Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjdrury81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like that term, StAnastasia, but it won’t be long before somebody (probably Fix) will say: What’s wrong is wrong no matter what term you use for it.Alisa
Alisa, that’s his right, as it is my right to say that boxing is disgusting and immoral. But in a pluralistic society we mutually agree to give over our right top control every aspect of other people’s behaviour. I cannot outlaw boxing, any more than Fix can outlaw LGBT love.

The question is how we coexist in society. I think that in at least five states people have come to the conclusion that no matter how repulsive they personally may find homosexual love to be, there is no compelling social interest that justifies outlawing the freedom to express this love. I expect the tide will continue to turn in the direction of allowing people to live their lives according to their consciences, so long as they are not interfering with the life, property, or freedom of their neighbors.

StAnastasia
 
Relabeling is a common tactic of those who wish to promote deviant behavior. Commitment ceremony is just a label. Ellen Degeneres wants it called marriage.

I heard a young man with a happy voice on the radio. He hated the word prostitute.What an ugly word, he said. How about “working girls,” he laughed? Much nicer. Right?

When sexuality is detached from its complementary and unitive and procreative structure then it is not marriage.

Peace,
Ed
 
Yes - because a person’s gender does not make them a good parent/role model, etc. There are plenty of heterosexual parents who are violent, harmful and destructive to children. I would most certainly say that is not preferable just because they are heterosexual.
You have, typically, stacked the deck and offered an invalid argument. The issue is not violent parents unless you compare a violent heterosexual with a violent homosexual.

I’ll try to make this a little clearer than I’ve made it so far. Every person on the planet has one mother and one father. The mother is a female, the father is a male. Females are different from males and they each give their children something the other cannot give. A father cannot be a mother; a mother cannot be a father. Children raised by homosexuals are missing one or the other and the result, no matter what you think, is an abnormal upbringing. It begins with telling the child he or she has two mommies or two daddies. That is a lie. When you start with a lie, the game is over. One can indoctrinate the child and get away with it for a time, but eventually the child will catch up. Most of them will accept the lie because children tend to love the people who raise them no matter who they are, but they’re still living with a lie.
Also going along with your argument, you are then asserting that a single parent is harmful to a child’s mental health status.
Another fallacious argument. A single female parent does not pretend she’s a male and doesn’t lie to her child about her role as a parent. Also, most children raised by a single parent know who the other parent is and often spend time with that other parent.
What if a child grows up to homosexual? Would their heterosexual parents then be abnormal to them?
I have no idea what the purpose of that question is, but, sadly, such children would probably, and often do, see the abnormalty in themselves. And they’d be right.
What is normalcy in parenting or in a home environment? The “nuclear family”? Less than 25% of families in the US fit that description, so that can hardly be considered to be the standard or the majority.
You changed horses in mid-stream. What you call ‘the standard’ has nothing to do with normalcy. Because our society has rejected God and lost its way does not change normalty in parenting. The fact you think it does testifies to the weakness of your reasoning throughout just about all of your messages.
 
I think that in at least five states people have come to the conclusion that no matter how repulsive they personally may find homosexual love to be, there is no compelling social interest that justifies outlawing the freedom to express this love.
Which ‘people’ do you refer to? Judges and politicians? Everywhere this issue has been put to the voters, it has been voted down. An exception may be Vermont, I’m not sure. In Massachusetts it was on its way to the ballot when homosexual activists bribed 10 members of the Mass. House to change their vote and it was kept off the ballot by the kind of corruption we’re seeing all over the country.
I expect the tide will continue to turn in the direction of allowing people to live their lives according to their consciences, so long as they are not interfering with the life, property, or freedom of their neighbors.
Constitutional rights rise from and are validated by the people. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I know you know these phantom rights being doled out to homosexuals rise from and are ‘validated’ by judges and politicians, not the people. It’s an entirely corrupt process and will eventually affect negatively the whole of society. You’ll probably be dead before the full effect has completed the rotting process, so you can just go on pretending this is a harmless exercise in democracy. Let your grandchildren take the hit.
 
Constitutional rights rise from and are validated by the people. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I know you know these phantom rights being doled out to homosexuals rise from and are ‘validated’ by judges and politicians, not the people. It’s an entirely corrupt process and will eventually affect negatively the whole of society. You’ll probably be dead before the full effect has completed the rotting process, so you can just go on pretending this is a harmless exercise in democracy. Let your grandchildren take the hit.
You have a dark view – corruption, rotting, etc. I see it as social change, which has been ongoing for thousands of years. In the Middle Ages homosexuals and others who were different were burned at the stake. That no longer happens. Who knows what the future will bring. Our parish has LGBT families among its members, and so far the church has not been struck by lightning.
 
Does science have any evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Just asking.
Excellent book covering this and many topics related to this issue is “Defending a Higher Law.” by the American TFP.

Here is a link to their bookstore with the book. I highly recommend it, especially since it is so slim and concise.
 
Relabeling is a common tactic of those who wish to promote deviant behavior. Commitment ceremony is just a label. Ellen Degeneres wants it called marriage.

I heard a young man with a happy voice on the radio. He hated the word prostitute.What an ugly word, he said. How about “working girls,” he laughed? Much nicer. Right?
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” – George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

👍
 


And the following organizations have adopted policies opposing restrictions on gay/lesbian parenting based on research and committees and I’m sure you can check out all of their websites for the statistics, results of research and polling, and professional opinions.
“Opinions” … and that’s all they are by your own admission. And those opinions were formed for ***political ***reasons, not scientific ones. Why do you keep quoting them? We’ve already shot that argument down.

“There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.” – George Orwell
 
I’m curious where the Word of God or the teachings of the Church figure into this for you. Do they matter? You are obviously in full support of secularism and pluralism. However, the teaching authority of the Church is clear about this and binding on all Catholics.
👍 An excellent question!! I’m dying for an answer.
 
The title of this thread is “Gay [sic] Marriage [sic] (A different perspective).” Well here’s a perspective that I don’t think has been mentioned yet: Homosexual activism is their procreative drive. Since physical procreation is impossible for them, the next best thing in order to perpetuate the species is to adopt children so they can turn them into homosexuals. Another tactic is to get schools to force homosexual indoctrination on children before they have developed their normal sexual identity. Of course, none of this will work without the complicity of the heterosexual population, so it must be duped into believing that homosexuality is normal and deserves equal “rights”. Pretty sneaky if you ask me.

Homophobia is therefore justified.
 
And yet the barbaric sport of boxing is sanctioned by the Church. It’s acceptable to pay to watch some beat the **** out of someone else on Friday night, but it’s not acceptable for one person to love another. Go figure!
I think it is a barbaric sport also. “Boxing” is not “sanctioned” by the “Church.”
tinyurl.com/lxzo4h
Vatican City radio and newspaper, both of which forthrightly condemned professional boxing after the Paret tragedy, not just because it is a hazardous career whose rewards are in*commensurate with its risks, but because it is wrong in its nature, aim and methods.
However, this “boxing comment” is a bait and switch tactic in order to make homosexual acts seem more acceptable than beating a person’s brains out. I’m not buying it. 😃

If persons truly “love another” rather than “themselves,” then they will not participate in sinful actions with these “other” persons which will cause them to lose their eternal salvation. :eek: Lust and self-gratification are not love.

What is love?

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

Your definition of “love” does not match God’s definition and since He will be doing the judging, it is best to aspire to His definition. 👍
 
As it will effect us all eventually.
Yes, every sin committed by each and every person causes harm to all of us whether we are doing the sinning or not. Perhaps the changes in the weather and in the earth which cause natural disasters are also a result of sin.
 
There is no compelling social interest that justifies outlawing the freedom to express this love. I expect the tide will continue to turn in the direction of allowing people to live their lives according to their consciences, so long as they are not interfering with the life, property, or freedom of their neighbors.

StAnastasia
But aren’t we all called to stand against immorality as Catholic Christians and vote against such so that it doesn’t eventually pervade our society in all its aspects? As it is actually effecting our children in the schools with gay storybooks and who knows what else in the future.
 
“Commitment ceremony.”
“‘Commitment’ ceremony” seems to be honest terminology for this state of being since they will help “commit” each other into hell for eternity unless they repent before death. 😉

Commit:
2. to put officially in custody or confinement
3. to hand over or set apart to be disposed of or put to some purpose

People who claim to be Catholics who practice homosexuality will not inherit eternal life. We all have free will choice. We cannot inherit eternal life on our “own” terms. God makes the laws and God judges those who transgress them and He states that homosexual acts are transgressions and those who do these things will not inherit eternal life.
 
The title of this thread is “Gay [sic] Marriage [sic] (A different perspective).” Well here’s a perspective that I don’t think has been mentioned yet: Homosexual activism is their procreative drive. Since physical procreation is impossible for them, the next best thing in order to perpetuate the species is to adopt children so they can turn them into homosexuals. Another tactic is to get schools to force homosexual indoctrination on children before they have developed their normal sexual identity. Of course, none of this will work without the complicity of the heterosexual population, so it must be duped into believing that homosexuality is normal and deserves equal “rights”. Pretty sneaky if you ask me.

Homophobia is therefore justified.
Since the “definition” of “marriage” is now decided by “popular vote” instead of “marriage is defined by God and cannot change,” it will be only be a few years before the homosexual activists get enough “marriage” votes and they will also continue to work to overturn every law which does not favor their lifestyle.

We are no longer a Christian nation. Most persons today who claim to be Christians are not. They are “Christian” only because it is helpful to them to be called Christians. But, they will go along with the “new majority” opinion when things get unpleasant for them, in order to avoid persecution.
 
People who claim to be Catholics who practice homosexuality will not inherit eternal life. We all have free will choice. We cannot inherit eternal life on our “own” terms. God makes the laws and God judges those who transgress them and He states that homosexual acts are transgressions and those who do these things will not inherit eternal life.
So, SHW…you seem to have insider knowledge of who will and who will not inherit eternal life. I hate to be the one to tell you, my friend, but decisions like this are in God’s hands only. Statements like the one you made above are smug and arrogant, and worse than that – prideful! I thought this was a place where Christians of faith and humility could have a discussion. How about seeing to the sins you are committing in your own life – if any – and allow other human beings to look to God on their own in matters like this.

Alisa
 
But aren’t we all called to stand against immorality as Catholic Christians and vote against such so that it doesn’t eventually pervade our society in all its aspects? As it is actually effecting our children in the schools with gay storybooks and who knows what else in the future.
No doubt that’s true for Catholics. But you don’t understand my point: as long as society at large excludes the LGBT community from equal legal protection and recognition, securing “marriage” will be identified by LGBTs as the goal. If we don’t want to perpetuate gay marriage campaigns, get the state out of the marriage business and grant civil unions across the board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top