Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjdrury81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CoG said:
ladybri77
The study I have referred to is not about a homosexual gene. The study shows that the genes of our body change with our life experience. Traits in animals have been induced by training and the training is able to be passed along to the next generation. The difference between animals and man is that man is able to choose and develop the traits we desire, this we call character. It is not by accident that the physical mannerisms change with homosexual behavior. Man is designed by God with freewill. Our freewill is able to direct our actions over all genetic, physical, or mental problems. If we are not able to have control over our actions we are considered by God and society as mentally disabled.

In the same manner, that immoral life style can change our genes a moral life style is also able to change our genes for the good. The good and bad thing about genetic changes is that they do not occur rapidly. The good is that it takes time to become genetically addicted to and immoral life style. The bad is that it also takes time and great effort to change back from genetic addiction.
Click to expand...
Sorry to say, I’ve never heard of that one. Do you have a source? I do know, however, that behavior can affect chemical influence on the brain. In some studies the homosexual male cerebrum was notably smaller in males. I also have seen where in some cases, the longer a male is in a homosexual relationship, the more he becomes effiminate, likewise, the women sometimes become more masculine, so I truly believe in how our behavior can affect the chemical composition of our brain and the outcome of that. I did see it occur in a male I knew once. He stated that he was gay and in a relationship, then after a certain amount of time went by, he started acting more and more effeminate. This should be no surprise.

I agree with San above about how our actions can affect the chemicals in our brain and can alter behavior. I struggle with OCD, and I know that when I give into it, it makes the OCD stronger, but when I resist, it is lessened. There are many studies done on the chemical effects of prolonged drug and alcohol use on our brains and the chemical change that happens from obsessive/compulsive disorder as well, also on how our behavior can change those chemicals.
 
San5210 said:
You do bring up this argument that marriage is for the sole purpose of having children. By this logic we shouldn’t be allowing heterosexual couples that aren’t having children to marry. The reality is that many heterosexual couples don’t have children because of health (fertility) issues, age, or even choice (sorry, I know the ‘c’ word can be scary for some Catholics). The reality is that society has realized there are other purposes to marriage (and I don’t just mean the secular benefits). The Church has also recognized that marriage is not only for procreation (Vatican II anyone?). That’s not to say that many gay couples aren’t having and raising children. Often they are the only ones eager to take in the children who are products of reckless heterosexual sex who find themselves abandoned to the foster system. I think we should rethink this insistence on procreation and start encouraging some of the heterosexual couples to also adopt the children that need homes.
Click to expand...
Objectively, same sex persons cannot engage in a marital act. Subjectively infertile opposite sex married people do engage in a marital act that is objectively unitive and procreative. IOW, that they cannot conceive does not change the moral correctness of their actions. The action is ordered toward the good as God ordained.

Vatican II did not “change” any teaching on faith and morals.

The vatican has said adoption by so-called “gay” couple does moral violence toward children. Children have rights.
 
San5210 said:
Sendonaman, You’re right that no one has heard requests for campaign donations during Mass, which is what makes it so upsetting that the Catholic Church jumped into the prop 8 campaign in California. (sfgate.com followed this well) I know that my money as well as many other Catholics wouldn’t have been in that collection had we known the archbishops intentions.
Click to expand...
Why did it bother you? IRS rules allow for it. See The Church and Politics: A Review of the IRS Guidelines For Churches:
The prohibition against participating or intervening in a political campaign applies only to elections for public office, and does not apply to attempts to influence legislation. (Churches and other §501(c)(3) exempt organizations may engage in such attempts to influence legislation as an insubstantial part of their activities.)
Unquote. [Emphasis added]
Click to expand...
I would say that influencing legislation is definitely an insubstantial part of the Church’s activities.

Since you didn’t mention it, apparently you are not bothered at all by the bishops’ giving $7 million to ACORN which did use at least some of it to help political candidates. But that’s OK because they were the “correct” political candidates.
“All one has to do is imagine two men in bed sodomizing each other to know something just isn’t right.” isn’t worth responding to, but it does say a lot about the maturity of your reasoning.
Click to expand...
The truth is tough to take when you see it, isn’t it?
Homosexuality fails to meet the criteria for both of these (the APA figured this out in the 1970’s) .
Click to expand...
As I have posted a number of times before, homosexuality is academia’s latest cause célèbre, and the APA, like so many other organizations and individuals, doesn’t want to appear un-enlightened, so it endorsed it for political, not scientific, reasons. In short, it bowed to political correctness. So much for the credibility of the APA.
You’re going to go with the “it’s always been like this” argument.
Click to expand...
And you’re going with the “why-not?” argument. As advocates of social change, proponents of sodomite “marriage” have the burden of proof that it is a good. Since this is impossible, they resort to faux arguments.

You say you are a Catholic. Well, the Church fathers have made their teaching pret-ty clear. You obviously do not accept it. Therefore, if sodomite “marriage” is so important to you, why shovel sand against the tide? The answer is simple: go join a church that does approve it.
 
AmyBrownEyes said:
What do you mean it is the gay agenda at work?
Click to expand...
…Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defenses and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
…
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Click to expand...
[Emphasis added]
If you think there is no homosexual agenda, check these out [written by homosexuals]:
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650
365gay.com/features/082908-corvino
 
AmyBrownEyes said:
Ok so if two gay men or women have sex it is sinful? Does making out mean it is sinful as well? However what if they couple don’t have sex but sleep in the same bed. Is that being sinful? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Just how much leeway do you want?
 
CoG, about the twin study, there have also been studies of identical twins where one was gay, the other wasn’t. I know from research that each child is born with a certain biological makeup, some being more sensitive than others, and each child reacts and interprets what goes on in the family in a different way. The amount of love and attention each one needs is different as well. Depending on the person’s life experiences, how they were treated by peers, abuse, how they interpreted the parents’ reactions to them, the absence of affection by either father or mother determines what we seek out later in life.

It’s an attempt to try and fill a deficit, a need that was not met for whatever reason in the child’s developmental process.
 
CoG said:
San5210 Homosexuality is a genetic addiction problem. It has been discovered it test of identical twins that the genetic make up changes over a lifetime. Our actions change who and what we are. The changes are not just mental but over time become genetic. It is only by choice and will that we make ourselves into what we wish to be. Without understanding the nature of science, our forefathers understood that you must act the role to become who you wanted to be. This is called character.

Today men act like animals and sure enough, they become animals.

The intent of God is for men and woman with God to create new souls that through free will of choice will spend eternity with God. This special intent of God raised us above the animal and animal instinct.

Homosexuality denies and acts against the intent of God and tries to bring society down to the level of animals. It is required to follow the intent of God to respect life and the process of life at all stages of life.

Marriage is recognized by the state as a valuable institution of society and is given special consideration for that value.

Homosexuality is an insult to the intent of God and society.
Click to expand...
Could I have the reference for this paper?
 
CoG said:
…

Homosexuality denies and acts against the intent of God and tries to bring society down to the level of animals.
…
Click to expand...
Does science have any evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Just asking.
 
SAN5210, I believe your recent post was the best, most reasonable, loving, fair, and intelligent one I’ve read on this thread! I agree with you on every point, but you expressed yourself so much better than I could have! It’s fairly early out here on the Coast, and I’ve just had an early morning beach romp with the Golden Retriever, but you’ve made my day so far!

Alisa
 
fix said:
The vatican has said adoption by so-called “gay” couple does moral violence toward children. Children have rights.
Click to expand...
What rights are those? What can a single person or heterosexual couple provide an adopted child that a heterosexual couple denies?
 
Sedonaman, I believe I have heard about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I believe I once read an article about male homosexual ducks – the details of which I don’t remember, but you might want to look it up online!

Alisa
 
zookeeper said:
What rights are those? What can a single person or heterosexual couple provide an adopted child that a heterosexual couple denies?
Click to expand...
As I have posted before, the burden of proof is on the advocates of social change, not on those who favor the status quo.
 
I have to wonder- if sexless, godless, childless, loveless marriages are allowed why do we as a society discriminate against a couple because of their sexual orientation? Should we deny an atheist couple the right to marriage? Should we deny a couple who does not want children the right to marriage? Should we deny a couple who marries out of convenience but never consummates the marriage the right to marry? And if we are to use Biblical standards of cleaving to your wife, monogamy and procreation to marriage then why do we as a society allow for divorce and remarriage, not punish adultery and allow birth control?

There is too much variation in doctrine- even Christian doctrine- and our government is not (thankfully) our moral compass. It is discrimination to not allow a couple to enter into a legal marriage contract based on their gender. That can not be disputed and there is not one single argument against legalizing gay marriage that does not involve religion. But if we apply religious doctrine to all our laws, we would have a wholly different governance and society, and who gets to choose that their religous doctrine is the one to live by?

Just some food for thought.
 
sedonaman said:
As I have posted before, the burden of proof is on the advocates of social change, not on those who favor the status quo.
Click to expand...
I am not asking you to prove it, just to state it. What is denied the child? Proof can not be supplied or denied unless one knows what is being proven.
 
zookeeper said:
I have to wonder- if sexless, godless, childless, loveless marriages are allowed why do we as a society discriminate against a couple because of their sexual orientation? Should we deny an atheist couple the right to marriage? Should we deny a couple who does not want children the right to marriage? Should we deny a couple who marries out of convenience but never consummates the marriage the right to marry? And if we are to use Biblical standards of cleaving to your wife, monogamy and procreation to marriage then why do we as a society allow for divorce and remarriage, not punish adultery and allow birth control?

There is too much variation in doctrine- even Christian doctrine- and our government is not (thankfully) our moral compass. It is discrimination to not allow a couple to enter into a legal marriage contract based on their gender. That can not be disputed and there is not one single argument against legalizing gay marriage that does not involve religion. But if we apply religious doctrine to all our laws, we would have a wholly different governance and society, and who gets to choose that their religous doctrine is the one to live by?

Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...
We justly discriminate in many ways in regard to adoption. The problem is not just discrimination the problem is not seeing what variations are acceptable and what are not.

The most fundamental attribute to be found is complementarity. This is not arbitrary or of little consequence. It goes to the very nature of marriage and child raising.
 
fix said:
The right to complementarity between parents.
Click to expand...
That is not a right. If it were, single parenting (by choice, divorce, or tragedy) would be immoral and illegal by that standard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top