Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[PureGrace]

While there may be some (and I’d wager a very few) long-term homosexual relationships, the vast majority are not stable (which studies have shown).

Which studies? Are you referring to the study cited in this site’s gay marriage tract that says:

“One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.”

Newsflash. This isn’t a fair statistic to use. These stats were taking in the San Francisco bath houses during the 70’s (just check the references at the bottom of the page). They are hardly representative of the entire population of homosexuals. Using stuff like this to “prove” that the homosexual community is hugely promiscuous is like going to a red light district and “proving” that straight people are hugely promiscuous by asking them how many sexual partners they have (and finding out that the reported number is very high).

Here are some real life stats.

• I have 4 gay friends J, M, A1, A2
• I have two lesbian friends C and K
• I have one M2F lesbian transgendered friend R

J and M are each in a happy, stable, fulfulling 2-3 year old relationship
A1 has never been in a relationship, but he is not promiscuous or into random sex
A2 recently graduated university and has entered a long term relationship
C recently broke off with her girl friend of 5+ years. The reasons were simply that they were growing in two different directions.
K recently entered a relationship. She was not in one for a while because she was busy with a PhD. However, she is a very stable, happy girl.
R is not in a relationship, but he/she does not fit your “homosexual mold”. We have had discussions, and he/she is very concerned with developing a long lasting, committed relationship with a woman.

The length and character of these relationships are identical to the relationships of all of my straight friends of the same age. They want (and are getting) long term committed relationships that are happy and fulfilling.

None of these friends are unhappy. All of them saw huge increases in their happiness when they finally admitted to themselves and the world that they were gay and just started to be themselves. Many of them tried not to be gay, didn’t want to be gay, tried the whole “living celibate” approach, and tried to like girls (or guys). Some of them have been shunned by their overly zealous religious parents.

But you know what? They are ****** happy with their lives and wouldn’t want things to be any other way. As much as people here would like to go on and on otherwise, homosexuals are not all unhappy, unfulfilled, unstable, depressed, unhealthy, crying out deep down for God without even realizing it…etc…the list goes on. To tell them that they are when they are not is truly uncharitable.

Letting these folks get married is not going to change the nature of your marriage. It may lead to an evolution of marriage, but that has happened several times in the past before. In the past, arranged marriages were the norm - people marrying for love is relatively recent. Older men would marry much younger women. In the Bible, married men still had concubines. Yet marriages still wore on, and society still survived.

 

[PureGrace]

Anyone who has a mature understanding of love knows that when it comes to marriage its about devotion, fidelity, commitment, and sharing what little life we have with another human being. These have nothing to do with gender. Anyone with a mature sense of love knows its not about the mechanics of sex. If it was just about sex than people would just do away with the marriage. And yet I hear you guys go on on like that’s what’s most important and that’s what makes marriage sacred to you. Which just goes to show what your truly immature concept of marriage really is.

I agree 100%.

Then you say, “Well gay couples can’t possibly raise children as well as heterosexual couples can!”, then you’d be wrong again because numerous psychology studies have shown gays are equally as capable at raising children as straights are.

Yes. I read a study done by the Canadian government (which Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper commissioned and then failed to release when he saw the results) that showed that there was no significant difference between the ability of straight couples and gay couples to raise children and …

…the children of lesbian couples were found to be better off socially than the children of their gay and straight counterparts.



It can’t be!

 

[PureGrace]

Now, atheistic view is based upon evolution, and for the very theory to work, it involves reproduction. If reproduction in a “natural” relationship is not achieved, then survival of the fittest kicks in, and humans as a race of homosexuals will be destroyed.
Yes, I understand that not EVERYONE will ever be gay, but the very fact that they are (in atheistic evolutionist sense) is abnormal.

Actually, a homosexuality may have made one’s species MORE fit. Some suppose that homosexuality may have evolved as a help to raise existing young. A homosexual organism is unlikely to have an offspring of their own, so they can work to help ensure the survival of other young in the group to whom they are closely related. In this way, they work to promote the survival of genes very close to their own. It would also have the added benefit of keeping a population in check so that resources are not depleted. Also consider that one may carry the “genes” or what have you for homosexuality but not be homosexual. So the homosexual trait could be passed on in heterosexual reproduction.

If people are born gay, it is a disability in a sense, as is Down syndrome or any other defect.

Do me a favour and never tell a gay person that they are disabled. And save yourself some humiliation and serious trouble by NEVER EVER making that comparison in public.

 

[friarjamesosf]

You think it is not fornication to have a male stick his penis up another male’s rectum?

Jesus demonstrated that stoning was wrong, and the Ten Commandments also states that we shall not kill. Fortification is wrong; marriage in the bible was for a relationship between a man and woman. Jesus did not come to change the Old Testament, he came to fulfil it.

Spankyg,
Good morning. I wonder if you would be so kind as to list the biblical references that establish that marriage is only for one male and one female. Thank you.

 

[pathia]

We have to regard gays with compassion, respect and treat them as any other person. Regardless of their life style, from a secular point of view, I think they ought to be left to do what they want. They are able to attain all of the things marriage delivers without state sactioned marriage. They can join their property, get joint health care, inherit by Last Will and Testament, be elected as medical decision maker. The only thing is hospital visitation and burial decisions and that can clearly be given by statue…

I spent over $10,000 in getting contracts written to duplicate the legal/property rights of marriage in the state of VA. They then passed an amendment abolishing any legal union or ‘simulated’ union between same sex couples. The paperwork was for nothing, wasted money. It prevents us from even writing contracts between each other. My parnter could not list me on insurance, we could not own a house together, we could not visit each other in the hospital, the doctors refused to listen to us. All of this is false. We do not have it.

 

[doubtingdaniel]

Actually, a homosexuality may have made one’s species MORE fit. Some suppose that homosexuality may have evolved as a help to raise existing young. A homosexual organism is unlikely to have an offspring of their own, so they can work to help ensure the survival of other young in the group to whom they are closely related. In this way, they work to promote the survival of genes very close to their own. It would also have the added benefit of keeping a population in check so that resources are not depleted. Also consider that one may carry the “genes” or what have you for homosexuality but not be homosexual. So the homosexual trait could be passed on in heterosexual reproduction.

Do me a favour and never tell a gay person that they are disabled. And save yourself some humiliation and serious trouble by NEVER EVER making that comparison in public.

Thank you. Another Catholic who is spot on. Yes, biologists research has shown that is more likely the “gay” gene developed as a way for homosexual organisms to take care of the younger offspring who may of lost their parents. The homosexual organisms then adopt the younger offspring and raise them as one of their own. I tip my hat to you sir!

Now, what do you believe? Are you atheist? Or are you Christian? Both bases at which these ideologies are formed agree that homosexuality is abnormal.

If people are born gay, it is a disability in a sense, as is Down syndrome or any other defect.

First of all atheism and Christianity aren’t ideologies there theologies!!! Second I’m an atheist and most, I can’t speak for all, of us agree that homosexuality isn’t abnormal. It’s in fact completely natural and as I’ve said before occurs among many different species throughout the animal kingdom. Third, if being gay is a disability then you having different color hair from a blonde or brown makes your color hair a disability. You obviously do not have a great sense of what evolution is so don’t try and use it as your argument. I suggest you read some books on evolution before you use it again. So do me a favor and stop being a bigot.

Think About It.

 

[The_Rock]

Spankyg,
Good morning. I wonder if you would be so kind as to list the biblical references that establish that marriage is only for one male and one female. Thank you.

Friar James

Would you accept the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter? I know many who visit this forum are not Catholic or even Christian, but as a friar I would assume that you strive for obedience to Christ’s Church. Here is the pertinent section…

CCC
ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which **a man and a woman **establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

 

[JesusisGod123]

Marriage and ity is wrong because God says its wrong!

 

[PureGrace]

Thank you. Another Catholic who is spot on
…

I tip my hat to you sir!

Think About It.

Thank you, but I am not Catholic! I am an atheist.

Second, you are hat tipping your hat at a lady, not a sir.

 

[Benadam]

Spankyg,
Good morning. I wonder if you would be so kind as to list the biblical references that establish that marriage is only for one male and one female. Thank you.

Hi friar I find this passage in Mathew has Jesus teaching about marriage in terms that define it’s gender boundaries.

3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a **man **leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

Now these people didn’t even consider the notion of same sex couples being included.

I challenge anyone to find a reference to marriage in the bible as ev en remotely considered for two men or two women.

Doesn’t that prove that the Sacred Scriptures do not include same sex couples when they teach about marriage?

 

[doubtingdaniel]

Thank you, but I am not Catholic! I am an atheist.

Second, you are hat tipping your hat at a lady, not a sir.

Haha. Oops. Now don’t I feel like dummy? Well then I tip my hat to you madam and apologize. That makes me glad another atheist is here to express their own views too.

 

[Benadam]

Because language is loaded with meaning and gender is profound and primal. And anybody who really cared about equality and equal rights would care not to deprive children of the formative and irreplaceable complementariness of both genders as full partners in that formation. Because children raised in such households have been deprived of something that dual-sex parents provide, by their very being/nature, before one even begins to talk about quality of parenting. In seeking to create new rights and then celebrating them, you have removed rights from a dependent child. Roles may be a social contruct, but gender is not. Men and woman are essentially and profoundly different, and children have a right to experience directly and from birth, those differences, because the patterning of their identity and personhood is derived from the people they identify as parents.
Hi Elizabeth,

I find this statement strikes at the core of this issue as well as confused gender responses and gender identity.

I believe homosexuality to be a symptom of the deep wound between the genders that began with the mother and father of all human flesh. If the genders did not live in disharmony there would be no homosexuality.

The founding of all human society began with this horrible rift between men and women and that rift produces children confused about their identity for the exact reason you described so very well.

Catholics who deny the direct effects of that woundedness deny the very existence of the wound IMHO

 

[Elizabeth502]

I find this statement strikes at the core of this issue as well as confused gender responses and gender identity.

I believe homosexuality to be a symptom of the deep wound between the genders that began with the mother and father of all human flesh. If the genders did not live in disharmony there would be no homosexuality.

The founding of all human society began with this horrible rift between men and women and that rift produces children confused about their identity for the exact reason you described so very well.

Catholics who deny the direct effects of that woundedness deny the very existence of the wound IMHO

I’m not good at playing-card terminology, but I think you just trumped me and/or ‘raised me one.’ What a brilliant insight on your part, regarding The Fall and its effects. I think you’ve shown by your postings that you have a more keen consciousness of this central dynamic of our existence and spirituality than most of us do on a daily basis. It is not central enough to most of us. When we become conscious of it, it makes us more able to work at repairing that rift by the way we live our lives – specifically our efforts with the opposite sex, and all the ramifications of that – including ‘using’ the opposite sex, degrading, disrespecting, stereotyping, or (my pet peeve) dismissing their importance. Good job.

 

[Benadam]

I’m not good at playing-card terminology, but I think you just trumped me and/or ‘raised me one.’ What a brilliant insight on your part, regarding The Fall and its effects. I think you’ve shown by your postings that you have a more keen consciousness of this central dynamic of our existence and spirituality than most of us do on a daily basis. It is not central enough to most of us. When we become conscious of it, it makes us more able to work at repairing that rift by the way we live our lives – specifically our efforts with the opposite sex, and all the ramifications of that – including ‘using’ the opposite sex, degrading, disrespecting, stereotyping, or (my pet peeve) dismissing their importance. Good job.

Thank you . If I have raised you one I have reason to be proud..
As I perused this thread I couldn’t help but notice that you re-focused the subject, gay marriage, to an authentic view of it’s relationship to’ feedom’ in our society.
I was waiting to read a response in opposition,
so,
I also couldn’t help but notice that the concepts of freedom and society you presented in the,short and to the point manner you often employ have been unfortunately ignored.
This one in particular;

doubtingdaniel said:
Anyone with a mature sense of love knows its not about the mechanics of sex. If it was just about sex than people would just do away with the marriage.

Elizabeth responded:
Millions have done anyway with it: It’s called cohabitation, and it’s about the mechanics of sex.

We wouldn’t be talking about homosexual marriage without the rise of cohabitation as an accepted, or even expected, prerequisite state to marriage. An erroneous view that effectively discarded marriage making the time ripe to raise it up again in a new, albeit distorted form.

Good job to you as well for redirecting this projected accusation back to it’s source.

Pax Christi

 

[JesusisGod123]

yg:

1 Corinthians 6:9

 

[doubtingdaniel]

I find this statement strikes at the core of this issue as well as confused gender responses and gender identity.

I believe homosexuality to be a symptom of the deep wound between the genders that began with the mother and father of all human flesh. If the genders did not live in disharmony there would be no homosexuality.

The founding of all human society began with this horrible rift between men and women and that rift produces children confused about their identity for the exact reason you described so very well.

Catholics who deny the direct effects of that woundedness deny the very existence of the wound IMHO

Homosexuality is a symptom caused by a deep wound between genders because a woman ate a magical fruit? :doh2:

Is that what you’re trying to say???

I…I honestly don’t know how to convey to you how ludicrous that statement is.:banghead:

How many times am I going to have to say this. Homosexuality is an inherited trait! It is not some choice. Its not some psychological disorder. Its simply a gene that causes you to be sexually attracted towards the same sex. If a child was raised by gay parents their sexual preference wouldn’t be confused because there born with one of the inherited traits that makes them attracted to the same or other gender. The only thing that’s going to confuse them is when they’re told its unnatural to be attracted to their same sex and its an abomination for them to have those feelings. That’s what confuses them and not who they’re raised by, unless your the conservative Christian raising them under the belief they’re going to hell for the way they’re born.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Homosexuality is an inherited trait!

Nope. Speculation. No proof. There is much greater evidence for environmental factors being ultimately determinant (tipping the scale), regardless of initial “tendencies.” Sexuality is complex, not single issue, not single “gene.”

Don’t hurt yourself banging your head against that wall.

Oh, and the eating of the fruit is poetic language. Doesn’t mean she picked a pear.

 

[Benadam]

Homosexuality is a symptom caused by a deep wound between genders because a woman ate a magical fruit? :doh2:

 

[Elizabeth502]

doubtingdaniel;5126343:

I hope you aren’t thinking that it’s impossible to distinguish sexual feelings from the objective perception of self?

This reminds me of a segment I heard on EWTN radio about a week ago, Guest was discussing the difference between SSA and personal identity. One is not the other, but this confusion is the propaganda one hears daily in the MSM. I wish I could locate the segment or remember the name of the guest.

 

[Dori1]

Homosexuality is a symptom caused by a deep wound between genders because a woman ate a magical fruit? :doh2:

Is that what you’re trying to say???

I…I honestly don’t know how to convey to you how ludicrous that statement is.:banghead:

How many times am I going to have to say this. Homosexuality is an inherited trait! It is not some choice. Its not some psychological disorder. Its simply a gene that causes you to be sexually attracted towards the same sex. If a child was raised by gay parents their sexual preference wouldn’t be confused because there born with one of the inherited traits that makes them attracted to the same or other gender. The only thing that’s going to confuse them is when they’re told its unnatural to be attracted to their same sex and its an abomination for them to have those feelings.

DoubtingDaniel, I’m sorry to have to point this out, but honest debate is not what you were after here. Looks to the newcomer like Christian-bashing was the goal.

First, all kinds of “traits” are inherited; some of them lethal. Second, the “genetic” theory of homosexuality is still just that. The jury is out. Even if the “jury” comes back with solid, irrefutable blending or mendelian genetics resolving the issue, it doesn’t change the reality of what Benedam was saying. All things out of the perfect order began with the initial sin.

I must also echo what Elizabeth said. Sexuality is a very complex issue. While it is possible that genetics play a role, it is only a very small part. Many will try to emphasize the “genetics” card; but the evidence is that most of its formation is related to environmental factors learned early in childhood.

Further, SSA is not, anywhere in Sacred Scripture or in the teachings of the Catholic church, called an abomination; nor are those individuals who experience SSA. It is the act of sexual intimacy between those of the same physical gender which is noted to be an abomination. The church fully accepts that there are those who experience such attractions. However, the behavior ** is what is considered unacceptable. As a result, those who experience attraction only to members of the same sex are called to a life of chastity. They are loved and supported by the members of Christ’s Church as they walk in obedience. To some, this may seem an affliction. To those who know and love the Lord, however, obedience is joy.

Elizabeth and Benadam, you have acquitted yourselves with honor here. Your defense of the faith was done with love (though perhaps became a bit impatient near the end) and skill. You have my admiration.