Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[Bennie_P]

Isn’t the concept of a monogamous same sex couple completely different than using prostitutes as worship to a pagan god?

NO!!! Monogamous same sex couple I think that is what we call an ox having sex with a moron, I mean an oxymoron.

 

[NoMoreGames]

NO!!! Monogamous same sex couple I think that is what we call an ox having sex with a moron, I mean an oxymoron.

are you really trying to claim that monogomous (and I’d venture to say abstinant) gay couples don’t exist?

 

[Methodi]

Don’t worry about analyzing, the Church will tell you what the readings mean and you are not able to interpret any other way Ok, done with the sarcasm, sorry about that.

So how does the church control what it is fallible on and what it isn’t? Isn’t partial infallibility enough to at least question all of it? I suppose that was my initial confusion.

Protection is one thing, infallibility is something completely different. Let’s go back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had God’s protection within the garden, didn’t they? And yet they still caused the fall of every human after them. No human con avoid this. The Church is human. To ignore that fact is to ignore one’s own humanity. I’m not saying that Jesus’ words mean nothing, of course they do. But if the first man couldn’t even perfectly avoid temptation, how can any man (Save Jesus and His Mother)?

ok so the examples were semi (if not completely) ridiculous But that doesn’t change the fact that just because something is limited to it’s designed function. When you say corn is energy, so no matter how we use it, it’s ok. Corn does not make that energy to be harvested by humans, it makes it for itself to grow and reproduce.

As far as the Vatican, wouldn’t it make more sense to use those funds to make all of humanity (poor, hungry, sick) more beautiful? But that’s another topic completely

Actually, since both aspects of the reproductive system are not present (male and female), it seems that gay sex is about stimulating the nervous system, not necessarily specifically the reproductive nerves (as Ryan put it, slots X, Y, and Z), than it is about the reproductive system. So can it be said that stimulating nervous tissues is a miss use of them?

Trust me, the animal kingdom justifications frustrate me just as much. But I don’t think it is necessarily right to say that the animals do not do the act for enjoyment. The stimulation make the act desirable, hence they do it because their bodies are telling their brains it feels good.

God attached pleasure to it so we would do it

 

[Bennie_P]

are you really trying to claim that monogomous (and I’d venture to say abstinant) gay couples don’t exist?

They might represent .001 % of the “gay” population, nay that might be too high of percentage of the “gay” community.

GERMAN SEXOLOGIST SAYS COMMITTED MONOGAMOUS
HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE A MYTH
A leading German sexologist, Dr. Martin Dannecker, who is himself a
homosexual, says fidelity between homosexual men living in a “committed
relationship” is a myth.

In a recent study he undertook of 900 male respondents living in a “steady”
relationship in Bonn, 83 percent (747) persons said they had had frequent
homosexual contacts outside their “steady” relationship within the last 12
months.

“In this context we must point out the clear differences in the manner of
sexual gratification that exists between homosexual men living in a steady
relationship and those who do not. Of those who were in a steady relationship
at the time of the survey, the average number of homosexual contacts per
person was approximately 115 in the past year. Homosexual men without a
steady relationship had an average of about 45 homosexual contacts,” said
Dannecker.

In his new book “The Joy of Gay Sex” Dr. Charles Silverstein one of the best
known advocates of the “normality” of the homosexual lifestyle, says fidelity
and monogamy are not necessarily the same thing. He writes: “Fidelity between
lovers excludes the possibility of having sex with a third person; monogamy
means that two people have declared themselves lovers - an intimate emotional
and sexual relationship. The latter arrangement can include sexual adventures
outside the relationship.”

Addressing the problem of “promiscuity”, Silverstein writes: “The word
‘promiscuous’ should be retired from the vernacular. As a rule of thumb, if a
gay man is unattached there’s no harm in his having as much (safe) sexual
experience as he wants. If he has a lover, they should decide how much sex,
if any, they want outside their relationship, and under what circumstances.
One lover having sex without the other’s knowledge is not promiscuous but dishonest; this situation is best viewed as a failure of communication rather than a moral flaw.”

American psychoanalyst Dr. Richard A. Isay in his book Being Homosexual: Gay
Men and Their Sexual Development says, that many homosexual couples conclude
an explicit or implicit agreement within their relationship, allowing sex outside it. “Sexual openness does not necessarily lead to the questioning of emotional fidelity. One type of fidelity is played off against another, and any use of the word would be based on its new definition.”

The Kinsey Institute which recently conducted a large-scale study of
homosexual men concluded the following results: 75 percent of the respondents
with a homosexual orientation had had between 100 and over 500 partners in the
course of their lives. 79 percent said that more than half of their sexual
partners had been strangers. Only one percent of homosexually active men had
had less than five sexual partners in their lives.

 

[JuneBug72]

They might represent .001 % of the “gay” population, nay that might be too high of percentage of the “gay” community.

and we’ll just take your word for it Bennie P. Where did you get those stats anyhow? Another planet? Uranus perhaps?

 

[Bennie_P]

and we’ll just take your word for it Bennie P. Where did you get those stats anyhow? Another planet? Uranus perhaps?

Monogamous same sex couple, now who told you that there is such a thing? and can you come with some statistics and/or studies to say there is such…

How do you define monogamous? chaste? or fidility?

Or did some old “Gay” couple tell you how many years they have been together, but did they tell you all the story? Did one of them hit up on you, while they told you their story of “love”?

jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/Jun22,2000/mask.htm

“Sex Panic”, a more radical gay group, opposes any such efforts to reduce gay promiscuity. One of its founders, a Rutgers English professor who regards promiscuous sex as the essence of gay liberation, calls it “an absurd fantasy to expect gay men to live without a sexual culture when we have nothing else that brings us together”. “To the many homosexuals who had been discriminated against for the way they had sex,” the Times says, “liberations means having as much sex as possible as publicly as possible”. One of the striking differences between homosexuals and the heterosexual community is the much larger number of sexual partners homosexuals have.

This is demonstrated by a host of studies - including some conducted by homosexuals themselves. Sex in America (1994) found that while 68% of men and 76% of women had only one heterosexual partner in the previous year, only 2.6% of homosexual men and 1.2% of lesbians had so limited themselves [5]. An earlier study estimated the number of lifetime partners for the American population as a whole at 7.15 (8.67 for those who never married) [6]. Another found that while fear of AIDS had lowered gay men’s promiscuity, the average have male would still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy) and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30 [7] [8].

The work of Professor Alfred Kinsey, the generally acknowledged expert on homosexuality provided major “scientific” support of the concept of sexual freedom. His personal life explains why [9]. He was a married man with children who took his male graduate students on field trips and seduced them. He organized and filmed group sex among his senior staff, their spouses and outside volunteers. His distorted statistics, such as his 1948 claim that 37% of American males had engaged in homosexual activity to orgasm, wildly exaggerate the incidence of homosexuality. And his widely accepted seemingly scientific “spectrum” of homosexuality-heterosexuality, based on the assumption that each subject had many sexual partners, also ignores, and thus denies, fidelity.

 

[Methodi]

Obviously you’ve never been married.

For 35 yrs I have, I am talking about people in general

 

[RyanL]

Ok.

So infallibility. Despite my posting a link to a good explanation, you’re still being snarky about how the Catholic notion of magisterial infallibility is based on circular reasoning. You can believe that the Bible says the Church is infallible because the Church has infallibly declared that’s what the Bible says. Right? And the rest of us can’t question it because the Church being right is an a priori assumption for us poor, unquestioning masses. Right? Right?

Wrong. That’s not our position. I’m not entirely sure why you insist on believing we’re all morons not capable of grasping the circularity of our doctrine…but might I kindly suggest you don’t quite have the full picture? I know you’re tired of hearing me say you’re not fully informed about the facts, but…well…you’re not. I’d bet dollars to donuts you couldn’t list the criteria for a papal statement to be infallible, you couldn’t tell us the other ways Catholics believe infallible teachings can come to us, you couldn’t clearly articulate the Biblical basis for infallibility (beyond Matt 16:18, that is), etc., etc. What you’ve done is erect a strawman. And, again, you don’t really seem to be terribly concerned with the actual Catholic position – it appears more comfortable for you to believe we’re all closed-minded automatons.

…which would also explain why you dismissed the articles I linked to earlier because they were “from the heart of republican media” or some such nonsense. Rather than deal with the facts, facts you won’t be given from “the heart of democrat media,” you impugn the source. It’s called the genetic fallacy. In short, that position is simply this: “You can’t believe the statistics because a Republican told them to you.” Again, it appears more comfortable for you to believe we’re all closed-minded automatons, and nevermind that the statistics aren’t contended.

…and that would also explain your catastrophically bad eisogesis of the Biblical texts.

It wouldn’t necessarily explain your ethanol retort, though. So let me explain it. We’ll go with contracepted heterosexual sex, since that may be a bit further from home and thus easier for you to see. It’s not that the reproductive system is being used for non-reproductive purposes. Heck, a nose holding up glasses performs non-olfactory function – does that mean it’s “unnatural” or wrong? No. Rather, it’s the deliberate frustration of the good end for which the system was created that makes the act wrong. To illustrate, let’s return to bulimia. Your digestive system is made for gaining nutrition. With bulimia, you attempt to get all the pleasure of eating but purposely frustrate the digestive system’s designed-for purpose. Whether you do it once or one thousand times, it’s always wrong. With contracepted sex, you attempt to get all the pleasure of exercising the reproductive system but purposely frustrate the reproductive system’s designed-for purpose. Same deal – it’s always wrong. With ethanol, you’re not doing anything of the kind. Not of least importance, it’s not a “system” at all, so there’s no “end for which it’s designed.”

So that’s kinda’ a brief intro to Natural Law and the strictly biological application here. (There’s a non-biological application having to do with the particular nature of particular relationships, but that’s pretty tough stuff and I don’t want to get into it. Suffice it to say this isn’t the whole Natural Law picture.)

In a similar way, it’s generally permissible for a person’s malfunctioning biology to be set straight, and generally impermissible for a person’s perfectly functioning biology to be set awry. Take sterilization, for instance. It’s not generally permissible for a perfectly good reproductive system to be mutilated in order to avoid the good ends for which it’s designed. But it would be perfectly permissible to get such a procedure reversed, or to take pills to get the system functioning, or to get a cornial transplant, or etc., etc. Putting wrong things right? Fine. Putting right things wrong? Not fine.

Does that help?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[NoMoreGames]

Monogamous same sex couple, now who told you that there is such a thing? and can you come with some statistics and/or studies to say there is such…
How do you define monogamous? chaste? or fidelity?

Well, I have no statistics, and I know they are rare, but to say that only one per every one hundred thousand gays couples is in a closed relationship might be exaggerating. No studies, but I do have my every day life…

How do I define monogamy? The same way I would when referring to a straight couple. In a committed (not as in unified, as in devotion to the relationship) relationship to only each other (sexual or otherwise). But monogamy is not necessarily abstinence with each other, and I would agree that abstinant gay couples are even rarer, but not an oxymoron.

Just because a German sexologist says a couple can be monogamous without fidelity doesn’t mean every gay person sees it that way.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I’ll start off by saying for someone who love to tell me how much I lack education, you sure do make a lot of assumptions about me without any proof or basis.

So infallibility. Despite my posting a link to a good explanation, you’re still being snarky about how the Catholic notion of magisterial infallibility is based on circular reasoning. You can believe that the Bible says the Church is infallible because the Church has infallibly declared that’s what the Bible says. Right? And the rest of us can’t question it because the Church being right is an a priori assumption for us poor, unquestioning masses. Right? Right?

Wrong. Nowhere did I suggest that Not everyone was allowed to question. In fact, I’d be worried if they didn’t.

Wrong. That’s not our position. I’m not entirely sure why you insist on believing we’re all morons not capable of grasping the circularity of our doctrine…but might I kindly suggest you don’t quite have the full picture? I know you’re tired of hearing me say you’re not fully informed about the facts, but…well…you’re not. I’d bet dollars to donuts you couldn’t list the criteria for a papal statement to be infallible, you couldn’t tell us the other ways Catholics believe infallible teachings can come to us, you couldn’t clearly articulate the Biblical basis for infallibility (beyond Matt 16:18, that is), etc., etc. What you’ve done is erect a strawman. And, again, you don’t really seem to be terribly concerned with the actual Catholic position – it appears more comfortable for you to believe we’re all closed-minded automatons.

Who says I believe that you’re all morons who are not capable of grasping circularity? I’ve certainly never stated that. I’m fact if any thing I was the moron who can’t grasp it because you’ve done a great job of explaining it, I just still pose more questions that are running around my head. I know I’m not informed. Would I be asking questions if I was? You don’t have to be pretentious about it.

…which would also explain why you dismissed the articles I linked to earlier because they were “from the heart of republican media” or some such nonsense. Rather than deal with the facts, facts you won’t be given from “the heart of democrat media,” you impugn the source. It’s called the genetic fallacy. In short, that position is simply this: “You can’t believe the statistics because a Republican told them to you.” Again, it appears more comfortable for you to believe we’re all closed-minded automatons, and never mind that the statistics aren’t contended.

I didn’t dismiss them. But let’s think logically. If the only articles I presented to you to support my argument, I’m sure would we be just as quick to notice the heavy level of bias in them. A republican source obviously isn’t going to publish an article that contains “facts” against their idea. I could just as easily find democratic sources that contain “facts” that support just the opposite idea. In modern times recognizing bias is more important than ever.

To assume that I do, in fact, get all my information from a single sided source is a statement without backing. The only articles I’ve posted links to were from Catholic websites. To say that I didn’t believe them because I republican told them to me is another foundation-less claim. I distrust every source I read, (as I’m sure you can tell) simply because they are all handled by men.

To say I believe you are automatons, nothing like that ever left my mouth. Perhaps the statistics don’t contend because they are not from reliable sources…que our good friend bias.

 

[NoMoreGames]

…and that would also explain your catastrophically bad eisogesis of the Biblical texts.

If you mean my questioning of the legitimacy of all sources handled by humans, you’d be right. But that doesn’t seem to be what you meant…(as far as my tendency for eisogesis interpretations, well, I could just as easily say the same of yours (but the church tells you that your ways is right so therefore it must be) ok sorry for the sarcasm)

It wouldn’t necessarily explain your ethanol retort, though. So let me explain it. We’ll go with contracepted heterosexual sex, since that may be a bit further from home and thus easier for you to see. It’s not that the reproductive system is being used for non-reproductive purposes. Heck, a nose holding up glasses performs non-olfactory function – does that mean it’s “unnatural” or wrong? No. Rather, it’s the deliberate frustration of the good end for which the system was created that makes the act wrong. To illustrate, let’s return to bulimia. Your digestive system is made for gaining nutrition. With bulimia, you attempt to get all the pleasure of eating but purposely frustrate the digestive system’s designed-for purpose. Whether you do it once or one thousand times, it’s always wrong. With contracepted sex, you attempt to get all the pleasure of exercising the reproductive system but purposely frustrate the reproductive system’s designed-for purpose. Same deal – it’s always wrong. With ethanol, you’re not doing anything of the kind. Not of least importance, it’s not a “system” at all, so there’s no “end for which it’s designed.”

I pose the question I did before. Gay sex (not necessarily anal, which I against state is not universal nor exclusive to he gay community) is obviously not about reproduction, since it simply will not be an outcome. Instead, I pose the idea that is is nervous stimulation. I could think of many places that feel pleasant to be stimulated (neck, earlobe, lips), so since reproduction is not involved, it is simply stimulation of the nerves, sometimes those associated with the reproductive system (but you’ve established the difference between them). Is stimulation of the nervous tissues against its function?

Putting wrong things right? Fine. Putting right things wrong? Not fine.

Wait when did we star talking about putting things wrong? It’s not like a gay man is going from straight sex to gay sex. Nor is the idea of gay marriage even based off of legitimizing sex, it’s obviously clear part of the community has no problem with it in the first place.

 

[elts1956]

Don’t worry about analyzing, the Church will tell you what the readings mean and you are not able to interpret any other way Ok, done with the sarcasm, sorry about that.

So how does the church control what it is fallible on and what it isn’t? Isn’t partial infallibility enough to at least question all of it? I suppose that was my initial confusion.

Protection is one thing, infallibility is something completely different. Let’s go back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had God’s protection within the garden, didn’t they? And yet they still caused the fall of every human after them. No human con avoid this. The Church is human. To ignore that fact is to ignore one’s own humanity. I’m not saying that Jesus’ words mean nothing, of course they do. But if the first man couldn’t even perfectly avoid temptation, how can any man (Save Jesus and His Mother)?

ok so the examples were semi (if not completely) ridiculous But that doesn’t change the fact that just because something is limited to it’s designed function. When you say corn is energy, so no matter how we use it, it’s ok. Corn does not make that energy to be harvested by humans, it makes it for itself to grow and reproduce.

As far as the Vatican, wouldn’t it make more sense to use those funds to make all of humanity (poor, hungry, sick) more beautiful? But that’s another topic completely The Vatican holds the art, the wealth in perpetuaty for all humanity to enjoy. EVEN YOU could sneak into the Vatican and enjoy them.
Actually, since both aspects of the reproductive system are not present (male and female), it seems that gay sex is about stimulating the nervous system, not necessarily specifically the reproductive nerves (as Ryan put it, slots X, Y, and Z), than it is about the reproductive system. So can it be said that stimulating nervous tissues is a miss use of them?

Trust me, the animal kingdom justifications frustrate me just as much. But I don’t think it is necessarily right to say that the animals do not do the act for enjoyment. The stimulation make the act desirable, hence they do it because their bodies are telling their brains it feels good.

Okay, control by the Church of what is fallible and what is infallible. I’m not sure I would use the word “control” in its usual meaning. The Church teaches, it does not control. It is up to the individual as whether s/he wants to believe what is taught.

The “church” itself is NOT human, but made up of humans who are fallible. These fallible humans are members of the body of the Church, which is Christ, or members of the Body of Christ who is the Church. If one believes, as I have written before, that Christ sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit to protect and define what is truth in the teachings of the Church, the CHURCH is infallible with Christ as its head. With Christ and the Holy Spirit protecting the truth and the Pope as a direct descendent from Peter,(given the direction, “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven”.), the proclamations given as infallible, cannot be questioned unless one does not want to be Catholic. Again, the control is given to the individual, not the Church. Again, the Church teaches, we listen, ponder and decide if we want to believe and want to be Catholic. There is so much to learn about the Catholic Faith, a lifetime is not long enough to learn it all intellectually, so many things must be taken on Faiith and trust in the Church. The church has not led me astray yet. What I have learned is reasonable, sensible and moral.

Adam and Eve were not protected by God in such a way that they were robots. They had free will. I am thinking I have read, they had an above natural nature until they disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the tree. "And they were created a little lower than the angels and crowned in glory… Psalm 8:5 King James Bible

 

[JuneBug72]

Again- freedom of religion was the premise of this post not the Catholic view of homosexuality. The US government is not a Catholic Theocracy.

 

[JuneBug72]

Monogamous same sex couple, now who told you that there is such a thing? and can you come with some statistics and/or studies to say there is such…

How do you define monogamous? chaste? or fidility?

Or did some old “Gay” couple tell you how many years they have been together, but did they tell you all the story? Did one of them hit up on you, while they told you their story of “love”?

jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/Jun22,2000/mask.htm

This forum is not a debate about monogamy. If the majority of married couples now (heterosexual lifestyle) are not monogamous should we consider nullifying marriage all together?

 

[Squishy]

They might represent .001 % of the “gay” population, nay that might be too high of percentage of the “gay” community.

Do not spout meaningless statistics please. Some gay people are pramiscuis (spelling?) But saying that the majority of them are is just not true. Many gay couples are together their whole lifes. Its absolutly no more different than hetrosexual people. Many of them sleep around as well. Should we use that as a reason to get rid of the institution of marriage?

On another note. Why dont the gay community get together and start their own religion. They can then have their own definition of marriage which the government would be forced to recognize. Then no one would have the right to complain.

 

[Gamera]

Do not spout meaningless statistics please. Some gay people are pramiscuis (spelling?) But saying that the majority of them are is just not true. Many gay couples are together their whole lifes. Its absolutly no more different than hetrosexual people. Many of them sleep around as well. Should we use that as a reason to get rid of the institution of marriage?

On another note. Why dont the gay community get together and start their own religion. They can then have their own definition of marriage which the government would be forced to recognize. Then no one would have the right to complain.

That’s not true either. Back when the Mormon Church supported polygamy, they argued “freedon of religion” in opposition to laws outlawing polygamy. They lost. Freedom of religion means freedom to believe whatever you want, not freedom to do whatever you want.

But the argument against gay marriage is not a religious argument. The argument against gay marriage is that civil law cannot change natural law. Government lacks the authority to re-invent marriage.

 

[Squishy]

That’s not true either. Back when the Mormon Church supported polygamy, they argued “freedon of religion” in opposition to laws outlawing polygamy. They lost. Freedom of religion means freedom to believe whatever you want, not freedom to do whatever you want.

But the argument against gay marriage is not a religious argument. The argument against gay marriage is that civil law cannot change natural law. Government lacks the authority to re-invent marriage.

As has been said about a dozen times at leaste in this thread. The government are the only ones who are able to change what constatutes a civil wedding.

Just because im intrested why did the mormans lose the polygamy case. Seems to me that that is preventing them from praticing their religion. Which would be a clear violation of freedom of religion.

 

[fix]

Isn’t the concept of a monogamous same sex couple completely different than using prostitutes as worship to a pagan god?

Not any significant moral difference. The moral standard is not “monogamous and stable”. That seems a contrived modern standard. The standard is marriage in the true sense of the word.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Okay, control by the Church of what is fallible and what is infallible. I’m not sure I would use the word “control” in its usual meaning. The Church teaches, it does not control. It is up to the individual as whether s/he wants to believe what is taught.

The “church” itself is NOT human, but made up of humans who are fallible. These fallible humans are members of the body of the Church, which is Christ, or members of the Body of Christ who is the Church. If one believes, as I have written before, that Christ sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit to protect and define what is truth in the teachings of the Church, the CHURCH is infallible with Christ as its head. With Christ and the Holy Spirit protecting the truth and the Pope as a direct descendent from Peter,(given the direction, “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven”.), the proclamations given as infallible, cannot be questioned unless one does not want to be Catholic. Again, the control is given to the individual, not the Church. Again, the Church teaches, we listen, ponder and decide if we want to believe and want to be Catholic. There is so much to learn about the Catholic Faith, a lifetime is not long enough to learn it all intellectually, so many things must be taken on Faiith and trust in the Church. The church has not led me astray yet. What I have learned is reasonable, sensible and moral.

Adam and Eve were not protected by God in such a way that they were robots. They had free will. I am thinking I have read, they had an above natural nature until they disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the tree. "And they were created a little lower than the angels and crowned in glory… Psalm 8:5 King James Bible

Thank you very much for your continued explanations despite my annoying stubbornness, and all without making ridiculous assumptions about my personality or being condescending. I greatly appreciate it. When I don’t understand something I keep asking questions, but it’s not necessary to answer my questions by saying "You don’t know what you’re talking about. If I did understand, I would stop questioning. Once again, thank you.

 

[elts1956]

Thank you very much for your continued explanations despite my annoying stubbornness, and all without making ridiculous assumptions about my personality or being condescending. I greatly appreciate it. When I don’t understand something I keep asking questions, but it’s not necessary to answer my questions by saying "You don’t know what you’re talking about. If I did understand, I would stop questioning. Once again, thank you.

You’re welcome. You are really helping me pave my way to Heaven with jewels. Such patience I have… Ask away. I’ll see if I can come up with an answer.