"Gay Day" Ruined Our Day at Cedar Point

[ContegoFides]

AMEN

a repentent homosexual

Thank you.

And God Bless you for your tremendous courage in today’s hostile climate.

 

[ContegoFides]

A low level of PDA is acceptable and always has been. A couple that never publicly touches each other is actually more noticeable. If one wants to argue that a modest level of PDA from a hetero couple is acceptable but from a gay couple is not, then I would like to hear the argument as to why.

Modest PDAs from heterosexual couples are not intrinsically gravely disordered. They reflect or hint at a relationship and acts that may be very holy; i.e., marital sexual union and reproduction. In front of children, modest PDAs are a way of slowly and appropriately introducing them to understanding the appropriate use of the sexual faculties.

PDAs from a gay couple, even if modest, are scandalous because they encourage others who struggle with same sex attraction that same sex acts are good, and also that same sex acts should be accepted as somehow OK. Modest PDAs from a gay couple also may sow confusion in heterosexual people that same sex acts are on the same footing as heterosexual unions between husbands and wives, and also that same sex acts should be accepted as somehow OK.

However, homosexual acts are always intrinsically gravely disordered, objectively speaking. That is the key difference. Scripture and Tradition both clearly, precisely, and unambiguously state that homosexual acts are contrary to God and can lead to eternal death (Hell). Regardless of what cross a person has been allowed to have in terms of having feelings of attraction to people of the same sex, for this reason alone same sex acts should be avoided like the spiritual poison they are.

I know that some people who are Christians argue that homosexual acts, or even unions, are not precluded by God’s Word; indeed, we have seen Anglican bishops that lead active homosexual lifestyles. However, all such arguments are predicated on generalisms, such as on a misplaced notion of what love is, or on unsupportable mistranslations of scripture. Given the unambiguous and constant specificity with which scripture and Tradition have condemned same sex acts for 2000 years, and the fact that the specific overrides the general, such Christians are sadly misguided. I pray for their repentance, conversion, and if they die believing otherwise, their souls. I wish none harm, and I very much wish all to be united with our Lord in Heaven.

So, in a nutshell, the reason why modest PDAs from heterosexual couples might be accepted, but not from two homosexual people, is because the underlying acts or relationship implied by the PDAs are not intrinsically gravely disordered in the case of heterosexual couples, but are intrinsically gravely disordered in the case of two people of the same sex.

Note that if a particular heterosexual couple were notoriously known to be having a sinful relationship, such as open and notorious adultery, then PDAs among this couple would also be wrong for the same reasons given above. Again, the key is the underlying principles.

 

[ContegoFides]

I know this wasn’t written to me, but I want to say only that JUSTICE matters more than the writings of a believer’s interpretation of the message from their god. Much much more. Justice should trump religion (when they are in conflict) every time, every time. At least in THIS country (USA).

There can be no agreement as to what is justice without some reference to what is absolute in Truth. How do you evaluate what is just? Shall we adopt YOUR standard? Why? How shall we measure it’s worth? By vote?

If by vote, then you must accept that the people in California, for example, have excluded same sex marriages in the state. However, this is not accepted. Why? Because those who do not accept it believe the law to be unjust - obviously as measured by some moral absolute standard that they believe in.

If by vote, then we could end up like Nazi Germany where an evil philosophy becomes accepted by the majority, and look where that got us. So, again, we must reject relativism and find the objective absolute standard to determine what is just.

No, the philosophy by which justice is measured must be analyzed and measured against - at a bare minimum - the natural law.

The usual philosophy by which today’s “justice” is measured is “moral relativism.” The idea that we each have our own Truth. However, this is intrisically broken as paradoxical: “there absolutely are no absolutes.” If there were an absolute, how would you know and how would you adopt it?

So, we must discuss what actually IS True. And that leads us down the road of what is Truly just. Once we know that, THEN we can talk about whether “justice” should trump any particular religion.

 

[larkin31]

Modest PDAs from heterosexual couples are not intrinsically gravely disordered. They reflect or hint at a relationship and acts that may be very holy; i.e., marital sexual union and reproduction. In front of children, modest PDAs are a way of slowly and appropriately introducing them to understanding the appropriate use of the sexual faculties.

PDAs from a gay couple, even if modest, are scandalous because they encourage others who struggle with same sex attraction that same sex acts are good, and also that same sex acts should be accepted as somehow OK. Modest PDAs from a gay couple also may sow confusion in heterosexual people that same sex acts are on the same footing as heterosexual unions between husbands and wives, and also that same sex acts should be accepted as somehow OK.

However, homosexual acts are always intrinsically gravely disordered, objectively speaking. That is the key difference. Scripture and Tradition both clearly, precisely, and unambiguously state that homosexual acts are contrary to God and can lead to eternal death (Hell). Regardless of what cross a person has been allowed to have in terms of having feelings of attraction to people of the same sex, for this reason alone same sex acts should be avoided like the spiritual poison they are.

I know that some people who are Christians argue that homosexual acts, or even unions, are not precluded by God’s Word; indeed, we have seen Anglican bishops that lead active homosexual lifestyles. However, all such arguments are predicated on generalisms, such as on a misplaced notion of what love is, or on unsupportable mistranslations of scripture. Given the unambiguous and constant specificity with which scripture and Tradition have condemned same sex acts for 2000 years, and the fact that the specific overrides the general, such Christians are sadly misguided. I pray for their repentance, conversion, and if they die believing otherwise, their souls. I wish none harm, and I very much wish all to be united with our Lord in Heaven.

So, in a nutshell, the reason why modest PDAs from heterosexual couples might be accepted, but not from two homosexual people, is because the underlying acts or relationship implied by the PDAs are not intrinsically gravely disordered in the case of heterosexual couples, but are intrinsically gravely disordered in the case of two people of the same sex.

Note that if a particular heterosexual couple were notoriously known to be having a sinful relationship, such as open and notorious adultery, then PDAs among this couple would also be wrong for the same reasons given above. Again, the key is the underlying principles.

Justice and equality in this regard should trump the mores that stem from the writings of religion. At least in the USA. Justice will come in this regard; it is only a matter of time. The RCC, of course, will be free to deny marriage ceremonies to gays for as long as it wants. That is another nice thing about the USA: its religious groups are free to practice as they please (within the law).

 

[larkin31]

There can be no agreement as to what is justice without some reference to what is absolute in Truth. How do you evaluate what is just? Shall we adopt YOUR standard? Why? How shall we measure it’s worth? By vote?

If by vote, then you must accept that the people in California, for example, have excluded same sex marriages in the state. However, this is not accepted. Why? Because those who do not accept it believe the law to be unjust - obviously as measured by some moral absolute standard that they believe in…

I deleted whatever came after the Nazi reference…

I accept the California decision and I accept my decision in Maine, which overturned the governor’s ruling. But I disagree with it, and will vote my conscience every time it comes up for a vote.

But the country will eventually legally recognize the marriage of gays, although some religious groups never will. Which is fine for them.

 

[ContegoFides]

I deleted whatever came after the Nazi reference…

I accept the California decision and I accept my decision in Maine, which overturned the governor’s ruling. But I disagree with it, and will vote my conscience every time it comes up for a vote.

But the country will eventually legally recognize the marriage of gays, although some religious groups never will. Which is fine for them.

On what basis does your conscience tell you that gay marriage is good, or even possible in the absolute sense? In other words, taken from a neutral standpoint, on what basis do you say that gay marriage is good and religion is wrong? You claim to champion justice, but do not actually say how to determine what is just. Why do you disagree with the result in California? If justice is defined by the law, on what basis do we define justice so that we can decide what the law should be in the first place?

The point I am making is that you have to have some way of evaluating what is “justice” before you can say that “justice” trumps “religion.” If you don’t, then any group that comes along and enjoys popular support can ad-hoc say that something is “just,” and the results can be terrible.

It is unfortunate that you deleted the reference to Nazi Germany, as you are unjustly dismissing my argument without giving it logical consideration - and you are also ignoring a terrible danger that could possibly take place in the United States.

The point I was making with that analogy is that groups with popular support, such as the National Socialist Party in pre-WWII Germany, may have ideas of “justice” that are clearly unjust in an absolute sense. Therefore, we must reject “popular vote” as the defining characteristic of what defines justice. Instead, we must evaluate the particulars of whether underlying propositions are good in and of themselves.

Thus, “good and right” trumps “choice.” If choice trumps, then our society should also allow marriage between people and animals (who are you to say otherwise?), our society should allow marriage between father and adult daughter (who are you to say otherwise?), and our society should allow voluntary gladiatory combat to the death for blood sport (who are you to say otherwise)?

Clearly, when evaluating what is justice, “good and right” must trump “choice” when these two goods are in conflict. If so, then we must evaluate what is good and right before we allow something based on “choice” alone. “Marriage” between people of the same gender is not good or right, even from a natural law standpoint, because the sex acts that result cannot produce children (an interest of the State) and an obvious good of a sexual relationship has been marred (the philosophical definition of evil is the privation of a good). When the Truth of the Catholic faith is added, we also see that homosexual acts might lead to eternal death.

Therefore, society should make no laws whatsoever that encourage or facilitate the evil of homosexual acts - including gay marriage, civil unions, or whatnot - whether or not you look at it from the perspective of religion.

 

[ContegoFides]

Justice and equality in this regard should trump the mores that stem from the writings of religion. At least in the USA. Justice will come in this regard; it is only a matter of time. The RCC, of course, will be free to deny marriage ceremonies to gays for as long as it wants. That is another nice thing about the USA: its religious groups are free to practice as they please (within the law).

Again, how do you define justice?

You seem to define justice by “choice.” However, as I showed above, if “choice” is the primary arbiter of justice then we should make legal all kinds of obviously heinous things. While choice is a good thing, and thus it is good that religious groups are free to practice in the USA, when the good of choice conflicts with higher, absolute goods, then choice must take second place.

Therefore, it is right and proper to consider - in an absolute sense - whether homosexual acts and homosexual “unions” are good in and of themselves in an absolute sense. They are not, both from a “natural law” perspective, and in view of the Truth.

 

[Consecrated]

**Justice and equality in this regard should trump the mores that stem from the writings of religion. **At least in the USA. Justice will come in this regard; it is only a matter of time. The RCC, of course, will be free to deny marriage ceremonies to gays for as long as it wants. That is another nice thing about the USA: its religious groups are free to practice as they please (within the law).

Contego Fides asked some great quesetions re. your use of the idea of justice:

There can be no agreement as to what is justice without some reference to what is absolute in Truth. How do you evaluate what is just? Shall we adopt YOUR standard? Why? How shall we measure it’s worth? By vote?

would love to see your response. Should lead to a very interesting and thought provoking discussion.

 

[larkin31]

On what basis does your conscience tell you that gay marriage is good, or even possible in the absolute sense?

I take my collected learnings from religion (several, but I was raised in a Christian minister’s house), history (I know some, but not a lot), literature (my profession), art, music, family teachings, and the pattern of reward and pain through experience to make my moral and ethical decisions of conscience. I have had much influence from the Judeo-Christian readings and practices, so these obviously have a large influence on me. None of this is absolute, but then no human thinking or decisionmaking is ever absolute.

In other words, taken from a neutral standpoint, on what basis do you say that gay marriage is good and religion is wrong?

I don’t say that “religion is bad,” first of all. Religion is an organic process of human culture and always will be (my prediction).

You claim to champion justice, but do not actually say how to determine what is just.

See above. Determining what is just is a very very difficult matter in some cases, and we —and I–do not always get it right. Nor has the church. Nor, I imagine, has any human institution had an unblemished record. We do the best we can, and use our minds and collective cultural experience and wisdom AS BEST WE CAN.

Why do you disagree with the result in California? If justice is defined by the law, on what basis do we define justice so that we can decide what the law should be in the first place?

See above. ANd I have already explained that the ONLY argument against permitting gays to marry is a religious one, and this is not enough for me to deny equal access to that institution. One can no longer hang “Hell” out as the ONLY reason for a law in this country. The rest of the objections are based on the injury to sensibilities and not any actual threat to public good.Marriage is a positive engagement between people (for the most part), and we should want to extend it to committed gays. Theyu certainly deserve the same shot at it that heteros do (whose record with “marriage” is not all that stellar, really).

The point I am making is that you have to have some way of evaluating what is “justice” before you can say that “justice” trumps “religion.” If you don’t, then any group that comes along and enjoys popular support can ad-hoc say that something is “just,” and the results can be terrible.

True: that is why the thinking is so important, not just a precept written 2000 years ago.

It is unfortunate that you deleted the reference to Nazi Germany, as you are unjustly dismissing my argument without giving it logical consideration - and you are also ignoring a terrible danger that could possibly take place in the United States.

There is no persuasive comparison between Nazism and gay marriage. This is nothing but a smear.

The point I was making with that analogy is that groups with popular support, such as the National Socialist Party in pre-WWII Germany, may have ideas of “justice” that are clearly unjust in an absolute sense. Therefore, we must reject “popular vote” as the defining characteristic of what defines justice. Instead, we must evaluate the particulars of whether underlying propositions are good in and of themselves.

There is NO absolute definition of “justice.”

Thus, “good and right” trumps “choice.” If choice trumps, then our society should also allow marriage between people and animals (who are you to say otherwise?)

I am nobody. But the reasoning against bestiality is easy and requires no mention of “god.” This is a silly extremist comparison, not worthy of a response in public adult dialogue. No one is arguing for it here, either.

Clearly, when evaluating what is justice, “good and right” must trump “choice” when these two goods are in conflict. If so, then we must evaluate what is good and right before we allow something based on “choice” alone. “Marriage” between people of the same gender is not good or right, even from a natural law standpoint, because the sex acts that result cannot produce children (an interest of the State) and an obvious good of a sexual relationship has been marred (the philosophical definition of evil is the privation of a good). When the Truth of the Catholic faith is added, we also see that homosexual acts might lead to eternal death.

Most sexual acts do not and have not resulted in pregnancy. And the world is grateful for this, since if they were, we would have long been overridden with humans. “Natural Law” is nothing but the construct of a human mind to try to put into categories of RULES the wide variety of patterns of behavior and morphology in the natural world. When you begin to base LAW upon these constructs, you run into the difficulty of the weak and generalized definitions (and multitude of exceptions and contradictions) hidden under these generalizations about the variety of nature.

Therefore, society should make no laws whatsoever that encourage or facilitate the evil of homosexual acts - including gay marriage, civil unions, or whatnot - whether or not you look at it from the perspective of religion.

You should establish the “evil” of homosexuality beyond the Biblical injunction. There are other things expressly prohibited in the Bible that we make no legal injunctions against. So WHY this one? And please use evidence of rational threats to public good.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

A low level of PDA is acceptable and always has been. A couple that never publicly touches each other is actually more noticeable. If one wants to argue that a modest level of PDA from a hetero couple is acceptable but from a gay couple is not, then I would like to hear the argument as to why.

Because heterosexual love is not INHERENTLY sinful.

 

[ContegoFides]

I take my collected learnings from religion (several, but I was raised in a Christian minister’s house), history (I know some, but not a lot), literature (my profession), art, music, family teachings, and the pattern of reward and pain through experience to make my moral and ethical decisions of conscience. I have had much influence from the Judeo-Christian readings and practices, so these obviously have a large influence on me. None of this is absolute, but then no human thinking or decisionmaking is ever absolute.

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

I don’t say that “religion is bad,” first of all. Religion is an organic process of human culture and always will be (my prediction).

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.

See above. Determining what is just is a very very difficult matter in some cases, and we —and I–do not always get it right. Nor has the church. Nor, I imagine, has any human institution had an unblemished record. We do the best we can, and use our minds and collective cultural experience and wisdom AS BEST WE CAN.

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.

See above. ANd I have already explained that the ONLY argument against permitting gays to marry is a religious one, and this is not enough for me to deny equal access to that institution. One can no longer hang “Hell” out as the ONLY reason for a law in this country. The rest of the objections are based on the injury to sensibilities and not any actual threat to public good.Marriage is a positive engagement between people (for the most part), and we should want to extend it to committed gays. Theyu certainly deserve the same shot at it that heteros do (whose record with “marriage” is not all that stellar, really).

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).

True: that is why the thinking is so important, not just a precept written 2000 years ago.

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.

 

[ContegoFides]

There is no persuasive comparison between Nazism and gay marriage. This is nothing but a smear.

You are unjustly twisting my argument in an unjust attempt to discredit me. My argument is not that Nazism and gay marriage are equivalent. My argument is that majority opinion MUST NOT be the arbiter of what is just. If majority opinion is not the arbiter of what is just, then we must find the measurement tool by which we assess what is just. When we investigate this measurement tool through the use of philosophy, the most reasonable conclusion that supports the highest good is that homosexual “unions” should not be facilitated by law.

If you wish to go out and practice homosexual acts, I cannot nor will I stop you. But I will stand and fight for instituting such acts into the law, with the resulting religious oppression that results through the form of “anti-discrimination” laws.

There is NO absolute definition of “justice.”

So, we come full circle. If there is no absolute definition of justice, how are you going to convince me that allowing homosexual unions is just? I’m very serious. I would like you to answer the question. How would you argue to the court that “justice” should prevail in the U.S. by allowing homosexual unions?

I assert that without some absolute notion of what is just, there can be no agreement ever about what is just - and all that is left to resolve disputes over justice is armed conflict. Clearly, that result is unjust, as armed conflict is a horror I would never like to see.

I am nobody. But the reasoning against bestiality is easy and requires no mention of “god.” This is a silly extremist comparison, not worthy of a response in public adult dialogue. No one is arguing for it here, either.

It is not silly at all. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage Also, what IS your reasoning against beastiality? I’d like to know. Who are you to deny someone’s choice to marry and have sex with animals? If choice is the arbiter, then you are nobody and you have no say in the matter - and neither should the State.

Again, you are addressing the argument by unsupported belittling, without addressing the seriousness of the slippery slope argument.

Most sexual acts do not and have not resulted in pregnancy. And the world is grateful for this, since if they were, we would have long been overridden with humans.

Yes (putting aside the overpopulation argument), but all sexual acts among adult men and women are ordered towards reproduction, and it is undeniable that a primary purpose of sex is reproduction - the likelihood of fertility of any given sex act does not change this fundamental truth.

“Natural Law” is nothing but the construct of a human mind to try to put into categories of RULES the wide variety of patterns of behavior and morphology in the natural world. When you begin to base LAW upon these constructs, you run into the difficulty of the weak and generalized definitions (and multitude of exceptions and contradictions) hidden under these generalizations about the variety of nature.

I challenge you according to your own standard. Define justice without using a weak and generalized definition. If you cannot define justice, then you have no right or business telling me that disallowing homosexual “unions” is unjust.

Also, sociobiology has been refuted fairly well, as it does not account for many observable behaviors or truths.

You should establish the “evil” of homosexuality beyond the Biblical injunction. There are other things expressly prohibited in the Bible that we make no legal injunctions against. So WHY this one? And please use evidence of rational threats to public good.

Philosophically, classically speaking, evil is the privation of a good. An obvious good of sex is reproduction; indeed, until recently it was the only mechanism for reproduction. Homosexual acts are intrinsically and unchangeably barren. Therefore, homosexual acts represent a privation of a good of sex. Because evil is the privation of a good, homosexual acts are evil.

Not one reference to the Bible. However, given the certainty of judgment upon death, it is unwise to ignore the Bible.

Rational threats to the public good are described above.

 

[larkin31]

…Philosophically, classically speaking, evil is the privation of a good…

This I will respond to (the rest is a circular dance that I just don’t feel like joining with you).

Is this the entire basis of your definition? I’d like to know if there is any more before I proceed.

An obvious good of sex is reproduction; indeed, until recently it was the only mechanism for reproduction. Homosexual acts are intrinsically and unchangeably barren. Therefore, homosexual acts represent a privation of a good of sex. Because evil is the privation of a good, homosexual acts are evil.

And is this the logic that you would like me to respond to? I will let you revise any of this if you would like.

Not one reference to the Bible. However, given the certainty of judgment upon death, it is unwise to ignore the Bible.

Which “certainty”? Is this “certainty” a “logical” conclusion also? Would you care to present that logical deduction for review as well?

Rational threats to the public good are described above.

Where?

Let me ask two questions to begin with:

1. Is EVERY deprivation of a good to be considered “evil” or just SOME?
2. Will you accept anything as a “good” if it is not in service of your notion of your God’s will? I.e, can the “good” be in service of another believer’s (different faith) notion of his/her god’s will?

 

[larkin31]

In reply to something else above (I forget where) I will say this:

Our country (the USA) should permit all freedoms and promote equal justice and treatment under the law everywhere and in every way that cannot be expressly shown to be contrary to the public good through valid research over wide samples and over significant time. I don’t state this as an absolute, but rather in the spirit of our founding document. Absolutes are meaningless in law. Our country’s laws are based on the principles of the Constitution and the process of legal discourse, enactment, and review established there. I believe that this document stands for and promotes freedom and fair treatment as its two moral pillars. If you would like to say that it actually has two other more important values, please tell me so. I will listen to your reasoning.

But as absolutes? No, in fact we can amend the document anytime we wish.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… ANd I have already explained that the ONLY argument against permitting gays to marry is a religious one, and this is not enough for me to deny equal access to that institution. …

You may have tried to explain that, but your attempts to explain it doesn’t make your point correct. Two people of the opposite sex who raise their offspring together in the committed life-long relationship (formerly known as marriage)** benefits society**. That is not purely a religious statement.

 

[larkin31]

You may have tried to explain that, but your attempts to explain it doesn’t make your point correct. Two people of the opposite sex who raise their offspring together in the committed life-long relationship (formerly known as marriage)** benefits society**. That is not purely a religious statement.

Of course. I agree. What does that have to do with extending this socially beneficial arrangement to a few thousand gay couples also?

 

[benny_f]

I’m sorry that the original poster of this article was offended. As with everything these days, you really must plan ahead and check out where you are going, and what events may be occuring at the time.

In answer to the question why certain homosexuals feel they must hold events, marches, e.t.c, it is often due to the many years of persecution and fear they faced, and now because it’s more acceptable to be homosexual, they want to show people they are not afraid anymore.

One of my sisters friends, who is homosexual, is not in favour of such events, marches because he feels it stereotypes, and perpetuates more hatred toward the homosexual community.

Each to their own I believe.

However, I don’t think by organising such events, homosexuals are somehow trying to “brainwash” children into becoming homosexual. If anything it would contradict the core values in their community - acceptance. Accept what sexual orientation you are, regardless of what other’s might want you to practice or be.

Certainly if I attended the event with my children, I would be slightly irked (not due to their homosexuality, but because I can’t stand PDAs, make me feel awkward). I like to think I would sit them down and explain to them about the event. Maybe that would make me a bad mother in your eyes to introduce my children to homosexuals, but I don’t think it’s wrong. Actually I think if we accepted homosexuals more, they might feel far more included, and feel less like they must organise events to feel a part of something.

Oh and when I say accept, I mean not disrespecting them by calling them disgusting, or products of Satan, because that’s nasty and bad mannered, something we should not promote. Ever. If we are Catholics, we can respectfully say, sorry I do not believe homosexuality is right, and if that offends you I am sorry.

Whether you believe you should say sorry for stating your beliefs is your own business.

In conclusion, if Catholics believe homosexuality is cross which people must bear, then help them carry that cross. If you believe it is a sin, then be the one to sit with them and help them when they can’t see a light. Be like Christ and understand how much they suffer.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Of course. I agree. What does that have to do with extending this socially beneficial arrangement to a few thousand gay couples also?

Oh good, we agree that the former definition of marriage benefits society. I like it when people with opposing viewpoints find common ground in some areas on the matter being discussed.

It affected society dramatically several decades ago when we changed changed the definition of marriage through no-fault divorce. It caused the break up of the homes of countless children.

Society’s interest in marriage relates to society’s interest in protecting the young and the vulnerable. The “socially beneficial arrangement” otherwise known as marriage is not simply about two adults who love each other and express their love in a sexual way.

Let me ask you a question. Does the government have any business in what two consenting homo-sexual do together in their bedroom? If you say, “No” then, you should re-think your views on extending any socially beneficial arrangements to homosexual couples.

 

[Consecrated]

Of course. I agree. What does that have to do with extending this socially beneficial arrangement to a few thousand gay couples also?

Because this arrangement loses it’s “social beneficence” when applied to an action that is entirely outside the realm of procreation in a way that even an infertile heterosexual marriage is not.

There is no social benefit to an attempt to re-define marriage to fit homosexual acts. For a good account of why this would actually be a social disaster, re-read some of ContegoFides’ arguments.

BTW, are you absolutely sure there is no concept of absolute Justice?

 

[larkin31]

Oh good, we agree that the former definition of marriage benefits society. I like it when people with opposing viewpoints find common ground in some areas on the matter being discussed.

It affected society dramatically several decades ago when we changed changed the definition of marriage through no-fault divorce. It caused the break up of the homes of countless children.

Society’s interest in marriage relates to society’s interest in protecting the young and the vulnerable. The “socially beneficial arrangement” otherwise known as marriage is not simply about two adults who love each other and express their love in a sexual way.

Let me ask you a question. Does the government have any business in what two consenting homo-sexual do together in their bedroom? If you say, “No” then, you should re-think your views on extending any socially beneficial arrangements to homosexual couples.

Bad marriages cause divorce.