"Gay Day" Ruined Our Day at Cedar Point

[ContegoFides]

Then why are you posting to a Catholic forum? Our laws rational basis is based upon the will of the people. Catholics have just as much right to try and have their will reflected in the law as does anyone else. From a Catholic standpoint the more our society legitimizes grevious sin the more souls that are endangered. It is not a act of love to encourage people in their sin.

Well said.

 

[ContegoFides]

Read my posts more carefully. I call it “formerly known as marriage” because the “life-long” part in society’s definition changes with the advent no-fault divorce. You and I on the same side in this debate.

I’m glad to hear it.

However, my personal opinion is that we should not call it “formerly known as marriage” as I believe such language plays into the hands of the moral relativist, even if it is in jest or as a sarcastic retort.

 

[estesbob]

I’m glad to hear it.

However, my personal opinion is that we should not call it “formerly known as marriage” as I believe such language plays into the hands of the moral relativist, even if it is in jest or as a sarcastic retort.

Agreed. I also think that denigrates the marriage of those of us that are in a long term commited Catholic marriage. There is nothing so called about my marriage.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…You have shown no “disorder” at all beyond the kind of “disorder” shared with other infertile couples. I consider this only “uncommon” as in “statistically less common than the general population” and find no immoral component in it whatsoever. The same level of “disorder” as red hair…

Red hair is not a disorder. But…I’ll work the analogy. Some people have red hair because they are born that way, other people choose to engage in acts that make their hair red. There is a difference.

You continually compare hetero-sexual infertile couples to homosexual couples. Perhaps you do not realize how painful and offensive your remarks may be for some people who struggle with infertility. It’s *absolutely *not the same. Infertile hetero-sexual couples engage in the reproductive act, but those reproductive acts fail to result pregnancy. Occassionally a couple who believed they were infertile discover they weren’t infertile after all. Homosexuals do not engage in reproductive acts with each other ever. There is *no *chance that they will one day discover that their homosexual acts resulted in pregnancy because homosexual acts are not and never can be reproductive acts.

The reproductive act requires both male and female body parts. We also call the reproductive act “the marital act”. Marriage requires both male and female because the reproductive act requires both male and female. Even if the act does not result in reproduction each and every time, the union of male and female body parts is still the reproductive act.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m glad to hear it.

However, my personal opinion is that we should not call it “formerly known as marriage” as I believe such language plays into the hands of the moral relativist, even if it is in jest or as a sarcastic retort.

Okay, I’m guilty of language plays and apparantly I have to fight my tendacy towards sarcasm a little harder.

But…I still note that the definition of marriage changed when divorce became acceptible and contraceptive use became widespread. While we can’t determine just by looking at a hetero-sexual couple, there is a vast difference between the divorced guy working on his third or fourth trophy wife from the traditional marriage of one man and one woman for life. I do kinda feel for homo-sexuals who are accused of destroying marriage, when they didn’t start it. In some ways, I think many of them may simply be the not-so-innocent victums of our society. Childless-by-choice-through-contraception and Serial-Polygamy-through divorce-and-re-marriage produced some rather ugly offspring. They march around in parades and attend parks in large number, demanding that they too be allowed to make a mockery of marriage.

 

[larkin31]

Red hair is not a disorder. But…I’ll work the analogy. Some people have red hair because they are born that way, other people choose to engage in acts that make their hair red. There is a difference.

You continually compare hetero-sexual infertile couples to homosexual couples. Perhaps you do not realize how painful and offensive your remarks may be for some people who struggle with infertility. It’s *absolutely *not the same. Infertile hetero-sexual couples engage in the reproductive act, but those reproductive acts fail to result pregnancy. Occassionally a couple who believed they were infertile discover they weren’t infertile after all. Homosexuals do not engage in reproductive acts with each other ever. There is *no *chance that they will one day discover that their homosexual acts resulted in pregnancy because homosexual acts are not and never can be reproductive acts.

The reproductive act requires both male and female body parts. We also call the reproductive act “the marital act”. Marriage requires both male and female because the reproductive act requires both male and female. Even if the act does not result in reproduction each and every time, the union of male and female body parts is still the reproductive act.

So you know, I was classified as infertile for over a year, and I also have lost a pregnancy to miscarriage (my wife did). I am very familiar with those struggles and stresses.

My point is that we already allow infertile marriages and infertile sex. We accept it in heteros, and it effects their legitimacy to be married NOT AT ALL. Post-menopausal men and women are also free to marry. Their infertility has nothing to do with their marriage licenses, either. ONLY their gender does, NOT their reproductivity. To hold REPRODUCTIVITY against homosexuals and NOT against heterosexuals is to argue from a position of legal mistreatment (it is not “equal treatment under the law”). To justify doing so requires a STRONG social harm to be clearly evident. Which, so far, homosexuality has not had.

 

[gardenswithkids]

So you know, I was classified as infertile for over a year, and I also have lost a pregnancy to miscarriage (my wife did). I am very familiar with those struggles and stresses.

My point is that we already allow infertile marriages and infertile sex. We accept it in heteros, and it effects their legitimacy to be married NOT AT ALL. Post-menopausal men and women are also free to marry. Their infertility has nothing to do with their marriage licenses, either. ONLY their gender does, NOT their reproductivity. To hold REPRODUCTIVITY against homosexuals and NOT against heterosexuals is to argue from a position of legal mistreatment (it is not “equal treatment under the law”). To justify doing so requires a STRONG social harm to be clearly evident. Which, so far, homosexuality has not had.

I’m sorry for your wife’s pregnancy loss and your struggle with infertility.

Most infertile hetero-sexual couples do not know that they are infertile when they marry. In the “ideal” moral world, how could they know if they are fertile or not when they have not engaged in sex or tried to get pregnant before marriage? It would be ludicrous to say two people aren’t married until they have a child together. HOWEVER, the state laws (not just church but state) currently allow annulments for a couple who have not consumated their marriage. How is consumation of a marriage defined? Through the reproductive act. Not reproduction per se, but the reproductive act. There is a legal difference between an annulment and a divorce. Without the reproductive act, a marriage can be declared null and void.

Yes, gender matters. Homosexual relationship *exclude *members of the opposite sex. They are not naturally diverse the way heterosexual relationships are.

You keep talking about equal treatment. Okay, let talks about equality. We women demand equal treatment under the law, and I boldly declare that no marriage can exist without a woman! (Men have those same equal rights, and therefore no marriage exist without a man too.) There’s some gender equality for you. 1 man, 1 woman–that’s the gender quota required for marriage. It’s very equal.

 

[larkin31]

I’m sorry for your wife’s pregnancy loss and your struggle with infertility.

Most infertile hetero-sexual couples do not know that they are infertile when they marry. In the “ideal” moral world, how could they know if they are fertile or not when they have not engaged in sex or tried to get pregnant before marriage? It would be ludicrous to say two people aren’t married until they have a child together. HOWEVER, the state laws (not just church but state) currently allow for declare annulments for a couple who have married if they have not consumated the marriage. How does one define consumation of a marriage? Through the reproductive act. Not reproduction per se, but the reproductive act. There is a legal difference between an annulment and a divorce. Without the reproductive act, a marriage can be declared null and void.

Yes, fertility is very important, and the lack can be grounds for divorce or annulment. But it is not presently a necessary requirement for hetero marriage to be valid.

Yes, gender matters. Homosexual relationship *exclude *members of the opposite sex. They are not naturally diverse the way heterosexual relationships are.

You keep talking about equal treatment. Okay, let talks about equality. We women demand equal treatment under the law, and I boldly declare that no marriage can exist without a woman! (Men have those same equal rights, and therefore no marriage exist without a man too.) There’s some gender equality for you. 1 man, 1 woman–that’s the gender quota required for marriage. It’s very equal.

ha

I like this reply, actually!

But we know that the issue is otherwise…It would also be “equal” to simply cancel ALL marriage and never allow any again.

hmmmm…

 

[ContegoFides]

So you know, I was classified as infertile for over a year, and I also have lost a pregnancy to miscarriage (my wife did). I am very familiar with those struggles and stresses.

My point is that we already allow infertile marriages and infertile sex. We accept it in heteros, and it effects their legitimacy to be married NOT AT ALL. Post-menopausal men and women are also free to marry. Their infertility has nothing to do with their marriage licenses, either. ONLY their gender does, NOT their reproductivity. To hold REPRODUCTIVITY against homosexuals and NOT against heterosexuals is to argue from a position of legal mistreatment (it is not “equal treatment under the law”). To justify doing so requires a STRONG social harm to be clearly evident. Which, so far, homosexuality has not had.

I am sorry for your loss. I and my wife, too, suffered a miscarriage two years ago. I’m also classified as infirtile - Dr. told me zero percent chance for more kids for me, though my wife and I had a miracle birth last year.

Incorrect, acceptance of homosexuality has had a tremendous negative impact on society. The acceptance of homosexuality is yet another symptom of how disrespectfully we now treat the sexual faculties. Sex is no longer thought of as being for reproduction, or for something special one can do within the sanctity of marriage, but rather primarily for selfish pleasure. We see it in the acceptance of porn, adultery, serial monogomy, fornication, masturbation, and all manner of sexual expressions that are taken out of one or both of the two obvious purposes of sex. By making acceptance of homosexual acts more and more acceptable - indeed, by making disapproval of homosexual acts as an attitude to be reviled and scorned - we further increase the STRONG social harm (to use your words) of disrespect towards sexual faculties. This will lead to the degradation of our society, just as the process of collapse of every single society in history that collapsed in on itself began with the degradation of moral values - particularly in the sexual area. The Romans and the Greeks come to mind immediately, but I’m willing to bet the same thing happens cross-culturally through history.

Also, your argument regarding legal equality is misplaced and based on a twisted notion of fairness. Heterosexual sex is not equivalent to homosexual sex, and to treat them under the law as being the same is as nonsensical as legilslating the sky to be green.

Again, the issue with infertile couples versus homosexual couples is that the former is ordered towards reproduction - even if reproduction is impossible. In contrast, homosexual sex is intrinsically in and of itself always barren.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

OK. Why should we accept this experience as the basis for determining what is just. Why is your opinion correct?

You have assumed there is no God. Religion is humanity’s attempt to reach out towards the Divine. All religions have aspects of the absolute Truth; only the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth. There is a good chain of logic to support this assertion, though it is outside the scope of the current discussion. In any case, religion is more than some “organic process” of “human culture.” If it were, then the Catholich Church would have either been destroyed or changed core teachings in the last 2000 years, as all human institutions fail.

OK. Agreed humans are flawed. As best as we can determine, based on cultural experience, wisdom, and history, homosexual acts and homosexual unions are gravely disordered - and also a philosophy based on choice being the highest good results in grave moral evils. Therefore, homosexual acts should not be supported in society and law, and choice should not be the dictator of what is good.

Incorrect, religion is not the ONLY argument against permitting gays to marry.

1. A fundamental purpose of marriage is reproduction, and the State has an interest in this purpose. Homosexual unions are always intrinsically barren and thus are contrary to this purpose.
2. If we cede to the State the power to define what is marriage, then we also cede to the State the power to define all other relationships - whether they be good or bad. Before the current debacle, the State merely recognized what already existed (marriage). Now, the state is defining marriage. Giving the State this much power is bad for society, as in the long run this power will be abused by evildooers who will inevitably get into office.
3. Marriage is more than just a “positive commitment” between two people. Marriage is the foundation of society, as it is the basis by which we reproduce and raise the succeeding generations - or it should be. The breakdown of marriage that you cite is having devastating consequences on our society. An enormous percentage of our population in succeeding generations will come from broken homes - and the horribly negative effect of broken marriages on children is well known and not reasonably debatable. If anything, the breakdown of marriage in our society shows just how important marriage is for child rearing - and that we must now fight to protect its integrity, rather than driving another nail in its coffin. Therefore, we should not allow homosexual “unions,” which further erode the concept of marriage as a family rearing unit (rather than a mere mechanism for satisfying the sexual and emotional needs of a couple).

Marriage has been with us since the dawn of time. In every single society and culture since the dawn of time, homosexuality has been the exception and not the rule. Where homosexuality started to become generally accepted, soon thereafter (within 3 generations) the societies broke down and failed - see the ancient Greeks for example. The reason for this is clear: the breakdown in the notion of what marriage is and its purpose.

Excellent post, very detailed!

 

[ContegoFides]

Excellent post, very detailed!

Thanks.

However, it is effective only if it is convincing.

The aim of all apologetics is not to prove that you are right, or smarter, or whatever - but rather to win hearts and minds for Christ and just obedience to His Church.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Objectively wrong. Lesbians cannot have children by any act between them. Instead, there must be a man involved - even if he is merely a sperm donor. This act is another objective evil, as it deprives the child of the right to know and be raised by both a mother and a father.

Homosexual “marriage” does take away from real marriages. The concept degrades the family unit in society and gives to the State undue power to define what constitutes marriage.

Not to mention homosexual “marriage” institutionalizes and condones mortal sin.

There’s nothing “win-win” about this issue; it is lose-lose.

I just watched an excellent program on EWTN, the Carpenter Shop, which went along the lines of your post.

At one point, the APA was going to eliminate the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in favor of the word ‘parent.’ As though we were hatched from test tubes.

The subject of the program has written a book, How To Prevent Your Children From Becoming Homosexual.

Many people will see the title and throw a fit, but the author made a lot of sense in his description of broken relationships with the father, and homosexuality being (not a gene!) but a desperate search for a father’s love.

 

[ContegoFides]

I just watched an excellent program on EWTN, the Carpenter Shop, which went along the lines of your post.

At one point, the APA was going to eliminate the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in favor of the word ‘parent.’ As though we were hatched from test tubes.

The subject of the program has written a book, How To Prevent Your Children From Becoming Homosexual.

Many people will see the title and throw a fit, but the author made a lot of sense in his description of broken relationships with the father, and homosexuality being (not a gene!) but a desperate search for a father’s love.

I’ve heard similar things. It is shocking how same sex attraction is now being equated with race in terms of civil rights, psychology, etc.

I question the father thing, though, at least in part. I wouldn’t be surprised if that were true in some cases, but I’m skeptical that an inadequate relationship with a father is the root of all of it. I think sometimes God allows people to develop deep seated attraction to certain sins, including same sex attraction, regardless of their family life.

My ex-wife left me to pursue a same sex lifestyle. Her relationship with her father, while not exactly the best it could have been, was hardly bad. He could have been more affectionate and interactive with his daughter, but he was always good to her. She is a cradle Catholic and was catechized properly. Of course, she’s left the Church, blinded by her attachment to this sin.

In her case, I think it had more to do with struggles with depression and a well meaning but messed-up secular psychologist that convinced her that she was probably “gay.” (Never trust a secular psychologist - *ever *- they will likely do more harm than good.) Who knows, maybe there is something in her genes. After all, we can observe homosexual behavior in some animals; so, it stands to reason that people might have a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction.

None of that changes the fact that objectively speaking homosexual actions are gravely disordered and that society should never institutionalize same sex relationships. What it means is that we are called to more lovingly help and support those that struggle with same sex attraction.

 

[larkin31]

I am sorry for your loss. I and my wife, too, suffered a miscarriage two years ago. I’m also classified as infirtile - Dr. told me zero percent chance for more kids for me, though my wife and I had a miracle birth last year.

Incorrect, acceptance of homosexuality has had a tremendous negative impact on society. The acceptance of homosexuality is yet another symptom of how disrespectfully we now treat the sexual faculties. Sex is no longer thought of as being for reproduction, or for something special one can do within the sanctity of marriage, but rather primarily for selfish pleasure. We see it in the acceptance of porn, adultery, serial monogomy, fornication, masturbation, and all manner of sexual expressions that are taken out of one or both of the two obvious purposes of sex. By making acceptance of homosexual acts more and more acceptable - indeed, by making disapproval of homosexual acts as an attitude to be reviled and scorned - we further increase the STRONG social harm (to use your words) of disrespect towards sexual faculties. …

I feel that you degrade the act of sex by morally reducing it primarily and nearly exclusively to the biological fact of conception–nothing better than the animal purpose. Pleasure for pleasure’s sharing sake is nearly an exclusively human activity; sex for reproduction is ubiquitous, and adds to the teeming hordes of nature. I, for one, so no noble distinguishing feature in that fact.

And I do not degrade nor devalue sex in my relationship. You use a lot of “we” here, but I want to dissociate myself from your generalizations. I think that you should primarily speak for yourself, and let that be the example for persuasion.

 

[kenofken]

There is not a single argument mustered against gay people which is novel or any more dignified than those used to justify segregation and Jim Crow culture. Then too, hate was declared an act of tough love, as the Klan and their supporters were simply enforcing “God’s natural order of things.” I used to get drawn into the day to day progress of this cultural war until I realized something. Time is on the side of justice. Simple demographics will dictate the outcome. The war of attrition being fought by homophobes is an act of futility because almost no new bigots are coming off the assembly lines in our society. Virtually no one under the age of 30 actively opposes gay marriage or civil unions. It’s simply a waiting game, and not a very long one at that…

 

[Nec5]

There is not a single argument mustered against gay people which is novel or any more dignified than those used to justify segregation and Jim Crow culture. Then too, hate was declared an act of tough love, as the Klan and their supporters were simply enforcing “God’s natural order of things.” I used to get drawn into the day to day progress of this cultural war until I realized something. Time is on the side of justice. Simple demographics will dictate the outcome. The war of attrition being fought by homophobes is an act of futility because almost no new bigots are coming off the assembly lines in our society. Virtually no one under the age of 30 actively opposes gay marriage or civil unions. It’s simply a waiting game, and not a very long one at that…

While I disagree with your labeling of the moral few as bigots, I agree with your analysis. Of course, where you see naively see paradise and equality, I see Sodom and Gomorrah.

As this country has abandoned Christianity along with Europe, it is slowly tearing itself apart (though not as slowly as once thought). Meanwhile, the church leaders remain silent despite the powerful communication tools available.

As to the people under 30, your kind brainwashed them well. I’ll give the devil his due.

 

[estesbob]

There is not a single argument mustered against gay people which is novel or any more dignified than those used to justify segregation and Jim Crow culture. Then too, hate was declared an act of tough love, as the Klan and their supporters were simply enforcing “God’s natural order of things.” I used to get drawn into the day to day progress of this cultural war until I realized something. Time is on the side of justice. Simple demographics will dictate the outcome. The war of attrition being fought by homophobes is an act of futility because almost no new bigots are coming off the assembly lines in our society. Virtually no one under the age of 30 actively opposes gay marriage or civil unions. It’s simply a waiting game, and not a very long one at that…

What a racist rant. Are you really comparing a race that was kidnapped, enslaved , raped, beaten to death, sold at will and segregated with a group of people who’s only distinguising characteritic is with whom and the manner in which they engage in sex??? Do you know how offensive that is???

 

[larkin31]

While I disagree with your labeling of the moral few as bigots, I agree with your analysis. Of course, where you see naively see paradise and equality, I see Sodom and Gomorrah.

As this country has abandoned Christianity along with Europe, it is slowly tearing itself apart (though not as slowly as once thought). Meanwhile, the church leaders remain silent despite the powerful communication tools available.

As to the people under 30, your kind brainwashed them well. I’ll give the devil his due.

I am fairly certain that this country is not abandoning Christianity.

 

[larkin31]

What a racist rant. Are you really comparing a race that was kidnapped, enslaved , raped, beaten to death, sold at will and segregated with a group of people who’s only distinguising characteritic is with whom and the manner in which they engage in sex??? Do you know how offensive that is???

There is no racism in that post.

Analogies and comparisons do not mean that the cases are “equivalent.” Rather, the point here was that similar rationale for mistreatment was used. Or do you deny that similar rationales were used? I consider it common knowledge that “natural law” and the “natural order of things” has been used frequently for one group to deny another certain rights and priveleges.

 

[estesbob]

There is no racism in that post.

Analogies and comparisons do not mean that the cases are “equivalent.” Rather, the point here was that similar rationale for mistreatment was used. Or do you deny that similar rationales were used? I consider it common knowledge that “natural law” and the “natural order of things” has been used frequently for one group to deny another certain rights and priveleges.

It is patently racist to compare African Americans to people who engage in homosexual behavior.

“I do take offense at that particular community paralleling its movement with the civil rights movement in America,” he says, “because they are trying to put a moral issue over against a human issue. And they really are two completely different entities.”

Rev Charles Reese , an African American pastor

Rev. Phil Davis, who has pastored Nations Ford Community Church in Charlotte for 15 years, also says homosexuality is wrong, and takes serious offense at the civil rights comparison. In fact, he says comparing the homosexual movement to the civil rights movement is an “atrocity.”

“That line of reasoning denigrates and throws dirt on the blood of blacks who have suffered through slavery, Jim Crow and bigotry, and have died because of the color of their skin,” Davis says. “That the homosexual radical agenda would use the blood of our ancestors to justify their immoral cause and bring guilt and manipulation upon others is an atrocity.”

“I recognize that what many of us have as African Americans is due to the fact that our fore-parents suffered,” Davis says. “Saying homosexuality is a civil right undercuts the legitimacy of our discussion about racism, segregation, true discrimination, and all that our ancestors have gone through to get to this point.”

Rev Davis-An African American Pastor

vfbaptist.org/articles/articles%20101-200/article00109.htm