crew.
Culled from: TFP Student Action.

Read more under Social Critiques

For Advert and Publicity please contact us
BBM: 2A3B059E
08038273738; 08113150125