These 10 answers will help you refute the arguments commonly used by the homosexual movement to force same-sex “marriage” on America.
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. 1
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. 2 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. 3 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:
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:
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.” 9
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.
1. Homosexuality and Hope,
(Catholic Medical Association, 2000) p. 2.
2. “If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain ‘irremediably’ evil acts per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person” (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, no. 81,
3. On June 19, 2003, media around the world trumpeted the “marriage” between a 9-year old Indian girl and a stray dog. See “Girl weds dog to break ‘evil spell,’”
4. Leo XIII, Encyclical Libertas, in Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., The Papal Encyclicals 1878-1903 (New York: McGrath Publishing Co., 1981), no. 7, p. 171.
5. Taparelli D’Azeglio, Essai Théorique de Droit Naturel (Paris: Vve. H. Casterman, 1875), Vol. I, p. 142.
6. Sterility is distinguished from impotency. Sterility is that permanent or temporary condition in which a married couple finds it difficult to generate offspring. The deficiency may lie with the husband or the wife. In many cases the condition can be cured. Sterility does not nullify a marriage. Cf. Dr. Carlo Rizzo, s.v.
“Sterility,” in Roberti and Palazzini, pp. 1163-1165.
7. This does not include artificial means of birth control, where a deliberate attempt is made to prevent conception. This deliberate, artificial circumvention of the conjugal act’s purpose is sinful.
8. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, no. 7. This document is available at
9. Considerations, no. 8.
10. Eph. 5:5; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5-6.