Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Reasons why same-sex marriage should be illigal
Okay so I have to give a persuasive speech fo my speech class and one of my classmates wants to take about legalizing same-sex marriage and that made me really mafe
So I want to take about making same-sex marriage illigal are there any arguements in my side that I can use
So I want to take about making same-sex marriage illigal are there any arguements in my side that I can use
Comments
In some of my psychology classes, sadly as it sounds, we learned that research shows they are actually better-adjusted (in their families and life in general) compared to heterosexual families. I personally do not believe that but whatever! What also sucks is that many people (scientists and researchers etc) have found "evidence" that homosexuality has a bit of a genetic component. Again I do not agree with that!
But I just said a tiny prayer for you and I hope you find something... :) God bless.
I really was aggrevated when I found out that someone is giving a speech to legalize same-sex marrriage. But now I am better. I am still waiting for my teacher's response if she agrees that I write about illigalizing it
You should look at the consequences of gay marriage. The couple will get certain rights that actually aren't very positive. For instance, the right to adopt a child. Research has shown ( look this research up/google ), that having gay parents isn't right for the child's growth, socially and psychology.
Good luck to you, I hope you can use good arguments to protect your valid point.
Marriage, first of all, is a religious term. The Church should be the one to decide whom they marry and whom they do not. If we want to live in a secular society, we should respect what belongs to the Church, and the Church should respect what belongs to the people. Marriage, therefore being a religious term, should not be used, but rather "civil unions".
If you wish to point out why same-sex Civil Unions should be illegal - is because the United States IS a Christian country. If it continues to go down the road of political correctness, in the hope of appeasing minority groups, it will lose its identity. If you look at the Constitution, or the "Bill of Rights"; "GOD" is mentioned in them. This is a very religious country - with extremely religious people. It has the most Catholic/Christian Universities or Colleges in the World! If the government decides to appease minority groups in the hope of appearing tolerant to the outside world, it will only cause division within America. Civil unions already exist - but to further advance this policy to marriage and then to the adoption of children by gays will only cause unrest and divide within America.
This is not to say that Christians are "intolerant" of gays. But rather, Christian marriage does not recognise same sex unions. Its that simple. Muslim marriages, Hindu & Sikh marriages do not recognise same sex unions.
Gays can do what they want, but they cannot twist God's arm and force Him who created marriage between "man and woman" to go and change His position. That's not for them.
This debate, if it is about marriage, is certainly a religious one. I think this interesting as, gays will see one day that they cannot go beyond civil unions. They cannot and never will have a gay Catholic Marriage, nor a gay Orthodox marriage. It will never happen, and governments cannot force the Church into accepting it.
Here is an argument based on the above points:
If we are claiming to be rational and believe in evolution (I am not saying I believe in evolution) – that nature select those that are fit, and since we know that gay couples cannot propagate their gene in a natural way how do we justify artificial insemination of gay couples. It is not right to say that being gay is natural and also say gays have the right to artificial insemination. How is it nature in all her wonder give a person the gene to be gay without the gene to propagate this trait if the trait was desirable by nature?
Another point is (sorry if I am being gross) no gay person claims to have a special anatomy that accommodates same sex intercourse. In other words no ones behind is meant for such a use. Actually, the rectum is made of a soft tissue that makes it less than ideal for any kind of sexual intercourse. Again how is it nature that gave the gay gene to someone forget to make such an adjustment?
Finally, since I am not a scientist and don’t have any kind of data to debunk what the scientist say let us assume there is a gay gene. But this doesn’t mean we should legalize gay marriage. For example, there are people who are attracted to underage children, they even claim that this is their natural orientation does that me we should legalize pedophiles. If you think this is absurd go to this link: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Pedophile_activism_-_Impacts_of_scientific_papers_on_pedophilia_advocacy/id/5369667
There are also those who are naturally inclined to be alcoholic. But we don’t say drink yourself to death but try to find them treatment.
My point is natural inclination doesn’t justify anything. Imagine if we say “it is natural therefore permitted”. We should rather ask “is it beneficial to society?”
Hope it helped
In Christ
Theophilus
but its funny...
Before your comments, I thought that I will be lost and I will not find any arguement
But really nice one
I would really appreciate some more
By the way Theophilus 1 the link did not work. I don't know if it is me or what
Thank you Lord for this website
GBU
Interesting LOL picture too :) it's cute.
p.s. sodr2, I like the quote you have for your signature, it's so nice and definitely true. But I guess we need to discuss that on a different discussion board...favourite Pope Shenouda 3 quotes or something!!!
The teacher told me that there are alot of benefits to legalize same sex marriage socail econonical and ....
So she told me if I can find similar arguements agains same sex marriage (scholarly ones) I can go ahead
So please I need alot of prayers
Thank you
If we are claiming to be rational and believe in evolution (I am not saying I believe in evolution) – that nature select those that are fit, and since we know that gay couples cannot propagate their gene in a natural way how do we justify artificial insemination of gay couples. It is not right to say that being gay is natural and also say gays have the right to artificial insemination. How is it nature in all her wonder give a person the gene to be gay without the gene to propagate this trait if the trait was desirable by nature?
I think this argument just shuts any door to argue back...its like self refutation...using what you say against yourself... WAWWWW amazing point..
ebnyasoo3 you should def use this one and do little more research on it though it will really support and back up your point
waw Theophelius this is AMAZINGGGGGG
If we are claiming to be rational and believe in evolution (I am not saying I believe in evolution) – that nature select those that are fit, and since we know that gay couples cannot propagate their gene in a natural way how do we justify artificial insemination of gay couples. It is not right to say that being gay is natural and also say gays have the right to artificial insemination. How is it nature in all her wonder give a person the gene to be gay without the gene to propagate this trait if the trait was desirable by nature?
I think this argument just shuts any door to argue back...its like self refutation...using what you say against yourself... WAWWWW amazing point..
ebnyasoo3 you should def use this one and do little more research on it though it will really support and back up your point
You are right , the point theo makes is good. It is logical, and speaks common sense. I have trying hard to play devils advocate against his argument, but it seems flawless.
Bingo.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no arugment I can think of why homosexuals can't have a civil contract between them to share their incomes (although in the contract there are other possiblities) and to promise to help eachother etc etc
The church does not have monopoly over marriage (in the sence of a legal contract)!!! Marriage as such a civil agreement has existed in Roman law, Arabic law etc etc. It exists in all societies, sometimes it has a religious implication (as in our church when it is actually a sacrament) but nowadays in Europe, marriage is simply a contract. I don't see why we should put effort into fighting that.
Would one have a problem with one homosexual selling a house to another homosexual? it's also just a contract!!
I have shared my opinion abt this issue before in a different thread and I'm not interested in opening the polemics up back again, but it has been a while ago, and since many posters now are new, I thought I'd give you this other perspective so there is a bit of a balance in the opinions given..
God bless
what is marriage?! its God's bond between man and woman... not contract... I dont think God wrote a contract for Adam and Eve when He created them!!!
hence what is Marriage in legal terms?! it is nothing but a contract, no God, no need of a church or a priest!
its just a civil contract... so until there is a differentiation between legal terms... or add the "God" in marriage legally... not much can be done!
1) Every human organ has specific functions (ex. the eye to see, the ear to hear)
2) Using those organs to their function is appropriate anything that impairs that function is not prudent. (ex. tp wear glasses that cause me to see everything blurry is imprudent.
3) Using organs for their functions promotes happiness. (The happiness involved in using them rightly is natures way of rewarding us and making us continue to use them properly)
4) THe proper function of the penis is to inject sperm into the female vagina (this leads to procreation and promotes happiness)
5) Homosexuality does not use the penis according to its proper function and is will therefore lead to unhappiness. (Think of a person who rips of all his teeth and puts them on a string and wears them as a necklace, surely he is not using his teeth for natures purpose of chewing, this will lead him to be unhappy as his jaw becomes weak and his gums and mouth become useless, etc.)
6) So being homosexual is imprudent because it leads to unhappiness
7) Governments should have policies that promote happiness and discourage unhappiness
8) Homosexual marriage promotes unhappiness and therefore should not be allowed.
That was a non-religious argument you can use. I can give you religious ones also but I am sure you know them.
God bless you and may He speak through you.
waiting for more if you can
It is a great thing to proclaim Christian teaching using secular arguments. In the old days Christians used Greek philosophy and gods in order to reach their adherents (Remember St. Paul talking about “the unknown god”). When one is building his argument about a controversial issue it is good to be aware of the audience. In general the audience can be divided into three groups: hard-line supporters, hard-line oppose and moderates. Those who share the same view as the speaker would be the supporters and need not worry about them.
Therefore, the speech is designed for the moderates and hard-line opposes. It would be easier to win the moderates by being as balanced as possible. Instead of appearing as a gay basher tell them that the other side has some truth nevertheless its flaw. Also, mentioning that we all deserve equal rights, will help to lower any guard that would be raised and help to keep the audience open-minded. As for the hard-line opposes the best one can do is cajole them and make them feel not threatened opening a door for a one-to-one discussion. Of course, it is necessary to be assertive and articulate you points clearly.
After all is said, it is the Holy Spirit the soften hearts.
May the Lord give us wisdom to witness His truth.
Proverbs 11:30 “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise.”
In Christ
Theophilus
In Christ
Theophilus
About the audience they are my classmates. It is kind of weird because I feel that no one is opposing the idea of legalizing marriage.
I will try to make my speech sound less like gay basher
I found some secular arguements and I am looking for more sources
I couldn't stop myself from posting, I don't understand why same-sex CIVIL marriage is such a huge problem, when American law allows anyone to own guns (I know there must be some kind of regulation) but the accidents we hear about suggest that the right to own weapons is far more important than the right to safety (especially for the weapon-producers to pay generously to certain poeple in order for them to protect their interest)...
On the other hand, there is absolutely no arugment I can think of why homosexuals can't have a civil contract between them to share their incomes (although in the contract there are other possiblities) and to promise to help eachother etc etc
The church does not have monopoly over marriage (in the sence of a legal contract)!!! Marriage as such a civil agreement has existed in Roman law, Arabic law etc etc. It exists in all societies, sometimes it has a religious implication (as in our church when it is actually a sacrament) but nowadays in Europe, marriage is simply a contract. I don't see why we should put effort into fighting that.
Would one have a problem with one homosexual selling a house to another homosexual? it's also just a contract!!
I have shared my opinion abt this issue before in a different thread and I'm not interested in opening the polemics up back again, but it has been a while ago, and since many posters now are new, I thought I'd give you this other perspective so there is a bit of a balance in the opinions given..
God bless
Yes, it (the Church) DOES have a monopoly over marriage. It has a monopoly over baptism, it has a monopoly over confession and communion. No ONE else can administer these sacraments OTHER than the Church. Marriage is a sacrament. A civil union is NOT a sacrament.
THe state has no right to administer what belongs to the Church, and the Church has no right to administer what belongs to the state.
In fact you promote a good argument AGAINST marriage of homosexuals:
* IF GAYS ARE ALREADY ALLOWED CIVIL UNIONS ACROSS ALL OF AMERICA - WHY DO THEY WANT TO BE MARRIED FOR? They are literally asking the state to take away from the Church - what belongs to the Church!!
And they will find a problem in doing so: That EVEN if the State uses the term "marriage" - the Church will not recognise same sex unions. It will NOT bless it. Therefore, they are wasting time. This will be the problem.
Its like me asking you to call me a doctor when I have no qualifications in medicine. You can call me a Doctor to me feel I am a doctor, but at the end of the day, unless the General Medical Council acknowledge your education in Medicine, you are not a doctor.
The same with same sex marriage: They can call it marriage, but they will see that it will amount to nothing. The Church will never accept it.
And the Churches that do accept it, as our Pope said, they will only cause problems for Ecumenical Unity.
I used to feel that same sex marriages was a topic that was going to divide the Church, but actually, it appears to be more of a blessing in disguise. The Anglican Church is now split over same sex unions. They are divided. I was upset to see any Church divided, but now, I can't wait for it break up even more. The bishops, priests, clergy in the Anglican that are against Same sex unions and the ordination of gay priests/bishops - where are they going to go?? Probably to the Catholic. ALready , the Catholic Church has accepted THOUSANDS of Anglican priests. Yep! And its getting bigger.
Gays searching for beyond civil unions, and seek to get "married" are looking for God's blessing in this, and they won't find it. If they do find it, they will find it only in Churches that are excommunicated from the World Wide Council of Churches. Again, it would be the same as asking for a Medical degree from Toilet University. They may give me one out of the kindness of their heart, but it would most likely not be recognised by the General Medical Council.
Using the term "marriage" results in a false sense of achievement for gays. They have convinced theologically ignorant Americans that they have the right to get married just like them, and now the final step in their mission is to convince God.
The church as you said cannot control that which belongs to the state, civil marriage is as I said a contract...
From what I understood from your post was that you are inter-changing the word marriage with civil saying that it amounts only to a contract. Nothing spiritual.
I receive emails from Ron Prentice, who is involved with Proposition 8. The issue here IS the word "marriage". Gays already enjoy civil unions. But they want it to be recognised as marriage. Prop 8 supporters highlight the importance of defining marriage as a union between man and woman. That's why I advise that when you, as a Christian, discuss this, do not use marriage as a civil term, but as a religious term. Furthermore, the state doesn't recognise marriages (in France for example.. it does NOT recognise your Church wedding). It only recognises the union it performs at the town hall registry. Its a clear sign that the faithful are becoming less faithful in Europe.
Anyway - here's a letter I received from Prop8. I hope you will find interesting - and see that the basis for their entire argument is built upon the definition of marriage.
Regardless of definitions, my post was simply to point out that marriage as defined in the law (a civil contract) is not of the church, and is not governed by church rules nor should it be in my opinion for that would be against the principle of separation between church and state so I don't know why so many people oppose same sex marriage (in the way I explained in my previous posts...)which is why I wrote this post to clarify that so that people may have a nuanced view of it all
I'm not interested to go back into former discussions abt this as I said before, this is just an fyi...
3) Using organs for their functions promotes happiness. (The happiness involved in using them rightly is natures way of rewarding us and making us continue to use them properly)
whos to say how to rightly use organs? so you're saying masturbation doesnt promote happiness? First of all, you are only talking about male homosexuality, which is sexist. Secondly, having sex does lead to happiness, regardless of the "proper function" of your organs. in reality, two gay couples marrying are happy
just wanted to share the thought, i know it has nothing to do with this
The Sacred Band of Thebes was a troop of picked soldiers, consisting of 150 age-structured couples, which formed the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC. It was organized by the Theban commander Gorgidas in 378 BC and played a crucial role in the Battle of Leuctra. It was completely annihilated, however, by Alexander the Great under Philip II of Macedon in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.
The Sacred Band under Pelopidas fought the Spartans at Tegyra in 375 BC, vanquishing an army that was at least three times its size. It was also responsible for the victory at Leuctra in 371 BC, called by Pausanias the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks. Leuctra established Theban independence from Spartan rule and laid the groundwork for the expansion of Theban power, but possibly also for Philip II's eventual victory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
Those in support of homosexuality would stop their narration here not mentioning the Theban Legion a Christian army or 6,666 that served under the Roman army. It is amusing, to say the least, that an army of Christian arose from the same location as the Sacred Band of Thebes. All of them were martyred in the year 286A.D for not worshiping Roman idols.
The Theban Legion showed they can be better service men than their pagan ancestors who lived 664 years ago. The Theban Legion surpassed the Sacred Band of Thebes by a multitude (6,666 Vs 300) and their moral standard was even greater than their number.
For more on the Theban Legion go to the following link: http://bibleprobe.com/theban.html
What do you think about the contrast between a homosexual army and a Christian army? :)
In Christ
Theophilus
You know what's weighing heavily on my mind?
Take a guess?
OK, I'll tell you:
This issue with homosexuals getting married etc and now being able to adopt children is worrying. It will mean one day that it will be compulsory to teach homosexual marriage as being "normal" to school children. This is already the case in many parts of Australia (notably Sydney)- and Canada.
This problem affects us as we'll be teaching our kids that homosexuality is wrong, and yet their schools will be telling them that not only is it not wrong, but they can adopt kids as well.
In Canada, they actually teach teenagers (13+) that you do not know you are gay unless you've tried it. They are so mixed up.
What would you do when your children come home and tell you they just read a story about how a Prince married a Prince and adopted a child from Zimbabwe and they lived happily ever after in their pink psychedelic eco-friendly tree house in the middle of a gypsy caravan site near Stoke-On-Trent?
What do you do when you leave them to watch TV and they see Sponge-bob and his gay friends?
Has anyone hear heard the lectures / sermon from Anba Sourial from Australia on this? I really think if the CoC had awards for achievement, H.G. Anba Sourial should have been awarded it for what he's been through concerning this issue. I think he was even Jeered at when he said that homosexuality is against God's plan for mankind at an Anglican Conference.
I think it will be a crime for anyone to teach that homosexuality is wrong or immoral. I mean, this will be the next step. This is the way its going. Although I think its wrong to discriminate against gays or lesbians (work etc), I feel that my values (my personal values) in believing that their life-style is wrong and unholy is being threatened.
What do we do?
This is not an isolated problem that affects certain minority populations. This is a problem that will impact you directly if you have children growing up in the diaspora.
The term 'marriage' is used by the state to point at the civil contract between two people... The state does recognize that contract and refers to it as a marriage, if the couple should wish to get married at church after that, they are free to, but in front of the state, they are 'married' once the formalities of the civil contract have been fulfilled...
Regardless of definitions, my post was simply to point out that marriage as defined in the law (a civil contract) is not of the church, and is not governed by church rules nor should it be in my opinion for that would be against the principle of separation between church and state so I don't know why so many people oppose same sex marriage (in the way I explained in my previous posts...)which is why I wrote this post to clarify that so that people may have a nuanced view of it all
I'm not interested to go back into former discussions abt this as I said before, this is just an fyi...
Godislove260, I do not know the details of your older post on this matter as I can not find it. I appreciate if you could post the link to the thread. When you say,that "Marriage as such a civil agreement has existed in Roman law", where does that Roman law come from? what I mean to ask is, what is the basis for all law and justice?
Godislove260, I do not know the details of your older post on this matter as I can not find it. I appreciate if you could post the link to the thread. When you say,that "Marriage as such a civil agreement has existed in Roman law", where does that Roman law come from? what I mean to ask is, what is the basis for all law and justice?
I understand what you are hinting at, God created mankind in His image and likeness, He put in a distinction between good and evil (or rather, following God or not following Him)
Yet now we are not talking about that eternal divine law, but the very variable worldly law, there are many systems, the law changes a lot, be it geographically or temporaly, the law now is (at least in democratic countries) voted by the people, it is thus a 'mirror' to what society at that point and in that country thinks is fair.. it does not always coincide with divine law, thankfully, because us following divine law or choosing to ignore it is not a state matter (as wordly law is) but an issue between us and God, and He is our jugde when it comes to that.. God is ofcourse to be put first by us believers, yet that should be a choice we make freely and others make freely too..
So in short, ontologically justice is what God thinks is right, yet in practice we have to make a distinction between the laws of man and the law of God, for in most democratic countries there is (or should be) a distinction between religion and state..
But even here, humans have many different interpretations to that one divine law, and different religions propose different Gods who have different divine laws and divine justices..
Another reason why religion and state should be kept separate..