Civil Homosexual Marriage

[DrTaffy]

SMGS127;12657982:

This is completely blatantly false, and it flies in the face of the fact that the Church’s own report on the subject, the John Jay Report, explicitly states that there was no correlation between homosexuals and abuse in the Church.

SMGS you have repeated this numerous times but it simply is not a credible statement. I understand your personal interest but I think you are engaged in parsing the words and hair splitting

This is not just credible, it is blatantly true. From the report itself:

The data do not support a finding that homosexual identity and/or pre-ordination same-sex sexual behavior are significant risk factors for the sexual abuse of minors.

As to the issue being discussed, civil homosexual marriage, it too flies in the face of logic unless we are willing to make the term marriage absoutely meaningless…

No, it just means that not everyone agrees with your definition of marriage. Now, if you are happy to force your definition on me while you and yours are in the majority, why should I not do as much now that my lot are in the majority?

This is a very good point because with SSM and in fact opening up adoptions to singles or other non-traditional family strucutres, the focus goes from the best interest of the CHILD to being “fair” to all potential adoptive parents

No, the focus goes from enforcing the ‘traditional’ judeo christian view on everyone, even those who do not share those beliefs, to an evidence-based focus on exactlyt what is best for the child. Study after study shows that same sex couples are at least as good at parenting as heterosexual ones - indeed I have repeatedly pointed out that there is arguably a better case that highly religious couples are poor parents! And how about those children born to same sex couples? Would you look them in the eye and tell them that it would be better if they had never existed?

 

[DrTaffy]

This is about discouraging homosexual relationships…as well it should be.

Then stop pretending that it is about conceiving children.

The bearing and raising of children is another subject.

Of course, as homosexual couples not only do this but seem to be very good at it. So that claim is suddenly dropped.

After all, homosexual couples do

What, 2 studies on your side, one of which is thoroughly discredited even by its own author, to over 60 studies supporting the view that same sex couples make perfectly good parents?

Even the Allen study has the honesty to start with the quote:

Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by
heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research
supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of
developmental psychology.
[Justice Vaughn Walker, section 70, Perry v. Schwarzenegger]

Some

‘FACTS’ that are apparently so ‘crystal clear’ that they are invisible. :ehh:

Feel free to either answer or point out where you have already answered how exactly same sex marriage would spread disease? Are you arguing that marriage increases the risk of promiscuous sex? Or that some other ‘homosexual behaviour’ such as watching “I love Lucy” spreads disease? :nope:

Legalising gay marriage reduces the spread of disease.

No, you insisted on a deliberate misinterpretation of its results. Not once have you ‘debunked’ the clear, empirically supported fact that mortality among gay couples married for a few years drops to that of the general population, significantly lower than that of unmarried homosexuals.

In other words you are happy to let people die to pamper your personal prejudices.

You have failed to answer why the spread of disease amongst gay men has not diminished, (and continues to climb) given that over half of the States in the U.S. allow gays to call their relationships a marriage???

For how long, now? How soon do you expect a marriage certificate to influence individual health? How many long term studies can you cite on the spread of disease among married gay americans?

 

[dmar198]

But you have not shown that same sex marriage is objectively evil.

I think the following article: catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality contains sufficient reasons to conclude that same-sex unions are objectively evil. To put it shortly: it is divinely revealed that homosexual relationships are evil, and this divine revelation is supported by natural reason. I think the government should adopt that attitude and modify its laws in order not to treat a moral wrong as a civil right. Does that sound reasonable?

What ‘energy’ of required of you to permit same sex marriage?

For one thing, there is the energy required to make, change, or enforce law. If the law doesn’t allow “same sex marriage,” you would have to spend energy to change it. If there is no law on the books, you would have to spend energy to make one. If the law already recognizes “same sex marriage,” you would have to spend energy to give homosexuals marriage certificates. All of that energy is spent in the service of evil, but it should instead be spent in the service of good.

If anything the Catholic Church has been using significant energy and funds to force your beliefs on same sex marriage onto people who do not share those beliefs.

When you say “force your beliefs…onto [other] people,” what do you mean? One interpretation is that you think the Church’s proposal, if enacted, would force people to follow Catholic morality. Is that what you mean? Because I don’t think it would. Unless I’ve missed something, the Church’s proposal is simply that the government should willingly decide not to support homosexual relationships. I don’t think that forces anyone to do anything. Am I making sense?

Not only is this the opposite of what you refer to, but if you are justified in doing this even in the very intimate aspect of an individual’s marital life, why should I feel any compunction in forcing my subjective beliefs on you in every single aspect of your life?

I don’t think anybody should force anyone else to follow any belief about homosexuality, whether good or bad. What I’m proposing is not a law that forces people to act a certain way, but a law passed by willing individuals that says “We will only support ethical relationships,” with the ethics matching what is defined in Catholic teaching. Do you see the difference?

 

[LisaA]

This is not just credible, it is blatantly true. From the report itself:

No, it just means that not everyone agrees with your definition of marriage. Now, if you are happy to force your definition on me while you and yours are in the majority, why should I not do as much now that my lot are in the majority?

No, the focus goes from enforcing the ‘traditional’ judeo christian view on everyone, even those who do not share those beliefs, to an evidence-based focus on exactlyt what is best for the child. Study after study shows that same sex couples are at least as good at parenting as heterosexual ones - indeed I have repeatedly pointed out that there is arguably a better case that highly religious couples are poor parents! And how about those children born to same sex couples? Would you look them in the eye and tell them that it would be better if they had never existed?

Right…mere coincidence that 80% of the victims were male…nothing to do with their sexual preferences. That dog don’t hunt and as I noted, the words are being parsed and hairs split. The predators were HOMOSEXUALS. Does that mean all homosexuals are predators? No. And that is the way the language was couched. I too read the Jay Report in the light of many years of interacting with gays. What happened didn’t surprise me. At the time many gay men were hiding in the priesthood. The abuse scandal was a result of not recognizing that these men were not becoming priests to serve Jesus Christ to but hide their sexual proclivities, be in all male environments (many seminaries were taken over by the Lavender Mafia as it was termed), and have authority over young males. It was a perfect storm of lust meets opportunity. But make no mistake, these men were homosexuals, else they would have preyed upon females.

And it is not MY definition of marriage, it is a definition that has been present in every society, not simply those of Christian influence. While there have always been homosexual relationships, even relatively formalized relationships such as in ancient Greece (not to mention all of the situational homosexuality in Afganistan) marriage has always been defined as the joining of male and female for purposes of conceiving and raising children. I suspect tribesmen in Africa would be astonished to hear that I made up marriage!

And no one is forcing VALUES on anyone. The thread relates to CIVIL homosexual “marriage.” Given that for the hundreth time, why does the state have ANY interest in your sex life? It’s not values based, it’s strictly state interest based. The state does not care what you and your male participants do with your genitals. None.

And one more time, if it’s all about state benefits why are the domestic partnerships not good enough for you?

Here’s the reality. Homosexuals engage in non-procreative, unhealthy sexual activity. It will never result in a child being born. The state has no interest in other human relationships…friendships, house sharing, joint bank accounts. Why do you demand we recognize your sex life?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And how about those children born to same sex couples? Would you look them in the eye and tell them that it would be better if they had never existed?

This is a strawman argument because regardless of how a child comes to be, the Christian position is that such a child is precious in the eyes of God and should be accorded all the respect of any other child. No one is suggesting or even implying that such children never have been.

But let’s look at your casual mention of " children born to same sex couples". Of course you realize that a same-sex couple cannot, on their own, conceive a child. It always involves some other parent, or sperm donor, from outside the couple. Therefore if there are any inherent rights to the child from having born the child in some sense, then those rights would belong just as much to that outside contributor. And if there are any inherent rights due to the same-sex couple, those rights would naturally belong to only one of the pair. The other partner would have no such rights, except by virtue of the “involved” partner having conferred those rights to the “supporting but not involved” partner.

That said, society has long maintained a balancing act with respect to the rights of the parents vs the best interests of the child. Neither side is absolute. If a parent is found to be grossly negligent toward the child, society does take that child away from the offending parent or parents and place the child with parents that they deem will do a better job. However if the parents are only a little bit negligent, or incapable of the absolute best care, society generally tries as much as possible to keep the child with the current parents. The idea is that despite objective evidence that some other parents may be better for the child, that evidence has to be overwhelming before the state will act to severe the natural bond between parent and child. And I think this is as it should be. I think it is an acknowledgment by society that children raised by their biological parent or parents is better overall, because of natural law, even if that conclusion cannot be supported by statistical studies, and even if it is clear that the child might benefit from being with someone else. So when you quote study after study that says that same-sex couples are at least as good as other couples for raising children, I am reminded that society does not base all of its decisions on statistical studies.

 

[DrTaffy]

Like many who advocate for SSM, you do a good job of twisting words into pretzels in an attempt to obfuscate the facts.

It is called ‘logic’ - if you cannot challenge it with similar logic, I sympathise with your predicament but rage is not an appropriate response.

The word “discriminate” is often used as a cudgel to shut down conversation

Yes - by anti-gay lobbyists who cannot justify why gays should be discriminated against, so scream that they are the victims because they are being accused of unjustified discrimination.

but it is in fact simply a verb “to treat differently.” We discriminate in many ways that are beneficial to ourselves and to society.

Yep, and if you cannot show that it is to our benefit to discriminate in that way, the state is not going to do it.

That you claim the state discriminates against homosexuals is completely wrong.

If homosexual couples are denied rights, such as marriage, that heterosexual couples get, they are being discriminated against. It’s that darned pesky ‘logic’ again.

That gay activists demand their non-procreative and unhealthy sex lives be considered equivalent to Natural Marriage is patently ridiculous.

They ‘demand’ only that their relationships have the same legal rights as others. They face the same legal and financial issues as any other couple. YOU are the ones obsessed by their sex lives.

The idea of “Natural Marriage” as some physical existent thing seperate from social constructions such as civil marriage matters only to those who believe in it. Who have as much right to their personal religious beliefs as you do - neither should be enshrined in law.

Society has no interest in your sex life Dr Taffy. Where you dip your wick is inconsequential to everyone but you and your other participant(s).

Your prejudices are showing. What makes you think this has anything to do with my sex life? Wipe the dribble off your chin and stick to the topic, please.

Society has an interest in protecting its citizens and marriage was designed to encourage families that are far better environments for children to be born than any other structure. Your gay “marriage” will never result in children so what interest does the state have in your relationship? None.

Teeny problem: same sex couples both produce and raise children. The only significant difference suggested by the studies is that some show that they do so better than heterosexual couples. Whether or not they had outside help in the conception is neither the State’s business nor yours.

As to certain benefits being more accessible to married persons (those joint tax rates are simply marvelous!) in reality virtually all of them are available through contractual arrangements.

Virtually all? So you undermine your own point.

And why should gay couples have to go through legal hoops to get some of the rights heterosexual couples get in one simple step?

Further when states in an effort to accommodate these demands from gays and Lesbians enacted statutes providing IDENTICAL benefits for their domestic partnerships, that was not enough.

…for the christians. Who still objected because they knew perfectly well that these were marriages by another name!

 

[LisaA]

It is called ‘logic’ - if you cannot challenge it with similar logic, I sympathise with your predicament but rage is not an appropriate response.

Yes - by anti-gay lobbyists who cannot justify why gays should be discriminated against, so scream that they are the victims because they are being accused of unjustified discrimination.

Yep, and if you cannot show that it is to our benefit to discriminate in that way, the state is not going to do it.

If homosexual couples are denied rights, such as marriage, that heterosexual couples get, they are being discriminated against. It’s that darned pesky ‘logic’ again.

They ‘demand’ only that their relationships have the same legal rights as others. They face the same legal and financial issues as any other couple. YOU are the ones obsessed by their sex lives.

The idea of “Natural Marriage” as some physical existent thing seperate from social constructions such as civil marriage matters only to those who believe in it. Who have as much right to their personal religious beliefs as you do - neither should be enshrined in law.

Your prejudices are showing. What makes you think this has anything to do with my sex life? Wipe the dribble off your chin and stick to the topic, please.

Teeny problem: same sex couples both produce and raise children. The only significant difference suggested by the studies is that some show that they do so better than heterosexual couples. Whether or not they had outside help in the conception is neither the State’s business nor yours.

Virtually all? So you undermine your own point.

And why should gay couples have to go through legal hoops to get some of the rights heterosexual couples get in one simple step?

…for the christians. Whe still objected because they knew perfectly well that these were marriages by another name!

When the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Instead of addressing the argument you resort to personal attacks and slights.

Again you have missed the facts. Homosexual couples cannot conceive and bear a child. it is a biological impossibility. Dueling links about who does a “better” job of raising children will not solve any argument but surely you understand that what you claim occurs is not possible within the confines of the homosexual relationship. Further all such children are born without the possibility of having either a mommy or a daddy. Why do you think the selfish desires of adults are more important than the rights of the child? The child’s well being should be the focus of both the parents and society.

And again and again. The state only has an interest in regulating marriage because the natural result of the majority of Natural Marriages is bearing and raising children. The state does not have a similar interest in any other human partnership. The state doesn’t care if I live with my best female friend, if we share a house or a bank account or I name her in my will because our relationship no matter how close and loving, will never create a child.

Homosexuals want their sex lives promoted and made equivalent. There is no other reason to demand their relationship be called marriage. The state has no interest in sex lives or friendships. It only has an interest in its continuation into the future and current stability. Marriage has been the building block of society for millenia. Ergo special status for this unique and uniquely fruitful relationship. There is no similar interest in other relationships.

 

[dmar198]

LisaA;12668513:

As to certain benefits being more accessible to married persons (those joint tax rates are simply marvelous!) in reality virtually all of them are available through contractual arrangements.

Virtually all? So you undermine your own point.

Up until this conversation, I thought the word “virtually” meant something like “theoretically,” which is how I think LisaA was trying to use the term. Merriam-Webster says it means almost but not quite. I don’t see how they derive that definition. Virtual reality is supposed to show a theoretical model of how physical reality would look without physical imperfections, unless I’ve missed something. I would think the adjective “virtually” would derive from that meaning.

 

[DrTaffy]

I think the following article: catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality contains sufficient reasons to conclude that same-sex unions are objectively evil. To put it shortly: it is divinely revealed that homosexual relationships are evil, and this divine revelation is supported by natural reason.

There is your problem. If your assertion starts with an appeal to ‘divine revelation’ you are talking about your own personal religious beliefs. And if you want to force those on me, I can force mine on you. That’s the Golden Rule.

If you can support your position by reason and objective evidence, go ahead.

If the law doesn’t allow “same sex marriage,” you would have to spend energy to change it.

If the law is unjustified, that is a perfectly reasonable expenditure of energy.

So far the consensus in the western world is that it is unjustified.

I don’t think anybody should force anyone else to follow any belief about homosexuality, whether good or bad. What I’m proposing is not a law that forces people to act a certain way, but a law passed by willing individuals that says “We will only support ethical relationships,” with the ethics matching what is defined in Catholic teaching. Do you see the difference?

If only ‘willing individuals’ comply with it, it is hardly a law. If others are forced to comply, you are indeed forcing people to act a certain way.

Up until this conversation, I thought the word “virtually” meant something like “theoretically,” which is how I think LisaA was trying to use the term. Merriam-Webster says it means almost but not quite. I don’t see how they derive that definition. Virtual reality is supposed to show a theoretical model of how physical reality would look without physical imperfections, unless I’ve missed something. I would think the adjective “virtually” would derive from that meaning.

From the latin ‘virtus’, meaning ‘virtue’ or (in this case) something like ‘effect’. So “virtually all” means not actually all, but close enough to have ‘the same effect’ (sort of). Regardless, in english ‘virtually’ can mean ‘not actually, but close’. So ‘virtual reality’ is not actual reality, but close. -ish.

Which in this case is not true. There are a lot of rights and responsibilities of marriage (in most countries) that cannot be privately mimicked by a contract. Such as taxation advantages or rights to citizenship.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12668534:

This is not just credible

, it is blatantly true. From the report itself:

The data do not support a finding that homosexual identity and/or pre-ordination same-sex sexual behavior are significant risk factors for the sexual abuse of minors.

Now hang about. Back in post #54 you accused SMGS of, effectivley, lying. Having been shown that her assertion was very clearly and literally correct, you are just breezing past without even an acknowledgement, let alone an apology? :ehh:

Right…mere coincidence that 80% of the victims were male…nothing to do with their sexual preferences.

Well, obviously they are drawn to raping boys.

But the relevant point is that there is no absolute obvious link between that and their attraction to adults. Many will have no interest in adults, many will be attracted to adult women and not to adult men.

So if a man has no interest in adult men, but rapes boys, how is his case relevant to the suitability of same sex adult couples as parents? All the evidence is that adults attracted to adults of the same sex are no more likely to be paedophiles or child abusers than adults attracted to adults of the opposite sex.

That dog don’t hunt and as I noted, the words are being parsed and hairs split.

Yep, you are splitting hairs by trying to call heterosexual men who rape boys ‘homosexual’. The problem ain’t the dog.

The predators were HOMOSEXUALS.

Ah yes, argumentum ad SHOUTING AT PEOPLE. No wonder you hate that darned logic.

And it is not MY definition of marriage, it is a definition that has been present in every society, not simply those of Christian influence.

It is not mine, not that of many people, not, according to many polls, even that of the majority of Catholics. Certainly not that of the various cultures throughout history that have had same sex marriage.

I suspect tribesmen in Africa would be astonished to hear that I made up marriage!

African tribes being one of the examples of same sex marriage.

 

[DrTaffy]

When the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Instead of addressing the argument you resort to personal attacks and slights. .

Oh right, is that why you insinuated that I was gay and promiscuous? What other comment in this thread counts as ‘slander’?

Again you have missed the facts. Homosexual couples cannot conceive and bear a child. it is a biological impossibility…

And yet they do. Have you never heard of IVF, AI, or simply lying back and thinking of Ellen?

Further all such children are born without the possibility of having either a mommy or a daddy…

False assertion, many do have both. Some end up with two of each. How dare you deny them that?

Why do you think the selfish desires of adults are more important than the rights of the child? The child’s well being should be the focus of both the parents and society…

Which is why I would deny you the right to force your selfish subjective beliefs on these happy and demonstrably healthy families.

Do you claim to have evidence that denying same sex couples marriage will make their children better off? If not, stop pretending that this is about their well-being rather than you forcing your beliefs on others.

And again and again. The state only has an interest in regulating marriage because the natural result of the majority of Natural Marriages is bearing and raising children…

Both of which same sex couples do.

Homosexuals want their sex lives promoted and made equivalent. There is no other reason to demand their relationship be called marriage.

No, you want homosexuals told by the state that their relationships are inferior. There is no other reason to deny the fact that their relationships are recognisably marriages, as shown when christians object to same sex civil unions based on their beliefs about marriage.

 

[dmar198]

There is your problem. If your assertion starts with an appeal to ‘divine revelation’ you are talking about your own personal religious beliefs.

First, I want to point out that although I think homosexual behavior is revealed by God to be sinful, that is not just my own religious belief. Anyone can verify the truth of the Catholic belief about homosexual behavior. Just read the Biblical passages and natural arguments referred to in the article I cited. Here it is again: catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Second, I don’t think it’s problematic that we’re discussing religious beliefs in a civil context. One reason why is, I think the government has a duty to honor God and all His ways. In light of that, it only makes sense to me that it should declare its support for God’s laws. But also, I think the government does declares its support for God’s laws in the Declaration of Independence, although it doesn’t appear to endorse Catholicism yet. What do you think? Does the government have a duty to honor God?

And if you want to force those on me, I can force mine on you. That’s the Golden Rule.

Earlier I asked what you mean by force in this context. If a law passed by the majority in government says that the government will not support homosexual relationships, do you think that forces anyone to act a certain way? Or do you mean something different?

If you can support your position by reason and objective evidence, go ahead.

Did you read the link I provided? Did you see any problem with the reasons in that link?

If the law is unjustified, that is a perfectly reasonable expenditure of energy.

Agreed.

So far the consensus in the western world is that it is unjustified.

I think the reasons for that position are illogical. For example, suppose Larry Liberal argues that homosexual relationships shouldn’t be opposed because homosexual relationships aren’t bad. I would show Larry Liberal evidence from the Bible and from natural reason that homosexual relationships are bad. If he wanted to be logical, I think he should explain why those reasons don’t prove that homosexual relationships are bad. If he doesn’t, I would conclude that his reasoning is illogical, because the premises of a valid logical syllogism have gone unopposed and yet he doesn’t accept the conclusion. Does that seem reasonable?

By the way, the logical syllogism to which I refer is this: (1) The government should not provide any support to evil.
(2) Homosexual relationships are evil. (Scripture, natural reason, etc.)
(3) Therefore, the government should not provide any support to homosexual relationships. I think that syllogism has valid form: the conclusion does follow from the premises, so long as the premises are true. Therefore, for it to be incorrect, one of the premises must be flawed. If Larry Liberal doesn’t deny one of the premises, but still rejects the conclusion, then I think I have to conclude that he is being illogical, because he isn’t following basic logic. Do you see why I think that?

If only ‘willing individuals’ comply with it, it is hardly a law.

I’m not so sure. If the law says that the government will not support homosexual relationships, but other people support them through their own means, that seems like a form of noncompliance that leaves the law intact and just as forceful as ever. Anyhow, that’s how I see it. What do you think?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Then stop pretending that it is about conceiving children.

Conceiving children?? How did we get here?

The inability of homosexual couples to procreate or consummate a marriage are obvious reasons to question the drive to redefine marriage to include same sex relations…but

I never brought up that point. I would love to hear Dr Daffy’s take on that subject…

What, 2 studies on your side, one of which is thoroughly discredited even by its own author, to over 60 studies supporting the view that same sex couples make perfectly good parents?

Since so very few homosexual couples do adopt or raise children from a real marriage, I just don’t find myself interested in this. Also I reject all “studies” by gay sympathizers that claim there is no harm to children raised by same sex couples.

‘FACTS’ that are apparently so ‘crystal clear’ that they are invisible. :ehh:

Apparently to you they are…

Feel free to either answer or point out where you have already answered how exactly same sex marriage would spread disease? Are you arguing that marriage increases the risk of promiscuous sex? Or that some other ‘homosexual behaviour’ such as watching “I love Lucy” spreads disease? :nope:

I agree that marriage does not spread disease. It is an uncontested fact however that the sexual activity that occurs in or out of a same sex relationship does spread disease.

It is also an undeniable fact that promiscuity within the gay community far exceeds that within the heterosexual community and therefore spreads disease.

We also know that the majority of homosexuals DO NOT live in a committed relationship and choose “open relationships” including many partners…that spreads disease.

No, you insisted on a deliberate misinterpretation of its results. Not once have you ‘debunked’ the clear, empirically supported fact that mortality among gay couples married for a few years drops to that of the general population, significantly lower than that of unmarried homosexuals.

Gee…then it must be a flawed study…BECAUSE the spread of disease is still at epidemic levels and climbing.

For how long, now? How soon do you expect a marriage certificate to influence individual health? How many long term studies can you cite on the spread of disease among married gay americans?

You are answering my question with questions…that’s a no, no.

 

[LisaA]

Oh right, is that why you insinuated that I was gay and promiscuous? What other comment in this thread counts as ‘slander’?

And yet they do. Have you never heard of IVF, AI, or simply lying back and thinking of Ellen?

False assertion, many do have both. Some end up with two of each. How dare you deny them that?

Which is why I would deny you the right to force your selfish subjective beliefs on these happy and demonstrably healthy families.

Do you claim to have evidence that denying same sex couples marriage will make their children better off? If not, stop pretending that this is about their well-being rather than you forcing your beliefs on others.

Both of which same sex couples do.

No, you want homosexuals told by the state that their relationships are inferior. There is no other reason to deny the fact that their relationships are recognisably marriages, as shown when christians object to same sex civil unions based on their beliefs about marriage.

As to the insulting comments the one about “wiping drivel off your chin” probably qualifies as the most blatant example but your posts do not promote a thoughtful and rational dialogue. Perhaps you think your comment about lying back and thinking of Ellen is funny, but snark does not advance an argument. If you don’t have a response to the multiple questions I’ve posted, then say so rather than engaging in personal attacks.

Natural marriage is a unique relationship. It is unlike any other sexual “pairing” for lack of a better word. Natural marriage is the only relationship that binds children to their biological parents. Natural marriage provides the optimal environment for bearing, raising and supporting children. Society has an interest in promoting Natural Marriage because from this comes the maximum in current stability and prosperity as well as ensuring the future. Society’s first and most important objective is the protection of its citizens. Again there is an interest by the state in Natural Marriage because if children are born to a married couple (man woman) they will naturally be both willing and able to protect and provide for the children. So that the state has given married couples specific benefits as well as responsibilities makes sense from a completely objective point of view. This is not a religious concept.

The state does not have the same compelling interest in promoting other human relationships. The benefits to the state do not occur.

Homosexual relationships do not have these unique features. It is abnormal use of the participants’ bodies that has no benefit to anyone other than some transitory pleasure to them. In fact homosexuals have greatly increased pathologies from drug addiction, alcoholism, depression, suicide and that doesn’t take into account the myriad of health concerns, not simply STDs but again when you use the digestive system for something other than food, it causes damage.

So while no one begrudges you getting your sexual pleasure on your own time with the participant of your choice, please explain why the state or its other citizens have any interest in your arrangement?

Here are some facts: homosexual couples cannot conceive and bear children. It is a biological impossibility. You can make glib remarks about various celebrity couples that bred or bought children using the same techniques used to breed animals. But this IS an inferior relationship and denies the child a mommy or a daddy. So you are so obsessed with societal approval of your sexual relationships that you think children should be deliberately denied one or the other parent?

Actually it follows since homosexuality is a self absorbed rather than self giving relationship. The focus is on the adults and their “rights” to acquire children, obtain government benefits, and other selfish desires.

Finally when you object to advocates of Natural Marriage say it’s about having your abnormal sexual practices normalized you claim it’s not “all about sex” but in fact it is. Homosexuals want “marriage” for their relationship but again, it’s “friends with benefits.” The only thing that makes your relationship with a same sex friend different than my relationship (purely platonic) with my girlfriends is the sexual component. So it stands to reason anyone should be able to get married for any reason whatsover…it’s not all about sex right? I should be able to marry my girlfriend because I have health insurance and she doesn’t. Two dudes should be able to marry so they can enter a contest even though they are both straight. And why just two? What about plural marriage? It stands to reason that anyone can call whatever they want “marriage” under your criteria. Thus you destroy any meaningful result of extending this now meaningless term to everyone else’s relationship.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And yet they do. Have you never heard of IVF, AI, or simply lying back and thinking of Ellen?

That is not the couple conceiving. That is just one person conceiving, with the help of outside donors. The couple as a couple does not conceive.

 

[LisaA]

That is not the couple conceiving. That is just one person conceiving, with the help of outside donors. The couple as a couple does not conceive.

Clearly deliberate obfuscation as you noted. One of the most unfortunate results of SSM is turning children into a commodity to be purchased or bred like animals. What child wants to know her mommy or daddy wanted nothing to do with her or that components of conception were purchased via Craig’s List. The Pope speaks of our consumer culture and the utilitarian view of humans. This is the Brave New World of SSM

 

[Rau]

Clearly deliberate obfuscation as you noted. One of the most unfortunate results of SSM is turning children into a commodity to be purchased or bred like animals. What child wants to know her mommy or daddy wanted nothing to do with her or that components of conception were purchased via Craig’s List. The Pope speaks of our consumer culture and the utilitarian view of humans. This is the Brave New World of SSM

I sometimes wonder at how sperm and egg donors conclude they do good. They aid the creation of babies for others despite the availability of inadequately cared for children in need of adoptive parents (though often not in the local area/country). They (often) declare themselves not wanting to care for or be responsible for their children.

I read above that homosexual couples “have babies”. What an odd expression. In my understanding, there is one couple who “have” the child, but with the intent to “pass” the child to another couple to look after. And all because the first couple want what their intrinsic nature says is not for them. What is wrong with this picture!

 

[SMGS127]

I read above that homosexual couples “have babies”. What an odd expression. In my understanding, there is one couple who “have” the child, but with the intent to “pass” the child to another couple to look after. And all because the first couple want what their intrinsic nature says is not for them. What is wrong with this picture!

To be fair, I also often hear men talking about how “we’re pregnant” in a marriage. It creates the same distortion for me. I think people just use certain language that isn’t meant to be taken literal. Obviously he isn’t saying he has a uterus or that they’re both pregnant (although the phrase does intensely bother me).

But I understand your feelings. As I said, it bothers me when men say that since it’s directly opposite to their intrinsic nature as men.

 

[LisaA]

I sometimes wonder at how sperm and egg donors conclude they do good. They aid the creation of babies for others despite the availability of inadequately cared for children in need of adoptive parents (though often not in the local area/country). They (often) declare themselves not wanting to care for or be responsible for their children.

I read above that homosexual couples “have babies”. What an odd expression. In my understanding, there is one couple who “have” the child, but with the intent to “pass” the child to another couple to look after. And all because the first couple want what their intrinsic nature says is not for them. What is wrong with this picture!

Donning tin foil hat, I think the obfuscation and changing of word meanings is part of the plan to lull the public to sleep as to the denial of human nature and how we were created. Instead of each human being as a unique individual valued just for being human we are seeing the commercialized and consumer view increase. We have designer babies, abortion of perceived defective babies and same sex couples “breeding” children like animals. No one has the right to a child but as we devalue and destroy the meaning of marriage children become just another consumer good or accessory.

SMSG I agree with you. When a man announces “we’re pregnant” I want to ask “is this the royal we or are you the first man in history to get pregnant?”

 

[DrTaffy]

First, I want to point out that although I think homosexual behavior is revealed by God to be sinful, that is not just my own religious belief. Anyone can verify the truth of the Catholic belief about homosexual behavior. Just read the Biblical passages and natural arguments referred to in the article I cited. Here it is again: catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Read it, not impressed. Would you like to pick out one argument and present it in your own words? If you cannot be bothered to present the argument, why should I be bothered to refute it?

Second, I don’t think it’s problematic that we’re discussing religious beliefs in a civil context. One reason why is, I think the government has a duty to honor God and all His ways.

That sounds peachy as long as you assume that the religious beliefs the Government will be putting into law are the same as yours. What if they are Sharia law? Or Satanic law? Or maybe worse of all, the beliefs of a group who consider themselves to be the true Catholic faith, but disagree with you on gay marriage, female priests, abortion and who the True Pope is?

Would you still be saying “Gosh, established religion, that’s a jolly good idea!” or would you be screaming for separation of church and state? :ehh:

By the way, the logical syllogism to which I refer is this: (1) The government should not provide any support to evil.
(2) Homosexual relationships are evil. (Scripture, natural reason, etc.)
(3) Therefore, the government should not provide any support to homosexual relationships.

Naturally, I reject (2), as do many people. Even, according to polls, a majority of Catholics.

Is that really news to you?