Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[meltzerboy]

No, according to biology.

Okay. I’m not arguing a religious reason here, myself.

Those acts are still ordered towards procreation; you can’t fault someone for something that’s not their fault or willful choice. I’m not saying that the aspects of love and emotional bonding aren’t important, because they are; but they are important in the context of the procreative aspect, which advances and protects the species.

Same.

The way you put it–“the procreative aspect, which advances and protects the species”-- sounds as if the biological procreative feature of sex takes precedence over love and affection between the couple. This has a Darwinian and Freudian ring to it. As Tina Turner would say: “What’s love got to do with it?”

 

[Lochias]

The way you put it–“the procreative aspect, which advances and protects the species”-- sounds as if the biological procreative feature of sex takes precedence over love and affection between the couple.

That would be because it does. God teaches us to understand the loving context in which that dominant, procreative aspect is applied, but it’s still a biological fact that our reproductive systems are designed for making and protecting babies. “Love and affection” are abstracts.

This has a Darwinian and Freudian ring to it. As Tina Turner would say: “What’s love got to do with it?”

Love is the bond with which we protect and nurture our children, in this context.

 

[Rau]

But sex between humans is also an expression of love, companionship, and pleasure for the self and one’s partner. In this, homosexual sex does make sense.

But that pleasure is tied up with the genitalia. The penis emitting seed and the vagina which is to receive it. Conceivably, the pleasure could stand alone if we’re talking about holding hands, stroking hair, etc. But same sex sexual relations is evidently a misuse.

 

[kolya111]

When did subjective opinions about sex become grounds for public policy?

 

[Lochias]

When some of those opinions began to harm our country and lead the trample on religious liberties. I’d also say that few opinions on sex are subjective; there’s fact, and there’s fiction. Unfortunately, we can see what America has primarily chosen to follow.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

.

In a secular government and society, not everyone is Christian. For Christians to use the political process to pass laws that are compatible to them, but not others, is in effect to impose their values on nonbelievers. It forces nonbelievers to make modifications to their lifestyles that they do not wish to make, and comply with religious values that they do not believe in. It is therefore oppressive and unloving.

.

In our world and society, not every one is secular. For certain secular people to use the political process to pass laws that are compatible to them, but not others, is in effect to impose their values on those who don’t agree with them. It forces others to make modifications to their lifestyles that they do not wish to make, and comply with certasin values that they do not believe in. It is therefore oppressive and unloving.

Religious people are part of society also.

Every single day I am reminded of the secular world we live in, the secular values, and ideas. I can not turn on my television without hearing it. Even if I choose a show that doesn’t speak of todays secular ideas, the commercials do. I can not go to work without hearing or seeing it. The shoving ideas at people work both ways. The difference is, one is out to save peoples lives and the other is about money. The politicians change their ideas about homosexuality because they want a vote, the motion picture industry and internet for money. People are even writing novels today that appeal to youth to spread and encourage homosexual behavior. They are lied to, everyday. Told by people that this lifestyle is okay and it is not.

Again I will include my link on the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle from the Center for Disease Control and hope and pray that we stop imposing and encouraging this lifestyle on young boys and men and start encouraging them to lead the life God intended for them. Each and every human being has an answer to the issues in their life and that answer is the person of Jesus Christ.

cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

When you have worked and cared for AIDS patients and seen the regret, physical hardships, emotional hardships and death that happens you have a whole different outlook. Notice in the link who is at greater risk. Why isn’t anyone talking about this? Why are people not warning young people of the dangers of engaging in homosexual sexual activities?

That is why the Catholic church speaks the way it does on this issue because we are concerned for peoples lives, not popularity.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

The sexual relationship makes no biological sense for the purpose of procreation. But sex between humans is also an expression of love, companionship, and pleasure for the self and one’s partner. In this, homosexual sex does make sense.

Not when you understand the way the body works. The reproductive system is the only system of the body that to work takes two people of opposite sex but (being a little graphic) homosexual sex between men is the working of the digestive system and the reproductive system. Those two systems don’t combine together and causes problems in each system. It is not the way nature intended this to happen.

 

[PTL]

There is no such a thing as gay “marriage” no matter how much you want to call it marriage.

Gay sex is sin, grave sin. Period. It is against God’s natural law. Period.

Don’t link this grave sin with the word “marriage”.

 

[Rau]

When did subjective opinions about sex become grounds for public policy?

The question assumes facts not in evidence. To what are you referring?

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, it does make sense and I agree. I don’t have a problem with civil unions having the same legal rights, I simply have a problem with people wanting them to be recognised as equal, as a marriage, because I believe it’s like arguing for women to be recognised as men for equality sake, it’s one thing to treat them equally, but to recognise them as equal is just completely nonsense I believe.

Thank you
Josh

The thing that made me sit up and notice is when Oregon gay activists rejected a proposal (which our archbishop said would be acceptable) for adults barred from marriage to give each other the benefits of marriage required for mutual care. The idea was that a sexual relationship was not implied nor required. There would be no right to consort. The gay activists did not want that. They wanted recognition of the sexual partnership, not the opportunity to the same non-sexual aspects of mutual care that heterosexual couples get, and they specifically did not want a set-up that was open to adults who had no sexual relationship!

That rejection, a rejection that meant barring some other people from rights that they say they need and ought to have, uncovered this movement to me for what it is. It is a bid to legally support the false premise that heterosexual sex and partnerships are the same as homosexual ones. The same…that is simply false. A homosexual couple can never produce a child except by sexual consort outside the couple. Considering the interest the state has in protecting the relationship between children and their biological parents, that is a huge difference.

I cannot, in good conscience, do anything but fight a movement that is meant to enshrine a falsehood into law. The gay activists say that heterosexual-only marriage is the falsehood, but they are simply wrong. It isn’t just their opinion vs. mine, like whether the nation’s money ought to be paper or metal or whether the flag ought to have some certain number of stars and stripes on it. This is a matter of truth vs. falsehood. Call that religious, but that is why those who aren’t homosexual do care about this very much. It isn’t oppression of gays that is the issue. It is the suppression of the truth that is the issue.

To oppose same-sex “marriage” is also vital in opposing the rise of the use of surrogacy by gays and the use of sperm donors by lesbians, which I believe is a huge abuse of parental power. To plan to beget a child with the intention to exclude at least one of the child’s biological parents from the child’s life is an abuse of power. This is not about being “wanted”. A child is not a puppy or a colt. No one should be able to do that to a child on purpose, and no one should be allowed to use their sexual faculty in a manner that does that to a child. It is just wrong, even from the most secular of vantage points.

 

[kolya111]

When some of those opinions began to harm our country and lead the trample on religious liberties. I’d also say that few opinions on sex are subjective; there’s fact, and there’s fiction. Unfortunately, we can see what America has primarily chosen to follow.

The notion that homosexual sex is wrong is a subjective opinion. There is no “proof” of “God’s Law.” Since homosexual sex does not negatively impact the rights of the uninvolved, there is no basis for public policy.

Yes, it is a shame that gay activists, with whom I do not agree, attempt to force religious businesses / churches to violate their consciences. It was also a shame that the Catholic Church used to support the imprisonment, torture, and execution of gay people, but who’s keeping score?

(I guess the scores are still changing since the Church still supports sodomy laws, which implies support for imprisonment)

In our world and society, not every one is secular. For certain secular people to use the political process to pass laws that are compatible to them, but not others, is in effect to impose their values on those who don’t agree with them. It forces others to make modifications to their lifestyles that they do not wish to make, and comply with certasin values that they do not believe in. It is therefore oppressive and unloving…

That is a stupid, elitist, bigoted argument.

Belief systems conflict with each other; it is impossible for a neutral society to please everyone. Coexisting with openly homosexual people does not “oppress” you. Giving gay couples access to social security survivor benefits does not “oppress” you. Giving gay couples hospital visitation rights does not “oppress” you. Giving gay couples access to dependent employment benefits, power of attorney, and joint tax filing does not “oppress” you. We want those things. But apparently we can’t have them because that makes YOU uncomfortable. Tough luck.

Again I will include my link on the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle from the Center for Disease Control and hope and pray that we stop imposing and encouraging this lifestyle on young boys and men and start encouraging them to lead the life God intended for them. Each and every human being has an answer to the issues in their life and that answer is the person of Jesus Christ.

That’s an argument (a poor, discriminatory argument) against hook up sex; not an argument against gay marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

The notion that homosexual sex is wrong is a subjective opinion. There is no “proof” of “God’s Law.”

Is there any behavior that you believe would fit into the above category–that is, an act that is wrong, objectively?

 

[PRmerger]

It was also a shame that the Catholic Church used to support the imprisonment, torture, and execution of gay people, but who’s keeping score?

I think you are operating under the misapprehension that what some bad Catholics do is representative of Catholic teaching.

If you are of the opinion that the Catholic Church actually taught that the execution of gay people was a moral option, could you please provide your source for this?

 

[Rau]

The thing that made me sit up and notice is when Oregon gay activists rejected a proposal (which our archbishop said would be acceptable) for adults barred from marriage to give each other the benefits of marriage required for mutual care. The idea was that a sexual relationship was not implied nor required. There would be no right to consort. The gay activists did not want that. They wanted recognition of the sexual partnership, not the opportunity to the same non-sexual aspects of mutual care that heterosexual couples get, and they specifically did not want a set-up that was open to adults who had no sexual relationship!

That rejection, a rejection that meant barring some other people from rights that they say they need and ought to have, uncovered this movement to me for what it is. It is a bid to legally support the false premise that heterosexual sex and partnerships are the same as homosexual ones. The same…that is simply false. A homosexual couple can never produce a child except by sexual consort outside the couple. Considering the interest the state has in protecting the relationship between children and their biological parents, that is a huge difference.

Yes, I agree. And for this reason, one can foresee that any institution that is NOT called marriage, or differs in any way, will be unacceptable to the gay movement.

 

[Rau]

Giving gay couples access to social security survivor benefits does not “oppress” you. Giving gay couples hospital visitation rights does not “oppress” you. Giving gay couples access to dependent employment benefits, power of attorney, and joint tax filing does not “oppress” you. We want those things. But apparently we can’t have them because that makes YOU uncomfortable.

None of that makes me uncomfortable, and I believe a great many would agree with me. But why would such an arrangement need to be called Marriage, which is an intrinsically sexual relationship through which the society builds itself?

 

[EasterJoy]

The notion that homosexual sex is wrong is a subjective opinion. There is no “proof” of “God’s Law.” Since homosexual sex does not negatively impact the rights of the uninvolved, there is no basis for public policy…

The uninvolved? Trying to get tax breaks and other advantages for sexual partnerships that are to be denied to couples who are identical in every way except that they don’t have sex–who does that leave “uninvolved”? The children born out of wedlock so that these couples can pretend that homosexual sex actually produces children when it never can? How about the siblings that the homosexuals want to deny “mutual care rights” that “don’t hurt anybody”?

Besides, the movement to define marriage so that it could include same-sex couples is not a movement to overturn laws against homosexual acts. It is a movement to have homosexual acts recognized as being in every way the same in the eyes of the law as heterosexual acts. It is a movement to deny the particular and unique nature of heterosexual acts and heterosexual relationships, those being the biological foundation that produces tomorrow’s citizens, something that over the course of human history has intricately intertwined the production of children with a life-long relationship between the biological parents. How does it not involve the public to enshrine an *obvious lie *into law, the lie that says that the unions homosexual “parents” are exactly the same as those of actual biological parents?

What concerns me is how the rotten foundation of no-fault divorce, contraception, and planned out-of-wedlock birth has paved the way for the perpetration of this lie. People seem to have forgotten why the state ever cared about marriage at all. They seem to think romantic partners deserve to have everyone approve of them until they quit approving of each other, and then everyone ought to approve when they split up, and that is what marriage is all about. How sad.

 

[josh987654321]

When did subjective opinions about sex become grounds for public policy?

So may I ask, when did your subjective opinions about sex become grounds for public policy?

I think u’ll find you cut yourself with the very same knife you try and cut us with.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

The thing that made me sit up and notice is when Oregon gay activists rejected a proposal (which our archbishop said would be acceptable) for adults barred from marriage to give each other the benefits of marriage required for mutual care. The idea was that a sexual relationship was not implied nor required. There would be no right to consort. The gay activists did not want that. They wanted recognition of the sexual partnership, not the opportunity to the same non-sexual aspects of mutual care that heterosexual couples get, and they specifically did not want a set-up that was open to adults who had no sexual relationship!

That rejection, a rejection that meant barring some other people from rights that they say they need and ought to have, uncovered this movement to me for what it is. It is a bid to legally support the false premise that heterosexual sex and partnerships are the same as homosexual ones. The same…that is simply false. A homosexual couple can never produce a child except by sexual consort outside the couple. Considering the interest the state has in protecting the relationship between children and their biological parents, that is a huge difference.

I cannot, in good conscience, do anything but fight a movement that is meant to enshrine a falsehood into law. The gay activists say that heterosexual-only marriage is the falsehood, but they are simply wrong. It isn’t just their opinion vs. mine, like whether the nation’s money ought to be paper or metal or whether the flag ought to have some certain number of stars and stripes on it. This is a matter of truth vs. falsehood. Call that religious, but that is why those who aren’t homosexual do care about this very much. It isn’t oppression of gays that is the issue. It is the suppression of the truth that is the issue.

To oppose same-sex “marriage” is also vital in opposing the rise of the use of surrogacy by gays and the use of sperm donors by lesbians, which I believe is a huge abuse of parental power. To plan to beget a child with the intention to exclude at least one of the child’s biological parents from the child’s life is an abuse of power. This is not about being “wanted”. A child is not a puppy or a colt. No one should be able to do that to a child on purpose, and no one should be allowed to use their sexual faculty in a manner that does that to a child. It is just wrong, even from the most secular of vantage points.

Amen

 

[josh987654321]

I can’t believe I just read this, you are definitely very poorly informed. It does matter who someone is sleeping with. If you have AIDS, it matters who you are sleeping with. If you have herpes or any sexually transmitted disease it matters who you are sleeping with. If you are not ready to be a mother or father it matters who you are sleeping with. If you are married it matters who you are sleeping with. If you have children it matters who you are sleeping with. Sick people, starving people, homelessness and poverty, I wonder how different that would be if people concerned themselves with who they are sleeping with. A family member of mine and his siblings were poor and homeless because their father said the same thing. What does it matter who I am sleeping with and then deserted them because it didn’t matter. Well, it does matter. It matters a great lot. It matters to each and every persons dignity, including yours, so I hope that is not your attitude for relationships because God has a much greater plan for you than that.

Just because there are other problems doesn’t mean one particular problem is irrelevant.

God doesn’t punish homosexuals because they are homosexuals. God is a loving and just God, who knows everyones heart but we will all be judged by our actions. Homosexuals too, can lead chaste and godly lives and there are many that do.

Also, I am a nurse who has worked with AIDS patients in the past and have seen death from poor choices and I can’t tell you how many men regretted their past lives of being sexually involved with another man. I have seen the physical and emotional trauma that accompanies this lifestyle. The anger, the sadness because they didn’t listen or someone kept telling them it is okay, nothing will happen to you and believed the lie that it is okay…? Best look before you think this is not harming anyone.

Problem is today many don’t care. They would rather use the homosexual for a vote or a movie or tv show that brings in a lot of money or a youth novelist who thinks the subject would be popular and therefore can make a lot of money. That is not caring but just meanness and extremely sad. Using someone for personal gain without any care of the end result to that person, only selfish gain.

False hope is all the world is offering homosexuals or anyone for that matter. Jesus Christ is the only answer and he can individually bring peace to each and everyone but not if they listen to lies such as, “it doesn’t matter who anyone sleeps with.”

I would suggest you visit the website of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and read for yourselves. It is really sad that the world has silenced the CDC and they are not loudly informing people of the dangers of an active homosexual lifestyle, yet allowing the world to encourage young men to pursue this lifestyle. It is like giving them poison. Check it out:

cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

I would also encourage you to visit the website Courage and read personal testimonies.

Also, if you are homosexual or have homosexual family members God is there. God is ready to listen to prayers and wants to bring them home and bring them peace. Never give false hope but a sure cure of Jesus Christ. Pray.

Thank you Diana Catherine. I am amazed at the silence of the scentific community on this.

 

[josh987654321]

Also, if you are homosexual or have homosexual family members God is there. God is ready to listen to prayers and wants to bring them home and bring them peace. Never give false hope but a sure cure of Jesus Christ. Pray.

Id also like to add to this, that if the light uncovers our sins, love is also there ready to cover them, so don’t be afraid, the truth will set you free.

“The deaf who deny they are deaf will never hear; the sinners who deny there is sin deny thereby the remedy of sin, and thus cut themselves off forever from Him Who came to redeem.” - Fulton J. Sheen

“It’s better to be awakened by a hard truth than put to sleep by a seductive lie” - Dr Phil.

Thank you for reading
Josh