“If marriage is about sexual pleasure (not babies) and about being happy (not lifelong commitment), then what is the objection?”

Actually, marriage is about all four of those things, isn’t it? Isn’t marriage given by God to man for his happiness (in the true and fullest sense)? And there’s nothing wrong with sexual pleasure, in the context of a loving self-giving act. What’s wrong is to turn these two goods into idols. It is wrong to seek sexual pleasure for its own sake, and not as an expression of committed love that entails the entire gift of self; and it is wrong to break a life-long commitment because a marriage is not as happy as it could be.

Here are four of the main reasons to oppose governmental recognition of same-sex marriages.

1) It amounts to a lie by the government: we know very well it is impossible for those of the same sex to marry. The love of a married couple requires sexual complementarity.

2) It is bad for the same-sex couples who attempt to marry. The legal recognition of their attempt encourages the idea that a commitment justifies a union which goes against God’s plan, and is not compatible with the true happiness of the persons involved.

3) Society’s laws shape what is seen as acceptable. Certainly, it is unlikely that a homosexual couple will repent of their homosexuality because the law is not changed to allow homosexual marriage. However, for the next generation that is struggling with sexuality, the legal recognition of homosexual marriages might contribute to a cultural atmosphere that sends the wrong message. For someone who might overcome over time the temptation to homosexuality in the right climate, a cultural climate that says homosexuality is all right might lead him/her (along with other factors) to ignore conscience and give in to temptation.

4) The slippery-slope argument, given in this article. But this argument presupposes an argument, such as in the first three reasons, which explains why government recognition of homosexuality is wrong in and of itself.

However, the slippery-slope argument is helpful, because it highlights how high the stakes are — one cannot ignore the issue by brushing it off as only a small problem. Some might even argue it’s better not to fight this issue because it makes conservatives seem hateful, and doesn’t really help anything.

Reason 1′s point about lying is an argument against this, and so are 2) and 3), but maybe the full force of this argument is not seen without the slippery-slope argument.

Finally, I want to note that not all who argue for homosexual marriage “go out of their way to target Christian businesses and churches.”

Apparently, it’s only when we reap fruits whose taste we don’t care for that we remember this teaching. Some of us are only now noticing. And we find that we’ve yielded every point of the arguments. Years ago. Without a whimper.

First, we removed the procreative aspect of marital love with contraception. We said the marriage embrace was about pleasure.

Then, we legalized on demand, no-fault divorce. We said the marriage contract was about being happy.

Now we are shocked — SHOCKED — that a loud demand for same-sex “marriage” is on the scene.

Seems pretty logical, really. If marriage is about sexual pleasure (not babies) and about being happy (not lifelong commitment), then what is the objection?

We gave up marriage long ago. Without a fight. It has not been considered a sacrament of God in the USA for a long time.

And we want to fight about it NOW?

We have crossed many lines, abortion, stem cell research, cloning, same sex marriage and the beginnings of euthanasia. Pray, pray hard and let God lead you to action. I know He wants the people of this Country to regain their Moral courage to speak and live the Truth.