Forcing Morality on Others

[cathoichelp]

It is evident from your continued responses that when you are unable to refute anyone’s argument you resort to banalities and generalisations. I listed numerous groups and organisations that have conducted research into the issues of promiscuity amongst the homosexual community, including direct evidence from practicing homosexuals and all you can say is the argument is pointless and comical?! You intially laughed off suggestions that promiscuity was even an issue and because the evidence that refutes your opinion was put forward you attempt to laugh it off. That’s intellectual juvenilism.

Again your disengenuousness and duplicity is obvious. The question was why you had ignored the cited references which showed that homosexualn promiscuity was a massive problem. No-one that I recall accused you of ignoring “people”. You have deliberately tried to sidestep yet another issue.

The web site, as I have explained already, cited statistics from other groups, organisations and individuals. I listed each one. Only the last paragraph was an opinion. If you’d read the document, you’d have noted that. It seems that your refusal to accept the statistics and conclusions of those organisations is because they were collated on a ‘religious site’. Your bias towards religion is the problem here. Also, if you had done your homework instead of being intellectually lazy, you’d have looked up who or what that particular website actually represents. The website is called Traditional Values Coalition and on its About page it clearly states that it is “… the largest non-denominational, grassroots church lobby in America.” Considering how you refused to take any notice of cited references because they were collated on a ‘religious’ site, it is clear you would refuse the right of religious organisations to voice an opinion when that opinion conflicts with your own preconciieved ideas.

It would seem that I draw the same conclusions as Elizabeth502, who wrote in post #120 that you can’t be taken seriously.

And I have posted links and references to current research that proves the opposite of what your links showed…
soooo -
shouldn’t be just suddenly believe me since i have showed you the studies that show that data is false???

There is an extant myth, propagated by the Christian Right, that homosexuals engage in highly promiscuous behavior. Granted, there are some homosexuals that do engage in such behavior. But there are heterosexuals that do the same thing. What is important to recognize is the substantial heterosexist bias that causes people to ignore heterosexual flaws while highlighting homosexual flaws.

a) One study which appears to support the idea that homosexuals are highly promiscuous was published by Bell and Weinberg, and is often cited by the Christian Right, and even some secular sources. However, their data is highly suspicious, and cannot be generalized to the entire homosexual population. Because of their methodology, their data is valuable only as a case study for the sample they studied, but it is not by any means representative of the general gay population. See Appendix A for my specific critique of this study, and why their statistics on gay promiscuity are so bizarrely high.

b) In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)–they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.

jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html
In another set of studies, the first (n=2664) showed that gay men had an average of 6.5 sexual partners in the past 5 years. In fact, the authors of this paper report that “homosexual and bisexual men are much more likely than heterosexual men to be celibate” given the data in the table below, which compares their data to a second, parallel study of only heterosexual men (n=1235, age=18-49 yrs). The table indicates the percentage of men having the given number of sexual partners in the previous year [top row: Binson; bottom row: Dolcini]:

A third major study, by Laumann, appears on the surface to indicate that gay men do have many more sexual partners than heterosexual men. However, a more extensive analysis of the data gives a more balanced perspective. Laumann fails to explore the radically skewed nature of the data. Typically this indicates that the mean, the statistic presented by Laumann, may not be the best measure to report. A further analysis of the GSS data (on which Laumann based his results) indicates that the median (50th percentile) number of sexual partners for heterosexuals is five and for homosexuals is six (jeramyt.org/gss/partners.html). The discrepancy between the mean and median is indicative of a small sub-population of gay males who tend towards high rates of sexual partners, skewing the mean, while the majority of gay men tend to have rates about the same as heterosexual males.

 

[cathoichelp]

Charlemagne II
Pedophiles are still going to be pedophiles but we put them in jail the law does not make it so they don’t exist it makes it so we can prosecute them -
should homosexuals be jailed for having intercourse?

Elizabeth -
Making things illegal is not going to change that - if you feel that homosexuals are damaging society they are doing it married or not …
You are not making homosexuals celibate by making it illegal for them to have a civil union or marriage to protect each other - their family - and their assets under the law-
The relationships exist regardless … it is not going to go away -
We have a right to not agree with each other lifestyles … I get that -

it seems that not everyone agrees w what you find moral because more and more we see states granting unions or recognizing unions from other states.
csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0131/Illinois-governor-signs-civil-unions-bill-is-gay-marriage-next

If DOMA is over turned the federal gov’t will recognize them.
notice that is a supreme court case …
Because its a matter of basic civil rights …
we don’t all get together and vote if African American’s can vote … or so and so can ____ -
oh wait yes we have… and it gets over turned.

Not because laws aren’t moral but because laws are to protect EVERYONE regardless of religion …
It does not protect the rights of homosexual couples to not allow them the same union rights under civil law as hetrosexual couples.

If laws ONLY protected the minority … women and african americans still would not have rights -

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I am personally skeptical of all surveys of homosexual and heterosexual behavior. This is an area where, if people are going to lie, they are going to lie big time.

However, the death rate for homosexual men dying from AIDS is 300,000 in America alone. That is not a survey where you can lie. It is a medical fact.

That AIDS has entered the heterosexual population through bi-sexual behavior is also well documented.

That sodomy is also responsible for rectal damage there can be no doubt. Ask the physician at your regional state prison.

Sodomy is a universal public health problem and has been recognized as such by every civilization with a brain since the dawn of human history.

Even so, some people just don’t get … because they don’t want to get it.

 

[cathoichelp]

STDs are not only in the gay community and most heterosexuals that get AIDS get it from IV drug use not sex w bisexuals …

20 million Americans (mostly straight women) have HPV … just under 5000 die a year of cervical cancer -that has been greatly reduced by pap smears …
the leading (if not sole) cause of cervical cancer is HPV with around 80 percent of sexually active straight women in the US have -

Should women no longer be allowed to get married ?
or should straight men not be allowed to marry women because HPV can kill women but is not as serious in a man …
Aren’t straight men killing women??

Should we just make sex itself illegal?
Or should people of all orientations learn self and mutual respect for their bodies and for their partners …
Should the focus be outlawing sex for certain people …
Or perhaps creating a culture that is not so over sexualized -

Call me crazy but i think we’ll have more success if we focus on raising self confidence aware children who value their body and respect other people than we will outlawing the marriage of others.

 

[cathoichelp]

This is my morality … I value and promote tolerance and respect.
The topic of this thread is should my morality be forced on you.

So that begs the question … should it be ok for me to start pushing for laws that force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriage?
Because if the answer is NO - then it would seem to me you don’t want my morality forced on you …
So why should the secular world- those who do not agreeing w the church- have to follow the doctrine of who should be allowed to marry?
It’s not about murder or harming society its about 2 people who more than likely are not even catholic who are already in a relationship that you find disordered who just want the same civil marriage rights as you -

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Charlemagne II;7728023:

I still don’t see why it’s so hard to recognize that the laws of the land all constitute a forcing of the morality of some on the morality of others.

For example, there are laws against pedophilia. But there are people who would like to make it legal (NAMBLA = North American Man/Boy Love Association). No doubt they think the Christian majority are forcing their morals on them.

So what!

Should the law be changed to accommodate the civil rights of pedophiles?

that’s not so much morality as it is protecting children .…
Its rather clear that having sexual relationships w children hurts them -
Its also rather clear that people killing each other is not positive
laws are meant to protect and create order … not force morality - i mean i guess in a way that is morality but its rather basic morality …

Wow. What a terrible and incoherent argument. Charlemagne mentioned NAMBLA in his post to which you responded and you talk about protection of children?

NAMBLA is pushing for reform to lower the age of consent to have sex. If NAMBLA is successful in your state, for instance, it could go down to 14 from the current age of consent at 16. If one has a 15 y.o. son and an adult homosexual successfully seduces the son, and they have ‘consensual’ sex, the parent would not have a viable statutory rape cause of action. If you are the parent in that case, would it be okay with you as long as your son consents, no harm no foul then? Or, would it be okay with you as long as you are not the parent concerned?

You can reject morality as Catholics understand and accept it. But you are wasting your time in making this site a perch for misguided beliefs and values.

Tolerance and respect, right …
Your morality, right …
,

 

[cathoichelp]

Wow. What a terrible and incoherent argument. Charlemagne mentioned NAMBLA in his post to which you responded and you talk about protection of children?

NAMBLA is pushing for reform to lower the age of consent to have sex. If NAMBLA is successful in your state, for instance, it could go down to 14 from the current age of consent at 16. If one has a 15 y.o. son and an adult homosexual successfully seduces the son, and they have ‘consensual’ sex, the parent would not have a viable statutory rape cause of action. If you are the parent in that case, would it be okay with you as long as your son consents, no harm no foul then? Or, would it be okay with you as long as you are not the parent concerned?

You can reject morality as Catholics understand and accept it. But you are wasting your time in making this site a perch for misguided beliefs and values.

Tolerance and respect, right …
Your morality, right …
,

This is untrue
In MA the age of consent is 16 or 18 depending on the situation - and 18 if the person is a virgin (having intercourse with someone over 21)
However if the person is a person of power - a teacher an employer member of the clergy ect the age of consent is actually higher in MA - usually 18 or 21 - depending on the situation

It is not going to go down to 14 because that is against the federal age of consent …
so I highly doubt the NAMBLA is going to successful in changing the federal laws -

 

[PJM]

=OrangeOwl;7717080]Tonight I was discussing the Catholic religion with a non-religious friend. It’s something that I don’t do very often, because it’s not something I’m very comfortable with. I’m always afraid that I’m going to say something inaccurate about the Church or I’ll say it in such a way that’ll make my friend dismiss the Church entirely. What’s worse, sometimes I find myself just parroting the Church’s position on issues, when I’m not really sure that I’m convinced by her position myself.

Basically, he was saying that he doesn’t have a problem with religious people as long as they don’t force their views on others. I tried to say that we don’t, but part of me feels that we do.

I guess I’m thinking particularly about how Catholics are basically not allowed to support the legalization of gay marriage. I really can’t find a convincing argument against gay marriage that isn’t rooted in religious views. (And, please, let’s just leave it at that, because I don’t want to get into a discussion over whether something is or is not a convincing argument). So I’m supposed to tell non-Catholics that gay people can’t get married because the religion I adhere to says so?

This makes me feel uneasy. To what extent are Catholics obligated to turn the country’s laws into the Church’s laws? What is the Church’s position on enforcing the 10 Commandments on the non-Catholics?

On CAF, I have read people talk about how the Church tried, in the past, to keep/make divorce and adultery illegal. So exactly where do we draw the line, then? Are we supposed to also support banning condoms and making it illegal to not attend Sunday services or to eat meat on Lenten Fridays? In the very far fetched situation where a woman must choose between her life and the life of her unborn child, can I support her right to *choose *an abortion? Am I supposed to believe that separation of church and state is a bad thing?

I just don’t know. I am feeling very frustrated. I try very hard to be in line with the Church, but so often it feels like I’m losing this battle. I feel like I am constantly fighting against my own opinions, because I very often feel like I’m not allowed to have them (when they deviate from a Church position).

I don’t want anyone to change their minds on Church positions based on this post. In fact, I hope they don’t. Instead, rather, I hope someone can help me see the Church’s position. Or at least how to reconcile these conflicting thoughts in my head.

It’s actually rather symplistic: Catholics can do EVERYTHING God approves of and ought not do anything God does NOT approve of…Like everyone else we too have choices to make and can freely choos to make the right one; or the wrong one. Heaven and hell are real and God is in charge! Let these facts guide us all.

God Bless,

Pat

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This is untrue
In MA the age of consent is 16 or 18 depending on the situation - and 18 if the person is a virgin (having intercourse with someone over 21)
However if the person is a person of power - a teacher an employer member of the clergy ect the age of consent is actually higher in MA - usually 18 or 21 - depending on the situation

It is not going to go down to 14 because that is against the federal age of consent …
so I highly doubt the NAMBLA is going to successful in changing the federal laws -

Your reply does not really render what I stated as untrue. I took the age of consent for MA from AGE OF CONSENT CHART FOR THE U.S. - 2010.

As for the federal role, you can read this: The US Federal Age of Sexual Consent, which says

Given complexities, we can say that different US states grant people the legal authority to agree to various sexual activities at ages ranging from about 14 to 18.

Your last statement is a wish, an opinion. You know how it goes, people and organizations try to push the envelope, depending on motivation. NAMBLA’s motivation is aligned with LGBT oranizations in many respects. You can do your own research.
,

 

[cathoichelp]

Your reply does not really render what I stated as untrue. I took the age of consent for MA from AGE OF CONSENT CHART FOR THE U.S. - 2010.

As for the federal role, you can read this: The US Federal Age of Sexual Consent, which says

Given complexities, we can say that different US states grant people the legal authority to agree to various sexual activities at ages ranging from about 14 to 18.

Your last statement is a wish, an opinion. You know how it goes, people and organizations try to push the envelope, depending on motivation. NAMBLA’s motivation is aligned with LGBT oranizations in many respects. You can do your own research.
,

MA law changed in 2011
in MA age of consent is 16 in most cases 18-21 in other cases -

Federal law is 16 to 18
under 16 you have a 4 year span starting at age 12
so a 12 year old could have intercourse w a 15 year old … depending on the state laws-

Sorry I misread your post as you saying that they WERE trying to actively change the age … not that the group i general wants a lower age of consent -
sorry about that

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

What I would like you to answer from my post:

If one has a 15 y.o. son and an adult homosexual successfully seduces the son, and they have ‘consensual’ sex, the parent would not have a viable statutory rape cause of action. If you are the parent in that case, would it be okay with you as long as your son consents, no harm no foul then? Or, would it be okay with you as long as you are not the parent concerned?

Please elaborate how your tolerance and morality would apply in the above situation.
,

 

[cathoichelp]

What I would like you to answer from my post:

If one has a 15 y.o. son and an adult homosexual successfully seduces the son, and they have ‘consensual’ sex, the parent would not have a viable statutory rape cause of action. If you are the parent in that case, would it be okay with you as long as your son consents, no harm no foul then? Or, would it be okay with you as long as you are not the parent concerned?

Please elaborate how your tolerance and morality would apply in the above situation.
,

check back in 10 minutes on this one … I just put my kids to bed - let see how many times they jump up and down before they are asleep lol
then i can give you an elaborate answer

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is my morality … I value and promote tolerance and respect.
The topic of this thread is should my morality be forced on you.

So that begs the question … should it be ok for me to start pushing for laws that force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriage?
Because if the answer is NO - then it would seem to me you don’t want my morality forced on you …
So why should the secular world- those who do not agreeing w the church- have to follow the doctrine of who should be allowed to marry?
It’s not about murder or harming society its about 2 people who more than likely are not even catholic who are already in a relationship that you find disordered who just want the same civil marriage rights as you -

(1) Once again the same, “When will you stop beating your wife?” argument. (The wife is not being beaten.)
No morality is being “forced” on non-Catholics by the Catholic Church. Within certain bounds of physical security, there is in general free speech in this country. Any person or institution is allowed to suggest, to urge, to advocate --to engage in a campaign, even --to counsel for and against certain behaviors. Just as public officials do when they counsel against and for certain behaviors. (“Parents, you should monitor your children’s homework and academic progress, and contribute to that progress.” That is a morally-laden instruction, framing parental involvement as a moral obligation. “Protect the environment” is not just a practical suggestion but has moral overtones to it as well, by those who advocate it but are not religiously affiliated.)

(2) If Catholics are “forcing” (not) morality onto non-Catholics, then that “forcing” pales in comparison to the outright 24/7 campaign by the Gay Lobby for “rights” for themselves that have been manufactured, due to assumptions of privileges that are not theirs to have by reason of a union not legitimately justifying formal recognition by the State. The Catholic Church is not in the face of the public with nearly the reach of the Gay Lobby and its partners: the mainstream media.

(3) To posit the illegitimacy of any person or institution to influence (not “force”) the direction of morality for society, is to eviscerate the entire concept of The Common Good.

(4) To posit the illegitimacy of any person or institution to influence morality in the secular sphere is to abandon any rationale for a legal code, for standards of behavior within professions, because in assuming that all morality is private and personal, society is stripped of its authority to recognize any absolute standards. Everything is relative, so sometimes murder (not in self-defense or in war) must be OK. It’s OK for me, perhaps, even if you “feel” it’s not OK for you.

The Catholic Church has no power to “force” morality on others (actually including its own members; it can only declare moral absolutes, but has very little power to enforce them).

The State has power to “force” morality on others only insofar as that morality is codified into law: thus, murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud etc. ----> all of which have morality as their foundation. Private behavior, to the extent that it does not break laws (and sodomy does not, nor does fornication, nor does adultery – unless accompanied by bigamy, but it’s the bigamy that is restricted, not the sex) is not enforceable.

Moral behavior which has social consequences (murder, assaut, theft, rape, fraud, etc.) is indeed codifiable, and thus considered a valid function of the state to enforce.

 

[cathoichelp]

What I would like you to answer from my post:

If one has a 15 y.o. son and an adult homosexual successfully seduces the son, and they have ‘consensual’ sex, the parent would not have a viable statutory rape cause of action. If you are the parent in that case, would it be okay with you as long as your son consents, no harm no foul then? Or, would it be okay with you as long as you are not the parent concerned?

Please elaborate how your tolerance and morality would apply in the above situation.
,

I don’t totally understand the question -
Here in MA you can be charged under the same laws for homosexual stat rape as heterosexual stat rape -
so someone who seduces a 15 year old in MA would be charged with stat rape - if that 15 year old was a virgin that is an additional crime in MA​

So I am not understanding how this would not be a case … it would be a case even if I didn’t want it to be a case as the state does not need mine or my sons consent to prosecute this.

That being said -
My reaction to this would not be any different than if my son had heterosexual sex w an adult while he was 15…
Or if my daughter did for that matter.

My primary concern would be my child - and from there i would need more details … Is this an 18 year old?
Is this a 30 year old?
The implications are much different in these two situations
Clearly if my 15 year old is consenting to having sex w a 30 year old there is much more of an issue for both parties than if my 15 year old has sex w a 18 year old …
(not that i would be thrilled w my 15 year old having sex in general but the conversation and how I react greatly changes depending on what exactly happened)
I can’t say I would react one set way unless you give me more details -

If what you are asking pertains to a 15 year old and a 30 year old -
yes that can be prosecuted -
and yes I do see this as criminal. Be it a man or a women seducing my 15 year old someone who is 30 should not be having sex w someone who is 15 -

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cathoichelp

*It’s not about murder or harming society its about 2 people who more than likely are not even catholic who are already in a relationship that you find disordered who just want the same civil marriage rights as you - *

I’m not the only one who finds sodomy disordered. Heterosexual relationships by nature are not disordered. If everyone who lives in a disordered relationship has to have civil rights the same as those granted to heterosexuals, then why aren’t you fighting for the rights of adult mothers to marry their sons, and fathers to marry their daughters? Certainly you could not argue that incestuous marriage is a disordered relationship. At least the sexual parts fit each other, which is more than can be said for gay marriage.

Do you not see from this how truly absurd your argument is?

Next you will be arguing for the civil right to be murdered so long as the murderer and the person to be murdered consent to the murder. But then, of course, you would be arguing that such a relationship is not disordered because both parties are mutually agreeable. So society would be obliged to enact a law protecting such murders from prosecution?

 

[cathoichelp]

Elizabeth two men or two women getting married does not effect society in a negative way
it is not rape assault murder ect …
Those are the kinds of “morality” laws impose - if you want to call it morality - it is better defined as protect of citizens
Clearly murder and rape do not contribute to the common good… where as Adam and Steve getting married may be “disordered” by the opinions of some … it does not effect their neighbors in a negative way.
It only effects Adam and Steve … their taxes their health INS their assets and their children.

Adam and Steve can still exist as a couple and even as a family w/o marriage they are just lacking civil marriages -

So really not allowing them to marry is not changing the fabric of society
unless you believe that 2 men or 2 women having civil marriage rights hurts society because the relationship and union exists anyway -
what is lacking is
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

to name a few -

 

[cathoichelp]

cathoichelp

It’s not about murder or harming society its about 2 people who more than likely are not even catholic who are already in a relationship that you find disordered who just want the same civil marriage rights as you -

I’m not the only one who finds sodomy disordered. Heterosexual relationships by nature are not disordered. If everyone who lives in a disordered relationship has to have civil rights the same as those granted to heterosexuals, then why aren’t you fighting for the rights of adult mothers to marry their sons, and fathers to marry their daughters? Certainly you could not argue that incestuous marriage is a disordered relationship. At least the sexual parts fit each other, which is more than can be said for gay marriage.

Do you not see from this how truly absurd your argument is?

Next you will be arguing for the civil right to be murdered so long as the murderer and the person to be murdered consent to the murder. But then, of course, you would be arguing that such a relationship is not disordered because both parties are mutually agreeable. So society would be obliged to enact a law protecting such murders from prosecution?

Because there is nothing in common w two men getting married and a mother marrying her son …
First of all inbreeding is dangerous -
second of all incest is hurtful and damaging
to say that a mother having sex with her son is less harmful than two consenting homosexuals really worries me - do you honestly think that?
Because two peoples parts fits together it’s better?
Incest generally involves physiological threats … convincing a child this is normal - threats of violence ect …

two people of the same sex who are both consenting adults in love are not anything like a mother marrying her son -

NO society that has allowed gay marriage has legalized incest or murder
that is absurd
Gay marriage has been legal in some places for a decade now and still family mother’s aren’t allowed to marry their sons …
nor are murders allowed to go free if some how the dead person consented … how on earth you would even prove that is beyond me but hey if you say so

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cathoi
**
*NO society that has allowed gay marriage has legalized incest or murder
that is absurd ***

I see you don’t buy the slippery slope.

You’re probably not old enough to remember, but a man marrying a man was also absurd 50 years ago. You would have been locked up for a lunatic if you had seriously advocated it.

Now we are at the point of not only tolerating it, but enshrining it in law as a natural right worthy of civil protection.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth two men or two women getting married does not effect society in a negative way
it is not rape assault murder ect …
Those are the kinds of “morality” laws impose - if you want to call it morality - it is better defined as protect of citizens
Clearly murder and rape do not contribute to the common good… where as Adam and Steve getting married may be “disordered” by the opinions of some … it does not effect their neighbors in a negative way.
It only effects Adam and Steve … their taxes their health INS their assets and their children.

Wrong. It changes the fabric of society in a radical way. You need to do far more reading on the history (not just the modernity) of how the ideals of a well-functioning society with the notion of a common good (not a common practicality, but a common understanding of what constitutes the kind of behaviors in a society which work toward a better society), relate to what the State has an interest in promoting or denying.

The entire concept of a society – where that society is headed by institutionalizing same-gender unions in a formal way, making them equivalent to man-woman relationships – is deeply and profoundly affected by Adam & Steve’s union being officially authenticated. It has nothing to do with the morality --or lack thereof (based on individual or Church definitions) of their sex acts with each other, and everything to do with the opposition to social structures which the State has determined affects Adam & Eve as well as Adam & Steve.

And the State awards certain financial benefits to heterosexually married couples so as to continue to encourage that arrangement above all others (cohabitation, homosexuality). There is a reason why they are not offered to homosexual couples, just as they are not offered to single people living together in some Platonic arrangement. Man-woman formalized commitment is considered the most desirable environment in which to reproduce and raise children to contribute to a balanced and stable society. There are no “civil rights” to an arrangement that has been manufactured. Homosexuals are not being prevented from engaging in romantic associations, including serial relationships or multiple relationships. No one’s looking in their bedrooms.

Marriage is not an issue of private behavior; therefore, marriage is not an issue of private morality. It’s about social impact. It’s a social institution, oriented to society, not to individuals or couples as autonomous units. Otherwise there would not be any need for governmental involvement whatsoever: no need for licenses issued by the gov’t. But the State does consider itself invested in the future of families as the most healthy arrangement. The issue of a couple deciding subjectively that their gender-unbalanced relationship is “just as healthy” or “just as valid” or “just like” heterosexual relationships is not the measurement by which governments, through centuries of experience, have observed what is an optimal household to continue the species within the requirements of a well-functioning society. And people who have dabbled, long or short, in the gay lifestyle, have similarly observed that the two kinds of relationships are radically different from each other.

 

[cathoichelp]

Wrong. It changes the fabric of society in a radical way. You need to do far more reading on the history (not just the modernity) of how the ideals of a well-functioning society with the notion of a common good (not a common practicality, but a common understanding of what constitutes the kind of behaviors in a society which work toward a better society), relate to what the State has an interest in promoting or denying.

The entire concept of a society – where that society is headed by institutionalizing same-gender unions in a formal way, making them equivalent to man-woman relationships – is deeply and profoundly affected by Adam & Steve’s union being officially authenticated. It has nothing to do with the morality --or lack thereof (based on individual or Church definitions) of their sex acts with each other, and everything to do with the opposition to social structures which the State has determined affects Adam & Eve as well as Adam & Steve.

And the State awards certain financial benefits to heterosexually married couples so as to continue to encourage that arrangement above all others (cohabitation, homosexuality). There is a reason why they are not offered to homosexual couples, just as they are not offered to single people living together in some Platonic arrangement. Man-woman formalized commitment is considered the most desirable environment in which to reproduce and raise children to contribute to a balanced and stable society. There are no “civil rights” to an arrangement that has been manufactured. Homosexuals are not being prevented from engaging in romantic associations, including serial relationships or multiple relationships. No one’s looking in their bedrooms.

Marriage is not an issue of private behavior; therefore, marriage is not an issue of private morality. It’s about social impact. It’s a social institution, oriented to society, not to individuals or couples as autonomous units. Otherwise there would not be any need for governmental involvement whatsoever: no need for licenses issued by the gov’t. But the State does consider itself invested in the future of families as the most healthy arrangement. The issue of a couple deciding subjectively that their gender-unbalanced relationship is “just as healthy” or “just as valid” or “just like” heterosexual relationships is not the measurement by which governments, through centuries of experience, have observed what is an optimal household to continue the species within the requirements of a well-functioning society. And people who have dabbled, long or short, in the gay lifestyle, have similarly observed that the two kinds of relationships are radically different from each other.

This is not true-
The state does not give marriage rights in order for couples to have children.
I can get married and not have children …
AND farther more - homosexual couples do have children …
So shouldn’t their children be protected just as your children are?