Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

Same-Sex Marriage
If marriage is a human right and we have to consider if it is permissible to extend marriage rights to same sex couples.  To have the same dignity as others public recognition even if reluctant has to to be given to your wedding and marriage as a tangible right. The public has to accept and accommodate your marriage. The dignity of marriage and being treated as marriage comes before any other benefit. No other benefit can come except through that one.  No other benefit is really a benefit without it.  Same sex legal marriage by default is legally validating and promoting same sex relationships.  Apart from that what is legislated for tends to be seen as right and influences many people in all sorts of ways.  It sends a message to society and for society.


Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not so much equal as being of the same essence which is to forge and create supreme love between two people. This must be at the heart of any debate about legal protection for sexual relationships. It must be recognised too that the fundamental way to degrade same sex couples is to refuse to socially and legally support their committed union and thus it is extreme and toxic homophobia.


Liberals argue that same sex marriage is not banning or hurting straight marriage so it should be allowed.  That is a very grudging reason to defend same sex marriage.  It is like they think it may be rubbish but it does not affect heterosexual marriage so it should be allowed.  But it is clear that same sex marriage bans the definition of marriage as being solely heterosexual. It enforces a definition that marriage has nothing to do with sex or gender.  I am forced to ensure my child feels supported if his or her ambition is to grow up and marry a person of the same sex.  I am forced to consider my child married should such a wedding take place when she or he grows up.


It is not true that same sex marriage has nothing to do with heterosexuals or their relationships.  People who think it is not marriage are compelled to write and act as if it is where it counts.  So it does affect them and affects what their children are told about marriage in school.  Marriage is and it is not a private matter between two people.  Marriage would be legally pointless if nobody took it seriously as marriage so legalising same sex marriage is only wise if society will generally treat it as marriage.  If you have a child that you cannot rear that child could go to a same sex married couple and you cannot object.
Most people believe that the person you love should be seen as your family though there is no blood relation. They feel there is something right in saying that two unrelated people are family. Is this a fundamental human right? They say it is for love is so important as is having somebody who is virtually your other half. A non-family person becomes your family through marriage. Nobody really believes that a marriage has to result in a child to be a marriage. Old people marry. On this basis, same sex marriage need not imply the right to have a family. It could be said they are married really though they cannot have children. Marriage means you have children if you can - that is all.
Marriage being interpreted as the protection of the relationship involving sex and love between a man and woman for life has always been discriminatory. It technically discriminates against gay people who wish to marry. It gives less benefits to single people even if they are parents. Asexual people and those who do not believe in marriage are discriminated against.
Is all that bad? Yes if marriage can be done without. People say marriage was not introduced to discriminate. If so then the discrimination side of it is a necessary evil. One thing for sure is that same sex marriage reduces the potential for discrimination a bit. At least two people who love each other and who belong to the same sex can avail of it.
Many countries have legally accepted the validity of marriage between two people of the same sex or gender.
Too many supporters of same sex marriage seem to argue that as LGBT people suffer bullying and abuse from homophobes that same sex marriage should be brought in to address this. But while it is okay to say same sex marriage will help, a real believer in same sex marriage holds that it is a right even if in the ideal world there was no homophobia. Failing to see it as a fundamental human right risks making LGBT people unhappy in their marriages or to feel that they are only given marriage rights for the sake of peace.
The objections to same sex marriage boil down to: "Marriage is not just about the love between two people. It is about being open to procreation. It is about procreative love." But marriage is about the love between two people. Because they love one another they might create a family and adopt or have children. Remember the word might. They don't have to. The love between two people embraces children where possible. It is just about the love - meaning love that does not wish for children and love that does. A couple who have no children and think only of themselves and don't want to love children are as much married as a couple that has twenty children. A marriage not based on love whether gay or straight is not a marriage but a prison.
People a few decades ago decided that the law of the land should cease from punishing homosexuals. The chief argument was that it is an evil that should be tolerated because homosexuality involves consenting adults. Nowadays, any implication that homosexuality is evil is strenuously opposed by the media and the political world. Nowadays, instead of toleration acceptance of the homosexual is endorsed. Same sex marriage would only happen if enough people believe that full acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuals is necessary.
Marriage is currently defined as

1. being between two opposite sex people (no more than that)


with the participating couple satisfying the following conditions:


2. Participants must be mature
3. Participants must freely enter into the relationship
4. Participants must be monogamous
5. Participants must intend a lifetime commitment
6. Participants must treat each other with love and respect
7. Participants must have sex - as in penis in vagina - at least once
8. For Catholics, participants must intend to have children even if they cannot for intention counts
When you read the rules, you see that most marriages cherry-pick from these requirements.
Same-sex marriage can be legal and/or religious. Many countries have validated same-sex marriage. Some recalcitrant religious believers hold that such marriage when performed in Church is a sacrament. A sacrament is a special blessing from God that enables the spouses to stay together in love and help each other into Heaven.
Some religious same sex marriage activists argue that two people having the same gender and kind of body should not be an obstacle to marriage. They say our spirits or souls are what matter and they transcend the body. So marriage is not about two body persons but about two spirit embodiments.

We are led to believe that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. We are not told that marriage is considered potential until the man and woman have sexual intercourse at least once. Then it is consummated or made real. This is degradingly putting more stress on sexual potency and a particular kind of sex than on love and happiness. Its over legalistic and sets a biological criterion of morality instead of considering human happiness and love. It discriminates against straight couples who do not like "normal" sex. Same sex marriage changes this archaic nonsense and allows for accepting different forms of sex as consummation. Thus it IMPROVES equality for heterosexual couples. With same sex marriage, there is no longer any need to hold that the marriage of a man who lost his penis in childhood is only a cosmetic marriage.
Marriage strictly speaking is defined as the union for life of a man and woman who have had penis vagina sex at least once. If that kind of sex never happens then the marriage is considered unconsummated and invalid. Gay marriage changes these rules including the consummation one. It means that marriage is made by love and not sex or at least a specific kind of sex. If same sex marriage does not require the couple to engage in sexual activity then it discriminates against other sex marriage which requires sexual activity to become valid.
Same-sex marriage is about love. That is the answer to those who say that if you change the definition of marriage then why not define polygamy as marriage etc. Heterosexual marriage without love is never condemned.
The view that same-sex marriage is immoral or invalid and therefore wrong is not to be respected. We cannot let people ask us to respect evil and injustice.
People fear that recognising same-sex marriage automatically means that the couple have the right to be considered as adoptive parents. What is wrong with that? If in principle they can adopt it does not mean in practice that they will get a child. That depends on factors other than the fact that they are a gay couple.
It is strange that single gay people are allowed to adopt while those in a stable, perhaps civil partnered relationship are not!
A child raised by one gay parent who later takes on a partner will not be taken away. Are we to take adoptive children away from a gay person who starts living with her or his gay lover who also takes on the role of parent?
Those who oppose adoption by same sex couples treat it like it is child abuse. Not all have the guts to admit that they regard it as child abuse. But some admit it. If you are worried about the children, then realise that with same sex marriage coming in, fewer gay people will marry heterosexually and have children.
Many gay couples do raise children and how can people say that if marriage protects the family, that it is right to refuse to let the couple marry? Opposition to same sex marriage shows no concern for protecting a family where the parents are the same sex. Yet the opponents insist that marriage is about protecting the family and is the best and most effective arrangement.
The fear is not about concern for the children. Religious people will pretend that it is. It is the fear that an archaic and stupid religious rule banning same sex love-making is being disregarded.
The Church says that same sex relationships are sterile. But science is not able so far to make them reproductive. But we know that it will one day. Imagine a lesbian couple in twenty years. A cell can be taken from one woman and used to make dedifferentiated stem cells that make sperm. The sperm can be used to fertilise an egg in the other woman. Two men will also be genetic parents of a baby as well. So it is not true that same-sex relationships are sterile. They need help in reproduction but they are not sterile.
The Church performs legally valid marriages for the state. Therefore as a representative of the state, the Church has no right to refuse to perform same sex marriage in states that recognise it. It cannot be granted a dispensation from equality law. That would be the state giving it special favour and be anti-secular. It has to stop doing marriages for the state and do marriages that are religious but not legal if it wants to be exempt from having to wed same sex couples.
Marriage is defined by the Christian faith as the lifelong union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of any other sexual partners. The state, if it takes seriously the distinction between Church and state, may adopt this definition but will not consider itself bound to it. The state rightly re-defines marriage to avoid discriminating against same-sex couples.
Can a Christian say, "The state does its thing. My religion does its thing. One should not meddle with the other. Therefore if the state wants to legalise same sex marriage then it should even though I consider and God considers same sex marriage to be an abomination." This would not be saying that the state is right - it would be like saying that if criminal gangs are not caught then let them rob until they are. It speaks of their freedom not their right. It is not saying they really have a right to rob. The Christian then is not watering down his or her faith or giving consent to what the state is doing.
Accepting same sex marriage defines marriage as a union between two people of the same or the opposite sex. It does away with the man and woman part of the definition of marriage which is that marriage is a life-long union between a man and a woman.
The state if it refuses to even consider re-defining is guilty of breaking its obligation to accord with democracy. The definition sought by a democratic society is the one that must be imposed. Religion forbids contemplating a re-definition. It will try to undermine the separation that should exist between Church and state by urging the state to use the religious definition.
Religion prefers to encourage the promiscuity it accuses gay people of by its opposition to gay marriage - though it faints with horror and outrage at promiscuity. Oh the hypocrisy! The Christian view of marriage is that the man is the head and the woman is under his authority. Few Christians dare to teach this today and yet these are the ones opposing the gay right to have a relationship protected by law.
Religion says, "We condemn discrimination if it's unfair. We do not believe gay or lesbian people have the right to marry. Thus it is not discrimination to deny them marriage rights simply because they cannot really marry no matter what they do or how hard they try. A man and man union is not the same as a male-female union such as that of marriage."
The religious are saying they have the right to define marriage as a male and female union and they deny the right of people to have a different definition based on love. Same sex marriage is based on the idea that love makes a marriage regardless if the married couple is the same sex or not. Its not about gender but love. And even if the critics of gay marriage were right and gay marriage is only a delusional marriage, who cares as long as the couple feels married and in love? Who cares as long as it improves their lives?
The thought that same sex marriage will weaken heterosexual marriage is strange for lgbt people are a minority and only a minority of that minority will marry.
It is unfair to regard a civil partner couple that love each other with a record love as mere civil partners and then to regard a married couple that never had much love as married. Better for marriages to be seen as equal to civil partnerships. The only way that can be done is by making the two exactly the same which means re-defining marriage so that it becomes just another name for civil partnership. Civil partners should have all the benefits of marriage.
Christian cherry-pickers like to say that they embrace the CORE values and the CORE doctrines of Christianity. Oddly, a lot of them do not consider Christian teaching on marriage as being between a man and woman and not between two men or two women as core doctrine! You would think that as the Church claims to be a society and that the family is its cell that this teaching is even more important than proclaiming Jesus to be God, itself a core doctrine!
Whether sexless or not, the Church forbids same sex marriage. It sees it as an attempt to normalise perversion.
Jesus said that marriage is a man leaving his parents and cleaving to his wife so that they become one - in sex. Some say when he said this he was talking about divorce but not same sex marriage. True but he was also talking about marriage and said it was a man cleaving to his wife for life.
Christians argue that same sex couples do not become one for the body parts do not really fit. Some say that Paul in Romans 1 condemned the people having gay sex for giving up natural relations with natural relations meaning marriage. The Roman Catholic Church also regards marriage as natural law so all sexual activity outside of it is perversion. Romans 1 then if interpreted correctly would be condemning same sex marriage.
The Church says God has become our father for he has adopted us. It says that we can become fathers and mothers by adopting children. But nobody really thinks we become real fathers and mothers. The Church says that same-sex marriage is not a right for it is not real. But when it allows adoption and even sometimes makes it a virtue how can it say that? What room has it to talk? Same sex marriage has more right to be considered real than adoption has.
Should Christian schools be forced to accept the definition of marriage that would be used in a land that legalised same-sex marriage? They must give the Christian definition and the legal definition. It would be improper for the schools to protest against the legal definition as to do so would be supportive of unjust discrimination.
Consider the following. A and B are persons.
A - the Church should do gay marriage because the Church in marrying provides a service for the state and the celebrant of marriage - religious or otherwise - represents the state when he or she officiates at a marriage.
B - the Church is a big thing in society so the Church should be exempted from performing marriages it does not approve of.
That is not dealing with A at all. Its off-topic which is the rightness/wrongness of the separation between Church and state. And as far as B goes, you don't argue that the Church is big in your country therefore the state should collect taxes for it or that other religions should not be allowed their own schools!
The Church says it cannot tolerate being legally obligated to call a same sex marriage a marriage for it says it is not a real marriage. The Church says that it can't tolerate being forced out of business for refusing to participate in or acknowledge the lie of same sex marriage. This means the Catholic hospital is unable to treat the husband of a gay man as his husband so the husband will be given no visitation rights. It seems unloving to ban the husband but the Church will say that gay sex is about distorted love and abuse of the body of another with the other's consent. It will say in that light that it is loving to ban the husband. The argument that the sexual activity must be left out of this in favour of considering the abiding and over-riding affection, care, compassion and love that one human being can have for another is thus a denial of the Church doctrine that gay love is a disorder and gay sex is the misuse of the body of another and against the way it was designed. Catholic adoption agencies will be forced to accept gay married couples as really married. Catholics will be unable to invite a married gay couple to any event as a married couple. Catholics pay tax for same sex marriage. Sometimes the Church itself as a Church is taxed.
Church Doctrine and Law state, "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized." Canon 1055, Code of Canon Law, 1983. This states that marriage is natural and has been raised by Jesus to a sacrament for the baptised.
The Catholic Church condemns moral relativism and says the truths of morality are objective truths. Even Catholics who belong in the Dark Ages and who are fundamentalists make mistakes in being consistent with this condemnation. You hear their spokesmen saying they think same-sex marriage is a sin or they think its bad for the spiritual health of society. This denies that the doctrine that same sex marriage is nonsense and a sin is objective truth. To say you think something is wrong is to succumb to moral relativism which is simply a fancy name for the doctrine that morality is just opinion or what people think and is therefore not to be taken seriously. It is true that in some cases it is only our opinion that a certain course of action is the moral one or the most moral one but not in all. And the fact that we need to have opinions at times about what is moral or not does not prove that morality is just about opinion.
To agree with the Church, the Catholic says they know same-sex marriage is wrong and they know its unhealthy for the souls of the people. Objective morality presupposes that you can know what is right and wrong. They may say people have a right to disagree with them. That is denying that the truths are objective truths. You cannot argue with facts. And if people have a right to dispute what is objectively true, then you must encourage them to disagree as much as you would encourage them to agree. Thus you are only wasting your time speaking at all. Also, even if you don't urge the legal system to punish all objective evils, you must consider it obligated to admit the existence of objective good and objective evil. It must make it illegal for the state to hold that morality is mere opinion.
Any religion claiming that same-sex marriage is objectively immoral is expressing a willingness to force its view on people.
Jesus spoke of how divorce was always a sin. It would be odd to think that a man who was that harsh could stomach and even endorse same sex marriage! The apostles said his teaching was too much. He said that some are born eunuchs and others are made eunuchs by men and others make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. The Christians always make out that eunuchs means people not who are castrated but who do not have sex. This does not fit what Jesus said. Eunuchs is literal for it is true that some are born and others become eunuchs through being mutilated by others or self-mutilation. Jesus is banning marriage if you don't have your testicles. The thinking is that as the eunuch is not much of a man he should not marry. For Jesus only "real" men and "real" women can wed each other in an opposite sex marriage.
Jesus then would have been against same sex marriage and the Christians are right to state that he was but wrong to state that he was right.
Who cares? If this is true, only a minority of same-sex marriages will take place and so the wrecking and the attacking will be therefore tolerable. If same-sex marriage is about commitment that cannot harm marriage but only strengthen it. If a man and wife are committed, same-sex marriage will do them no harm. Its not even their affair.
Big deal! Christians won't admit that they are opposed to the fact that the law of the land has departed from the Christian definition of marriage anyway. For example, the law defines marriage as a union you are part of until you want a divorce. Marriage not being about a lifelong commitment is a bigger matter than marriage being about two people of the same or opposite sex who wed. The Christian carping is motivated by religious prejudice and the desire to get special rights for religion. Its not about concern for marriage but for Christian doctrine being abandoned. Its an attitude of "Dogmas matter and people don't".
Marriage is recognised by law. But it is hard to take this recognition seriously for there is no punishment for desertion or adultery for example. A law saying, "This man and woman must stay together for life", is not a law at all if it has no intention of enforcing. A law must be an enforcement on pain of punishment. Marriage is only something the law pretends to take seriously. The Christian objections are meaningless. When the believers don't complain about the laws hypocrisy in relation to marriage, they should not complain about Same-Sex Marriage and its alleged undermining of respect for marriage.
Also, you cannot love two people equally. If marriage is good, then marry the one you love the most. Then you won't need to marry the other as well. Same sex marriage need not lead to plural marriage.
I say they should get the law to recognise any extra-marital sex with either gender as adultery or they should do away with adultery altogether.
This is over-legalistic. It could be argued that if a same-sex couple is very close and very committed that this proves they are married. The legal recognition is not what binds them together but their love. The recognition only sees the love. Are we to hold that a couple that love a little is married because they went through a ceremony while a devoted couple that never did the ceremony is not married? That is inhuman.
To say that marriage needs protection from same sex marriage is to accuse same sex partners of being dangerous. The more they try to make themselves committed the more evil they are.
To say we must fight same sex marriage in order to protect traditional marriage is homophobic for traditional marriage will still happen for most people.
To say marriage is sacred is to insult same sex civil marriage and the 68 per cent of marriages in 2010 that were non-religious.
To say marriage is a bond between a man and woman ignores the places where same sex marriage has taken place eg Spain, Iceland and Argentina.
To say same sex marriage will confuse gender roles is nonsense - many straight marriages have the woman as breadwinner while the man is the nurturing partner of the children. Not all women are good at nurturing even their own children.
To say same sex marriage is bad because it is infertile, insults straight couples who are infertile. It is to say that fertility matters more than love. And we know that though we do not have the science to do it yet, that we can enable two men to reproduce the same child or two women to reproduce the same child. Same sex relationships are only sterile because we have not advanced far enough in science to make them reproductive.
To say nobody has the right to redefine marriage ignores the fact that the state is always doing that. It is only in the last few centuries that marriage took its current form where the bride and groom give their consent in public. Marriage has been redefined in most countries to mean you are married until divorce or death. It used to be that marriage was for life. If God created marriage and established it, the state is redefining marriage by ignoring him and religion. And the Catholic Church redefines marriage as a sacrament and says that Muslim marriages or marriages between unbaptised people are not sacraments. Every religion defines the rules differently for marriage.
To say same sex marriage is the minority dictating to the majority is nonsense because same sex marriage will only affect a small percentage of the population. Anyway the percentage of LGBT people is rising. It would be higher if it were not for the decimation wrought by AIDS and most LGBT people stay in the closet.
To ask why same sex couples want to get married is an insulting question - it would not be asked of a heterosexual couple. The question implies that gay people can't really want to get married for they are not up to its duties.
To say same sex marriage is about same-sex couples getting society's approval is insulting - it is equality they want.
To say same sex civil partnership is enough is to applaud an institution that was set up to reaffirm society's wish to keep same sex couples unmarried in case they somehow contaminate marriage.
To say you love your friend and your dog and that does not mean you have the right to marry your friend or dog reduces same sex love to that of a friendship and bestiality.
Anti-same sex arguments are riddled with homophobic prejudice.
Some people who are against same-sex marriage say they are not against same-sex marriage but pro-family. That is really just putting a positive spin on something that is essentially negative.
Can a Catholic who believes same sex marriages are nonsense still vote in their favour on the grounds that the state cannot be expected to legislate just for Catholics
Fr Iggy O’Donovan said yes. But that amounts to saying that you agree with the Catholic teaching but must vote according to a non-Catholic or secular mindset. This is really the notion that you must leave your religion at the door when you engage in politics. Your devotion to your religion is not very sincere if you think gay marriage is a hoax and you still vote or desire the law to endorse it and facilitate it. It does not agree with the Christian doctrine that homosexual acts must be given no help. It is not fair to expect a Catholic to vote in an unCatholic way for you have to put something first and if you put everybody first you put nobody first.
It is the state's business how it defines marriage. If the definition is terrible it is up to each couple to bypass that and form a good marriage. Same-sex marriage is a human right if marriage is a right. States that do not recognise same sex marriage should be forced to. And they must be forced to recognise same sex marriages contracted in other countries. Racism though abhorrent discriminates against people because of their skin. It attacks people directly and love indirectly. The problem is the unloving attitude. Opposing same sex marriage is also about having an unloving marriage. It is even more vicious than racism because it is a shameless and direct attack on love.


We are led to believe that marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. We are not told that marriage is considered potential until the man and woman have sexual intercourse at least once. Then it is consummated or made real. This is degradingly putting more stress on sexual potency and a particular kind of sex than on love and happiness. Its over legalistic and sets a biological criterion of morality instead of considering human happiness and love. It discriminates against straight couples who do not like "normal" sex. Same sex marriage changes this archaic nonsense and allows for accepting different forms of sex as consummation. Thus it IMPROVES equality for heterosexual couples. With same sex marriage, there is no longer any need to hold that the marriage of a man who lost his penis in childhood is only a cosmetic marriage.

Same sex relationships do not get the same support as straight ones do and they need more.  Same sex relationships come under pressure from others and from those who are not okay with gay love.  Same-sex marriage is about giving same-sex love the same support as heterosexual love. The more support there is for relationships the better. Even if same-sex marriage is not real marriage, does it really matter that much? Who cares as long as it works or has a chance to work? Refusing equal support to same sex and heterosexual marriage is a very toxic form of homophobia and cruel.