Acceptance of Homosexual Marriage

[NeedImprovement]

Real life. Real life. Gotta get back to real life. This forum is going to eat my whole day.

That’s good advice for all of us.

Sometimes I wonder if it’s also part of the objective of naysayers/trolls/instigators , who all of a sudden show up, and stir up, set up, and upset - to tire us out swinging at shadows and (maybe inadvertently) knock us out of any prayer routine we may have.

As a repeat “dupee” I was a little reticent to post on this thread once the controversy started. How someone could be claiming on this thread that same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’ (it will never be marriage) has been ‘legal’ for some years and imply it has never harmed anyone ; how they could challenge CAF members repeatedly to cite examples where the homosexual agenda has harmed someone, implying otherwise, yet …

…at the time be posting on this thread based on a NY Times article about a Ledyard NY elected town clerk, Mrs. Rose Marie Belforti who first won election as a town clerk a decade ago and who has served her constituents well and now may be forced out of her job because she cannot conscientiously “participate in the same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’ application process” (God bless her) … is , to say the least… perplexing. Given that same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’ (it will never be marriage) has only been legal in NY since June, and that the article states two other town clerks have already been forced out of their jobs by that exact legislation, it can leave one pondering how many sides of a keyboard a person can type out of at the same time…

@ EasterJoy : I thought posts #'s 56 & 57 were very well written and a most informative read. Thanks for posting them.

While on the subject of well written pieces, in post # 3 of this thread JamestheOlder posted a link to an excellent article written on the topic of this thread. If any of our brothers or sisters who are in harmony with the objectives of Catholic Answers Forums missed it, it can be read here : First Things, The Homosexual Movement

 

[Dawnia]

To a racist it was, and there were enough racists around to enshrine their prejudice in law. I am just using it as an example against the “everyone is free…” argument.

Would you want to marry someone who had no sexual attraction towards you and who fancied people of their own sex? What sort of marriage would that be for you? Do you really want a partner who will never love you and who can never love you? Why would you inflict that on your fellow heterosexuals just so homosexuals can enter into a heterosexual marriage.

There is no such ban currently in place in civil law. A paraplegic may legally get married.

rossum

There is a huge difference between denying homosexual couples the privileges of marriage and jailing them for marrying. In Virginia only whites were denied the right to marry who they wished. There was no such ban on blacks and chinese from marrying one another or any other “lower” race. Whites were required to only marry other whites in order to keep that race “pure”.

Gender is not an insignificant distinction like race.

 

[babylonsfalling]

That is at least how I see it. The question should really be why do homosexual couples care so much about being recognized by the state as married? Its because they believe there relationships are just as good for society as a heterosexual one. I disagree with this opinion.

It’s just an attempt at trying to normalize in their own mind what they know is disordered. Because of disease rates alone, homosexuals have to know in their own gut how wrong their behavior is. They can’t get away from that inner knowledge but they keep trying. Normalizing their behavior and playing victim when they don’t get that normalization is just a means of refocusing their attention away from their own shortcomings and onto society at large.

 

[rossum]

Because of disease rates alone, homosexuals have to know in their own gut how wrong their behavior is.

Because of disease rates alone heterosexual women have to know in their own gut how wrong their behaviour is. Lesbians have lower rates of STDs in general, and AIDS in particular, than heterosexual women.

Does your argument look quite so good when put like that?

rossum

 

[babylonsfalling]

Because of disease rates alone heterosexual women have to know in their own gut how wrong their behaviour is. Lesbians have lower rates of STDs in general, and AIDS in particular, than heterosexual women.

Does your argument look quite so good when put like that?<—My argument looks about the same rossum

rossum

Acceptance of homosexual marriage remains a case of accepting a degenerated type of behavior that is an abomination in the eyes of God. Lesbian behavior is less dangerous than male to male homosexuality but it’s still degenerated and an abomination, and unhealthy even from a secular perspective.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.59

catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

 

[Elizabeth502]

Because of disease rates alone heterosexual women have to know in their own gut how wrong their behaviour is.

Yep. Heterosexual fornication, and especially the promiscuous variety, is also a disordered behavior. It just doesn’t mean that homosexual behavior is not also disordered. Both are.

Have a nice day.

 

[rossum]

Acceptance of homosexual marriage remains a case of accepting a degenerated type of behavior that is an abomination in the eyes of God.

Except in the eyes of the God of the MCC. Except in the eyes of the God of the ECUSA. There are many different versions of the Christian God, and not all of them agree with you.

Lesbian behavior is less dangerous than male to male homosexuality but it’s still degenerated and an abomination, and unhealthy even from a secular perspective.

False. Lesbians suffer less from problems related to childbirth and have lower HIV rates than heterosexual women.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yep. Heterosexual fornication, and especially the promiscuous variety, is also a disordered behavior. It just doesn’t mean that homosexual behavior is not also disordered. Both are.

Marriage does not protect from STDs.

Have a nice day.

I did thanks, we are having a heatwave here: 29°C and clear blue sky all day.

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

Marriage does not protect from STDs.

You didn’t address “marriage” in that post. You addressed female heterosexual behavior, and STD rates, as a supposed suport for lesbian marriage.

 

[cmforte]

Simple: It is not the government’s job to force religion or religious views on to people. And I fail to see how two guys or two girls, of consenting age and un-related to each other, getting “married” (outside the Church of course), would have a negative impact on society. I have this debate with my very conservative father (who isn’t Catholic, but ironically I am) and he seems to think that by simply allowing gays to marry it will encourage others to suddenly turn gay And that allowing homosexual marriage is a slippery slope to allowing other types of “perverse” marriages like maybe an incestuest one, or one betwen a human and a dog. Where my dad, respectfully speaking, gets this garbage from is beyond me. No mainstream pro-gay marriage person or group is advocating for incest or beastiality . I believe that the State can recognize a gay marriage politically, but it should not force the Church or any religious group to do so. I beleive in the separation of church and state.

-Chris

 

[Elizabeth502]

Simple: It is not the government’s job to force religion or religious views on to people. And I fail to see how two guys or two girls, of consenting age and un-related to each other, getting “married” (outside the Church of course), would have a negative impact on society.

[bolding mine]

No, it’s not that “simple,” and “your” self-acknowledged “failure to see” does have, in fact, a simple correction: Discover the truths of your faith, regarding this issue, in the thread still visible, though closed, Gay Marriage in America. Listed on there are several links to church documents and to a secular document by a Professor whose views the bishops have endorsed. They explain how practicing Roman Catholics should view this issue, for society.

 

[cmforte]

…at the time be posting on this thread based on a NY Times article about a Ledyard NY elected town clerk, Mrs. Rose Marie Belforti who first won election as a town clerk a decade ago and who has served her constituents well and now may be forced out of her job because she cannot conscientiously “participate in the same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’ application process” (God bless her) … is , to say the least… perplexing. Given that same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’ (it will never be marriage) has only been legal in NY since June, and that the article states two other town clerks have already been forced out of their jobs by that exact legislation, it can leave one pondering how many sides of a keyboard a person can type out of at the same time…

Accepting the application of a same-sex marriage was part of Mrs. Belforti’s job. When you go to a job, to work, especially for the government which affects many people who are different than you and share different views, you need to and should leave your personal and religious beliefs at the door. If you don’t like that, dion’t work that job.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

[bolding mine]

No, it’s not that “simple,” and “your” self-acknowledged “failure to see” does have, in fact, a simple correction: Discover the truths of your faith, regarding this issue, in the thread still visible, though closed, Gay Marriage in America. Listed on there are several links to church documents and to a secular document by a Professor whose views the bishops have endorsed. They explain how practicing Roman Catholics should view this issue, for society.

Actually I disagree with that “simple correction” since I have head that crud before. Secondly, I do know where The Church stands on this subject and I disagree with it.

-Chris

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually I disagree with that “simple correction” since I have head that crud before. Secondly, I do know where The Church stands on this subject and I disagree with it.

The Church’s position flows directly and incontravertibly from its entire moral theology framework. The Church’s position on the exclusiveness of Traditional Marriage is not something we are free as Catholics to “disagree with,” any more than we are free to “disagree” with elective abortion, because the issue is a core moral issue, not a peripheral one or a matter of optional opinion. It is one of the moral absolutes in our Church’s teaching on man, woman, family, sexuality, natural order and the divine law.

 

[cmforte]

The Church’s position flows directly and incontravertibly from its entire moral theology framework. The Church’s position on the exclusiveness of Traditional Marriage is not something we are free as Catholics to “disagree with,” any more than we are free to “disagree” with elective abortion, because the issue is a core moral issue, not a peripheral one or a matter of optional opinion. It is one of the moral absolutes in our Church’s teaching on man, woman, family, sexuality, natural order and the divine law.

As an American, I believe in freedom and the separation of Church and State. I don’t remember what country you’re from, but you can’t be an American and believe that the RCC or ANY religious group has the right to force its theology on to others, especially through a civil government. I agree with The Church that homosexuality is a disorder and gays should be celibate, but when it comes to State recognition (not The Church’s), that is totally different. This is along the same lines as my disagreement with The Church on illegal immigration and the role of government: separation of Church and State, FREEDOM.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

As an American, I believe in freedom and the separation of Church and State. I don’t remember what country you’re from, but you can’t be an American and believe that the RCC or ANY religious group has the right to force its theology on to others, especially through a civil government. I agree with The Church that homosexuality is a disorder and gays should be celibate, but when it comes to State recognition (not The Church’s), that is totally different. This is along the same lines as my disagreement with The Church on illegal immigration and the role of government: separation of Church and State, FREEDOM.

-Chris

Btw, trying to argue an analogy betwen gay marriage and abortion is a complete fallacy and illogical. Its like comparing apples to oranges. Abortion has to do with life and death. No one will die if two guys get married.

Secondly, I know many of you will jump on my “FREEDOM,” part, saying that freedom must be accompanied with responsibility and morality. You don’t need to argue your perspective, I’ve heard it all before and out-right refute it.

-Chris

 

[Nate13]

As an American, I believe in freedom and the separation of Church and State. I don’t remember what country you’re from, but you can’t be an American and believe that the RCC or ANY religious group has the right to force its theology on to others, especially through a civil government. I agree with The Church that homosexuality is a disorder and gays should be celibate, but when it comes to State recognition (not The Church’s), that is totally different. This is along the same lines as my disagreement with The Church on illegal immigration and the role of government: separation of Church and State, FREEDOM.

-Chris

Please tell me what you would like to change in these homosexual couples lives by allowing them to marry? I can only think of two things that would change:

-they get a piece of paper with legal recognition that they are in a “committed relationship”. (note right now there is nothing stopping them from being in a committed relationship. The state just doesn’t recognize it anymore than it recognizes a heterosexual couple that is living together but not married.)

-they get to file their tax return together and possibly receive a tax break.

Do you have anything else? Lets establish what we are fighting about here and I like you to point out specifically how you are fighting for freedom. I believe another poster showed how most every other benefit a married couple gets by virtue of being married can be obtained already by talking to a lawyer and filing the proper paperwork.

The fact is you and I both know gay people could care less about either of the two things I posted. What they would like is if we all gave them the thumbs up and said they were doing nothing wrong. This battle for a couple of small perks is not about obtaining the perks but changing the minds of the American people and how they view homosexual acts.

 

[cmforte]

Please tell me what you would like to change in these homosexual couples lives by allowing them to marry? I can only think of two things that would change:

-they get a piece of paper with legal recognition that they are in a “committed relationship”. (note right now there is nothing stopping them from being in a committed relationship. The state just doesn’t recognize it anymore than it recognizes a heterosexual couple that is living together but not married.)

-they get to file their tax return together and possibly receive a tax break.

Do you have anything else? Lets establish what we are fighting about here and I like you to point out specifically how you are fighting for freedom. I believe another poster showed how most every other benefit a married couple gets by virtue of being married can be obtained already by talking to a lawyer and filing the proper paperwork.

The fact is you and I both know gay people could care less about either of the two things I posted. What they would like is if we all gave them the thumbs up and said they were doing nothing wrong. This battle for a couple of small perks is not about obtaining the perks but changing the minds of the American people and how they view homosexual acts.

So do you believe in “civil unuons”? If so, then there we can agree. Frankly, I can care less if homosexual marriage is legalized or not. I just don’t like any religious group, even my own, forcing its theology and beliefs on to others. That is what I mean by freedom.

-Chris

 

[Nate13]

So do you believe in “civil unuons”? If so, then there we can agree. Frankly, I can care less if homosexual marriage is legalized or not. I just don’t like any religious group, even my own, forcing its theology and beliefs on to others. That is what I mean by freedom.

-Chris

I’m arguing that the lawyer that was on here earlier laid claim that all the other rights are already available for unmarried couples that are living together whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Everything civil unions would provide can already be obtained using legal methods that are already laid out. It makes since if you think about it considering all the couples choosing not to get married these days.

 

[Nate13]

Getting legally recognized marriage is not a rights issue. We see cases where two men have been living together for a long time and one of the dies. The other ends up having no claim to any of the house because it was in the other guy’s name. Gay right’s people call foul, and claim we need gay marriage. No one sees the simple solution which would have been to write a will…