A private matter

[Seeker2010]

What do your children think about you and your wife frequenting strip clubs and porn shops?

My wife’s son is not informed of our agenda, only that we will be going out for the evening. It’s simply none of his business.

Also, do you admit this activity to your friends and neighbors? Just curious.

Yes.

 

[RosaryFan]

My wife’s son is not informed of our agenda, only that we will be going out for the evening. It’s simply none of his business.

Yes.

Then why do you admit it to your neighbors? It is not their business either.

 

[Seeker2010]

Then why do you admit it to your neighbors? It is not their business either.

I suppose that’s true, so let me clarify a bit. We don’t put a sign on our yard, or knock on the doors of complete strangers to tell them information they don’t care about. However, those who we choose to be friends with get to know, if for no other reason to allow us to weed out anyone who has a bad reaction to it, as such people are not people who’d we want to be friends with.

For what it’s worth, we’ve never had a bad reaction, most people are actually quite interested. Fascinated even.

 

[RosaryFan]

I suppose that’s true, so let me clarify a bit. We don’t put a sign on our yard, or knock on the doors of complete strangers to tell them information they don’t care about. However, those who we choose to be friends with get to know, if for no other reason to allow us to weed out anyone who has a bad reaction to it, as such people are not people who’d we want to be friends with.

For what it’s worth, we’ve never had a bad reaction, most people are actually quite interested. Fascinated even.

Yes, I’m sure they are fascinated indeed. I must say, I am.

I know this may be none of my business (or is it?), but if you are on this forum, then you must care, to some degree, about the state of your soul. Doesn’t it concern you that you’re putting your immortal soul at risk of eternal damnation? Otherwise, I’m consternated as to why you would be lurking around Catholic Answers.

Please don’t think I’m prying, but think for a moment what pornography does for you, personally. Without being too graphic, here, does it cause you to think of other women besides your wife? I know you say that it’s not hurting your marriage, but how can that not hurt? And it works both ways, too. Doesn’t that bother you a bit? I don’t know about you, but it would make me feel inadequate, to say the least!

 

[Seeker2010]

I know this may be none of my business (or is it?), but if you are on this forum, then you must care, to some degree, about the state of your soul. Doesn’t it concern you that you’re putting your immortal soul at risk of eternal damnation?

I do not believe I am. I think God is love, God is loving, and God is good. I do not believe the ‘rules’ attributed by your, or any other religion are anything more than something that a man made up from their own mind.

If God wanted us to KNOW he existed, he could. He would not give us multiple, mutually exclusive and competitive holy tomes, and then declare that failure to believe the right one (and follow the rules to a T) results in eternal damnation, especially when what, 90% of people simply default to whatever their parents taught them when young.

If there were really a list of rules that God demanded we follow, at the very least he’d make it clear, unambiguous, and undebatable what those rules are, and clear and undeniable that he had handed them down. To allow reasonable people to study things, and conclude that something other than the truth is the truth, and then punish them for simply choosing wrong is not the act of a loving God, it’s the act of one who is cruel and inhumane.

I do not believe god is cruel or inhumane.

Otherwise, I’m consternated as to why you would be lurking around Catholic Answers.

While I am not religious, I am spiritual, and I seek knowledge and wisdom from whatever source I can find it. I don’t remember what first brought me here, and I was a simple lurker for a long time, with no real intent to ever be a poster, when someone said something that I perceived as being so completely over the top ridiculous that I simply had to respond.

I’ll fully admit that I also enjoy a good debate, which is I suppose what keeps me coming back.

Please don’t think I’m prying, but think for a moment what pornography does for you, personally. Without being too graphic, here, does it cause you to think of other women besides your wife?

Let’s back up a little, as you may or not be aware (in fact, it sounds like you are not) my wife and I are not physically monogamous. That is a lifestyle we have chosen for ourselves, because it works for us, and brings happiness and fellowship. That said, we do view porn as a sexual stimulant, but since our lives are relatively sexually stimulating in and of themselves, the reality is our use of porn is relatively infrequent.

So to directly answer your question, sure, porn makes me think of other women, but I have real world sex with other women, too, as does my wife.

I know you say that it’s not hurting your marriage, but how can that not hurt? And it works both ways, too. Doesn’t that bother you a bit? I don’t know about you, but it would make me feel inadequate, to say the least!

Why should it bother me? When it’s all said and done, we are completely devoted to one another, as we like to say, when the parties over, no matter what has transpired, we’re going home together, and there’s no chance of that not happening.

Jealousy is a fear of loss, specifically the fear of losing your relationship to someone else. For many people, any sexual anything, even glancing at a playboy magazine, much less actually having sex, invokes that fear because they believe that once a marriage (or other committed relationship) happens, they are then supposed to get 100% of their sexual (and other) needs met by their partner.

I suppose some people can do that, from the sounds of it you are one of them. However, we’re not, and we’re realistic enough to be honest about it, with ourselves, and with each other.

Just because she looks at another man (or woman) and wants to be with him doesn’t mean she’s going to leave me for him. She’s not, and I know it, so her interest does not threaten me.

 

[RosaryFan]

I do not believe I am.

Of course not.

 

[edwest2]

Outside of the walls of the church, priests and nuns are NOT authorities. Oh, I get that you want a Catholic Theocracy, but I’ll fight to the death to prevent that.

What you consider ‘indecent’ other people, including the performers you mentioned, consider fun. You are not so important as to have your beliefs override theirs. They are free to behave as they wish, including performing ‘indecently’, until their actions violate your rights or harm you.

Have you been harmed by a stripper or a pornstar recently?

No, I didn’t think so.

It’s not ‘so-called’ censorship. It IS censorship, straight up. And our free nation does not allow governmental censorship. If you do not wish to patronize these businesses, then do not. But you don’t get to tell me, or anyone else, that we cannot.

Sorry. My right to live as I please overrides your right to tell me how to, for you do not have that right.

A ‘few judges’ did not make pornography and topless bars legal, the founders did it when they declared that we were to have unfettered freedom of press and expression. And that is absolutely how it should be, as no human is inherently superior to another, and no human has the right to tell another how to live.

Ah, so women should shut their mouths and know their role? Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with you!

Ironic that you would quote her in a demeaning way, as you and she have similar viewpoints on sex.

But here’s the thing, Ed. It IS unconstitutional. Government, at any level, giving preference to any religion by displaying their holiday symbols is crossing a line. We are NOT a ‘Christian Nation’. We may have a majority of our citizens describe themselves as Christian, but our government, by design, is agnostic. It doesn’t take sides, and when it does, it’s rightly smacked down by the courts.

First, let’s get the terminology straight, and ignore the actions of the International Conspiracy of Relabelers and Signmakers.

Prostitute - not sex worker
Stripper - not exotic dancer
Prostitute - not porn star

When people realize why these new labels were attached, they’ll understand they are being lied to.

The FCC tells us obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. But people have heard the opposite so often, they think it is protected. Again, it’s not.

fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

Prostitute - not sex worker
Stripper - not exotic dancer
Prostitute - not porn star

So what? Even if I concede the point, it’s irrelevant. First, I am in favor of legalized prostitution, for as the late, great George Carlin said, “Why is it illegal to sell something that it’s perfectly legal to give away”, but that notwithstanding, you can label whatever you want whatever you want. It doesn’t change the fact that you failed to address my very salient points.

You are anti-freedom. You would govern our purportedly free country based on the superstitions of sheepherders from 2,000 years ago, and participation is mandatory.

That’s not freedom, it’s tyranny.

The FCC tells us obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. But people have heard the opposite so often, they think it is protected. Again, it’s not.

Well, I’d argue that my copy of the Constitution does not contain an exception for obscene material, but that’s pretty much irrelevant, as conventional pornography has been explicitly found to be not obscene, so your point is irrelevant.

 

[PaulinVA]

As Catholics, we cannot afford to be vague. Simply writing “many causes” does not identify problems that need fixing.

Ed, it doesn’t matter how we got where we are unless you want to rant about it.

The point of my post is that, for many reasons, including those you noted, marriage in our modern society is not the permanent institution that it once was. That makes it harder to defend against gay marriage.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I do not believe I am. I think God is love, God is loving, and God is good. I do not believe the ‘rules’ attributed by your, or any other religion are anything more than something that a man made up from their own mind.

If God wanted us to KNOW he existed, he could. He would not give us multiple, mutually exclusive and competitive holy tomes, and then declare that failure to believe the right one (and follow the rules to a T) results in eternal damnation, especially when what, 90% of people simply default to whatever their parents taught them when young.

If there were really a list of rules that God demanded we follow, at the very least he’d make it clear, unambiguous, and undebatable what those rules are, and clear and undeniable that he had handed them down. To allow reasonable people to study things, and conclude that something other than the truth is the truth, and then punish them for simply choosing wrong is not the act of a loving God, it’s the act of one who is cruel and inhumane.

I do not believe god is cruel or inhumane.

While I am not religious, I am spiritual, and I seek knowledge and wisdom from whatever source I can find it. I don’t remember what first brought me here, and I was a simple lurker for a long time, with no real intent to ever be a poster, when someone said something that I perceived as being so completely over the top ridiculous that I simply had to respond.

I’ll fully admit that I also enjoy a good debate, which is I suppose what keeps me coming back.

Let’s back up a little, as you may or not be aware (in fact, it sounds like you are not) my wife and I are not physically monogamous. That is a lifestyle we have chosen for ourselves, because it works for us, and brings happiness and fellowship. That said, we do view porn as a sexual stimulant, but since our lives are relatively sexually stimulating in and of themselves, the reality is our use of porn is relatively infrequent.

So to directly answer your question, sure, porn makes me think of other women, but I have real world sex with other women, too, as does my wife.

Why should it bother me? When it’s all said and done, we are completely devoted to one another, as we like to say, when the parties over, no matter what has transpired, we’re going home together, and there’s no chance of that not happening.

Jealousy is a fear of loss, specifically the fear of losing your relationship to someone else. For many people, any sexual anything, even glancing at a playboy magazine, much less actually having sex, invokes that fear because they believe that once a marriage (or other committed relationship) happens, they are then supposed to get 100% of their sexual (and other) needs met by their partner.

I suppose some people can do that, from the sounds of it you are one of them. However, we’re not, and we’re realistic enough to be honest about it, with ourselves, and with each other.

Just because she looks at another man (or woman) and wants to be with him doesn’t mean she’s going to leave me for him. She’s not, and I know it, so her interest does not threaten me.

Wow. Just…wow.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, it doesn’t matter how we got where we are unless you want to rant about it.

The point of my post is that, for many reasons, including those you noted, marriage in our modern society is not the permanent institution that it once was. That makes it harder to defend against gay marriage.

“gay marriage” is a nonsense term backed by some politicians, not the people. It was voted down twice in California.

Back to your comment about a rant. It does matter how we got here and it has nothing to do with gay so-called marriage. We didn’t get to this point by accident.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tigg]

While I am not religious, I am spiritual, and I seek knowledge and wisdom from whatever source I can find it.

Now, that must be very confusing for you!

 

[elts1956]

Ed, it doesn’t matter how we got where we are unless you want to rant about it.

The point of my post is that, for many reasons, including those you noted, marriage in our modern society is not the permanent institution that it once was. That makes it harder to defend against gay marriage.

Why do you think the status of Traditional Marriages has declined? Could it be the society that has been created by relativists? A society where few laws are absolute?

 

[Scotskin]

The problem with the “if you don’t agree with or like something then don’t engage in the activity” is that the choices others make don’t just affect them and what is wrong is wrong. Catholics are not to be moral relativists under any circumstances. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Gay “marriage” is wrong. Nothing can change the fact that these things are wrong.

If prostitution were legalized (which it already is in some areas of the country, I think just counties in Nevada but it could be legal elsewhere I’m not sure) it will affect me whether or not I’m involved with it directly. The same with gay marriage. Their choice to imitate valid heterosexual marriage will affect society. It’s not just about them.

Our morals are crashing down before us (in the US…I can only speak for myself and my country but I’m sure it’s the same elsewhere). A woman has the “right” to murder her own child here for any reason. If you have Internet access, you have access to pornography, a deeply misogynist and dysfunctional form of media. Fornication is mainstream and cool. Condoms and birth control are second nature to the sexually active. Christianity is on decline.

Will we let yet another abomination dominate our society?

Yeah we (majority of society) probably will.

But Catholics should not participate.

I’ve always felt that if a gay couple wants to get married, they should be able to. Not that Catholics should allow it because it is against Catholic teaching. But on the grounds that we have freedom of religion in America. If they’re not Catholic, I cannot expect them to live like a Catholic. So obviously they’d have to get married in a ceremony outside of Catholicism.

On one hand I don’t agree with your rape or zoophilia (is that really the word for it?) analogy because it doesn’t involve to consenting adults. Animals can’t consent. If they could, then they could sign legal documents.

But I find your post compelling, and thank you for that. It is similar to legalizing many other things. When you legalize prostitution (which I think is rarely consensual - most prostitutes were forced into it when they were underage, by drug addiction, or by dire poverty), or legalize smoking crack, it does affect everyone in the vicinity. It certainly normalizes it. And yes, morals ARE crashing down in America and I find it alarming. It saddens me tremendously.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Gay marriage is clearly aginst scripture. But how does one makes the case for those who
do not believe scriptures and believes that this is a private matter that does not affect
anyone but the party concerned.

Gays know that when they push for ‘marriage’, they are taking the matter outside the private arena. It extends to adoption of children (detached from biology) and ‘creation’ of kids (detached from the human act of natural procreation, as intended by nature in family formation). The connection of a child to his/her biological parent will blur, especially to the father. The birth certificate will have to reflect that a baby has three parents, maybe four.

As we know, raising and educating children is not a private affair. Schools come in the picture, whether the choice is private or public education. If the gay ‘married’ couple gets divorced (and they do, as with heterosexual marriages), there would be a special set of laws under family law to be drawn and applied. The state and the federal governments are therefore necessarily involved, as well as churches, should the gay couple decide to join one.

When the adopted child by gay parents grows up and would like to research on genealogy or need to fill out the medical history of biological parents in seeing a physician for any treatment, it would not be easy undertakings.

So the claim that gay ‘marriage’ is a private affair and that it will not affect anyone is disingenuous. Marriage is very much a public affair, affecting each individual in a profound way.

Same sex advocates forget that marriage preceded governments, formalized laws, and religion in mankind’s long history. Marriage has always been connected to family and children. These three words go together with very clear and uniform definitions across ages and cultures. Not anymore, it seems. Do people notice how proponents of same-sex marriage very much want to change meanings of terms? Just read the various threads on same sex topics in this forum and others on the internet. Gay posters and their secular cheerleaders invariably challenge accepted meanings of terms. The aim is to destabilize the gendered definition of marriage, to make a new definition. The aim is change the attitudes and behaviors of people, of course.

Gays are not content with civil unions, which already address all practical concerns regarding equality with partners in a heterosexual marriage. They want to have homosexual unions to have completely equal status with heterosexual married relations, i.e., they want societal approval for their unnatural coupling. They wish to force acceptance on society by having law / legislation on their side and by promoting education in schools that teach kids that homosexuality is normal.

In close of my post, let me share the one big argument for natural marriage, in my view, from this link. It does not cite scripture or refer to a bible teaching. But it makes sense. Btw, the link is part of this site All About Love. Excellent site tackling 13 current issues under the same sex marriage debate. Everything that has been brought up in this forum by same sex marriage proponents is there.*Natural marriage is the most valuable relationship in any civilization. That’s not bigotry—that’s wisdom based on evidence from five thousand years of human experience, the self-evident design of the human body, and the documented beneficial results of natural marriage to children, their parents, and our society. *

. . . . . .

 

[vera_dicere]

networkedblogs.com/b4NDQ

I found this article, may have been posted here already, and whiel it doesn’t neccesariily speak of gay marriage from a point of faith, though is some mention, it discusses the flaws in the reasoning, or lack of reasoning, from the pro-gay marriage camp.

Gay marriage, simply put, is the top of that slippery slope which will end with a complete disolution of marriage in any sense, making it so useless and without value that it will cease in any kind of civil role.

 

[Secret_Square]

There is another very big potential problem with gay marriage besides the long-term effects it will have on society and the family.

That is, what happens when the government begins to classify any refusal to recognize same-sex couples as unlawful discrimination, or classifies any kind of public opposition or criticism of such unions as ‘hate crimes.’ It is already happening in other countries.

Depending on how courts interpret these laws, the potential exists for same-sex marriage to become a wedge for driving Catholics, other Christians, and perhaps even observant Jews out of various professions or businesses due to their lack of acceptance or approval of gay marriage.

No, I’m not talking about churches being compelled to perform or recognize same-sex marriage – that would be too blatant a violation of religious freedom. I’m talking about such things as, Catholic adoption agencies being compelled to place children with same-sex couples (Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to give up the adoption business completely for this reason); Catholic landlords being compelled to rent homes or apartments to same-sex couples; Catholic restaurant owners, florists, photographers, etc. being sued if they refuse to offer their services to a gay couple’s “wedding”; Catholic employers being compelled to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples that they do to married couples – the list goes on.

If gay marriage really were purely a private matter, it would be no big deal. However, the public legal recognition that it demands is, of necessity, everybody’s business.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

As Brian Brown, President of National Organization for Marriage, said:

Marriage is a public good. If you change the definition of marriage, you don’t just change it for the gay married couple down the street, you change it for everyone.

If gay marriage is allowed, then the state is essentially saying that my views on marriage, and the majority of Americans’ views on marriage, are equivalent to discrimination…It profoundly affects me if my children are taught in the schools that my views on marriage are bigoted. It profoundly affects me if the church that I’m part of is treated in the law as bigoted.

And, ultimately, same-sex marriage is not true.

His words illustrate how gays are forcing the charge of discrimination and bigotry to be applied where they should not be. It is already being used now against people who speak for preservation of marriage between a man and a woman.

. . . . .