Gay marriage and other issues concerning homosexuality

[peduzzi89]

“The government does not prevent gays from marrying. They have the same “rights” as everyone else. You ARE asking for a special right - one that does not currently exist. You are asking for the right to redefine marriage. No small thing.”

Thank you for pointing this out - from now on I will make sure I specify that I mean get married to eachother, just in case anyone didn’t read the title of this thread. And redefining marriage is no small thing for us, but why is it for straight people? What if they were to legalize gay marriage? How would this directly affect a straight marriage?

“Nor does the government promote or condone such activities by enacting legislation that would confer benefits to those who engage in such things.”

No, they don’t give them special rights, they give them the same rights as everyone else

“Actually, the government CAN and DOES step in when people engage in certain behaviors that will clearly bring about death. In this case, eating rocks would clearly be life threatening. When someone attempts suicide and winds up in the hospital,. they are held for observation to determine if they need further social services.”

Ok, well, 2 men getting married is not going to bring about anyone’s death all by itself - I know what you’re going to say about AIDS and all that - but that is not directly cause by 2 people of the same sex getting married.

“You statements betray a tremendous naivete. The state enacts legislation specifically to show that it condones or rejects certain behaviors. It is illegal to steal someone’s property. It is illegal to rape. It is illegal to sell drugs. It is illegal to let your dog’s poop remain steaming on your neighbors lawn. It is illegal to drive 100 miles an hour in a school zone. Why? Because the state wants to make clear what it condones and supports.”

No - the reason we MAKE laws is to protect the rights of others - what you’re saying is the reason we write them down on a piece of paper.

"Let’s start with the rights of the CHILDREN. They actually have a few. They have the right to a mother and a father, preferably their own biological and married parents. We can all agree that is the ideal for which we all should strive. This is what the state, and the people, support by upholding and elevating traditional marriage as the healthiest environment for children. "

Certainly the ideal is a father and a mother - but there are countless other cases in which this does not occur - such as my single mother home. Or foster homes - I feel quite sure there are many foster homes run by one gender of person (no I don’t have a citation for that but are you going to say there are none in this country that might be run by all men or all women?). Sure those kids have all their basic needs - but not there is no substitute for the love of parents - wouldn’t that be better than a foster home, even if it were from 2 men or 2 women?

“To place a child into a situation that even grown-ups can not understand, and then expect them to adapt, is, as our late Holy Father stated, a form of child abuse.”

I’m talking about the law here, which is not based on what the Holy Father says. As stated above - the law supports many other types of nontraditional homes. While we are on that subject - let me reiterate that laws are created to protect the rights of others, not to promote religious morality, otherwise there would be laws against abortion, contraception, masturbation, oral sex…need I go on?

Would anyone be happier if we called it something else? Still the same rights, but different title - that way we wouldn’t be changing the definition of marriage. Marriage is not a natural thing - it does not date back to the first existence of man. It was originally created as a holy union between a comitted man and woman. But now in modern society, it entails so many legal rights. The definition of marriage has already changed in that you can get married without any religoius affiliation whatsoever - which already deviates from its original purpose. So those legal rights should be extended to anyone who are in the same type of committed relationship.

 

[peduzzi89]

To East an West: right, but what I’m saying is that why should my attraction to men be considered irrational by the law when it is my natural, intrinsic behavior? If being gay was against natural law then nobody would be gay. There were gay people before there was even a label to call them gay - they were just attracted to men. It just happens.

 

[East_and_West]

Legal recognition of homosexual marriage implies a tacit approval of homosexuality on the part of the government. Since homosexuality is unnatrual an contrary to reason, why should it lend such approval? You many argue that they are simply protecting gay rights, but the message sent is so much more than that. The message sent is that it is ok, normal, healthy. But any rational person can clearly see that it is none of the above. Its is a matter of public health, both mental and physical. The government should not be promoting things that would endanger the general health of the society.

 

[East_and_West]

To East an West: right, but what I’m saying is that why should my attraction to men be considered irrational by the law when it is my natural, intrinsic behavior? If being gay was against natural law then nobody would be gay. There were gay people before there was even a label to call them gay - they were just attracted to men. It just happens.

There are also people who are attracted to little children. Does this make it natual? Phedophiles often feel its natural. Look at NAMBLA for goodness sake. There are people who have the desire to engage in erotic behavior with animals. Should that be considered “natural”? Goodness, I hope not. Likewise, I am attracted to memebers of the same sex. However, I recognize that its not natural to my person. It is defect, just like a person who perfers eating rocks is suffering from a defect.
I think the problem is that you are not understanding what I mean by natural. C.S. Lewis has a great discusion of the multiple meanings of the word “natural” in his book “Miralces”. The way you seem to be using the term is to mean that which seems to fit or feels right for you. If this was all that I meant by natural, I would agree that homosexuality is quite natural for me.
However, that is not what I mean at all. When I refer to something as natural, I refering to that which is proper, objectively, to a particular kind of being. The question then, is: is homosexuality proper to the human person or is it a disoder? Well, let us disucss the matter of human sexuality. We can see from observation, that the male human body evolved to complimentary with the female body. The male sex organs and the female sex organs have multiple complex physiological processes that function with one another quite well. I will not go into those processes now as they may be to graphic for some of our younger posters but we all know what they are. Now male sex organs do not have processes that functions in union with other male sex organs. There is absolutely no gay anolog of the male/female sex act. In fact the male-male act can actually be quite damaging, physically. There is a much higher instance of anal cancer amongst gay men than there is amongst straight men. In fact, I know an older gay man who had to have an artificial sphincter implanted as a result of his life of sexual exploits. The point is that we can see that human body is ordered towards to sexual activity with members of the oppostie sex. The flip side of that is that it is not ordered to sex with members of the same sex. When some one has a desire for something which the human person is not ordered towards, we call this a disorder. Thus, Same Sex Attraction is a disorder.

 

[peduzzi89]

I agree that it is a defect - it goes against the way nature designed us - I know that. But after years and years of trying to change/overcome my gayness I have come to the conclusion that I just can’t. I prayed and prayed. Every Sunday at church the first thing I would pray is to not be gay, to change it - for 10 years I prayed. But it just couldn’t happen. I think it’s great that you’re trying to overcome it - but why would me getting married to a man affect that? If I told you that I have actually been married to a man this entire time would that have affected the honor of your decision?

About the law - not every law is based on morality alone - many are to give people the right to choose their own morality. Such as adultery - you cannot be arrested for cheating on your spouse. Our own president did it - and it was a huge upheaval but not a crime. But I don’t think that him cheating affected the sanctity of any already happily married couples. I mean if a man and a woman get married, and they are committed to eachother, why would 2 men getting married change what it means for them?

 

[thseng]

peduzzi89, I would like to ask you:

What, exactly, does the average homosexual find attractive about the idea of marriage? And what does he think that a marriage is, exactly?

 

[East_and_West]

I agree that it is a defect - it goes against the way nature designed us - I know that. But after years and years of trying to change/overcome my gayness I have come to the conclusion that I just can’t. I prayed and prayed. Every Sunday at church the first thing I would pray is to not be gay, to change it - for 10 years I prayed. But it just couldn’t happen. I think it’s great that you’re trying to overcome it - but why would me getting married to a man affect that? If I told you that I have actually been married to a man this entire time would that have affected the honor of your decision?

Ok, let’s say that neither you nor I ever overcome our Same Sex Attraction. But we both still acknowledge that it is a defect/disorder. What are we to do? Well, since SSA is a disorder, it is likely to have negative consequences in our particular lives if we choose to feed that disorder. If this is true, why would we want to feed it? It seems to me that the best solution is living chastely. It just like the guy who likes to eat rocks instead of food. Should he continue eating rocks because he has a taste for them and cannot get rid of that desire for rocks?

 

[SCALCO]

I agree that it is a defect - it goes against the way nature designed us - I know that. But after years and years of trying to change/overcome my gayness I have come to the conclusion that I just can’t. I prayed and prayed. Every Sunday at church the first thing I would pray is to not be gay, to change it - for 10 years I prayed. But it just couldn’t happen. I think it’s great that you’re trying to overcome it - but why would me getting married to a man affect that? If I told you that I have actually been married to a man this entire time would that have affected the honor of your decision?

About the law - not every law is based on morality alone - many are to give people the right to choose their own morality. Such as adultery - you cannot be arrested for cheating on your spouse. Our own president did it - and it was a huge upheaval but not a crime. But I don’t think that him cheating affected the sanctity of any already happily married couples. I mean if a man and a woman get married, and they are committed to eachother, why would 2 men getting married change what it means for them?

Peduzzi,

Please consider, for a moment, the religious perspective.

It seems that you don’t completely dismiss Catholic teaching and Old & New Testatment teaching against homosexuality. Why give in then? I can understand how hard it is. One example is people who struggle with the temptation of adultery. They may have to live their whole life fighting this temptation and it may never completely go away. This seems somewhat similar to your experience. Part of faith is perseverance. What eases the burden is hope and faith in Christ. At least that’s how I see it.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not saying you should have to support/condone them, simply give the freedom to those who do

Yes, you are saying that. Gays already have the freedom to “marry” by finding a minister/rabbi/witchdoctor/wiccan that will do the ceremony. You are asking the government to recognize that marriage. Such recognition would support/condone gay marriage.

 

[blessedtoo]

Thank you for pointing this out - from now on I will make sure I specify that I mean get married to eachother, just in case anyone didn’t read the title of this thread. And redefining marriage is no small thing for us, but why is it for straight people? What if they were to legalize gay marriage? How would this directly affect a straight marriage?

There is no “gay marriage” and “straight marriage”. There is only marriage, which exists between a man and a woman. Obviously, redefining the INSTITUTION of marriage, which is what we are discussing here, would affect the INSTITUTION itself.

No, they don’t give them special rights, they give them the same rights as everyone else

And this already exists. As I said before, the right to marry applies to ALL people, gay or straight. A SPECIAL right would be the creation of a new institution with a new definition.

Ok, well, 2 men getting married is not going to bring about anyone’s death all by itself - I know what you’re going to say about AIDS and all that - but that is not directly cause by 2 people of the same sex getting married.

Implied in the tradition of marriage is the expectation of sexual activity. This is one of the reasons why the state is involved in it’s regulation. Are you suggesting that gay marriage will NOT include sexual activity?

No - the reason we MAKE laws is to protect the rights of others - what you’re saying is the reason we write them down on a piece of paper.

It is not. The purpose of law is regulation. I have the right to smoke, but I can’t do it in my favorite restaurant. I have the right to express my sexuality, but not with a 12 year old. I have the right to marriage, but not to my brother.

Certainly the ideal is a father and a mother - but there are countless other cases in which this does not occur - such as my single mother home. Or foster homes - I feel quite sure there are many foster homes run by one gender of person (no I don’t have a citation for that but are you going to say there are none in this country that might be run by all men or all women?). Sure those kids have all their basic needs - but not there is no substitute for the love of parents - wouldn’t that be better than a foster home, even if it were from 2 men or 2 women?

The role of the state is to support the ideal, not to lower standards. As it is, government has made concessions and exceptions to the ideal to accomodate extraordinary situations (such as single parent households) but it does not codify these arrangements as ideal or intentional.

I’m talking about the law here, which is not based on what the Holy Father says. As stated above - the law supports many other types of nontraditional homes. While we are on that subject - let me reiterate that laws are created to protect the rights of others, not to promote religious morality, otherwise there would be laws against abortion, contraception, masturbation, oral sex…need I go on?

Now you are trying to extrapolate religous theory into that of law. I simply used the Holy Father’s declaration to illustrate a point. I am not asserting that his view should be or would be legally binding. With the exception of abortion, which can be proven scientifically to be illegal (murder), the other things you listed would be considered religious views. That is not the issue here.

Would anyone be happier if we called it something else? Still the same rights, but different title - that way we wouldn’t be changing the definition of marriage.

There is no need. As it is, gay couples have all the same rights as heterosexual couples. With appopriate legal documentation, they are entitled to all the same rights.

Marriage is not a natural thing - it does not date back to the first existence of man. It was originally created as a holy union between a comitted man and woman.

Oh man. Again, read that book I recommended. It’s not that long. Marriage has been with us since the beginning of human existence, long before “holy unions” or religious influence appeared.

But now in modern society, it entails so many legal rights.

From the beginning, it has entailed legal restrictions. It had to in order to protect property, children, mom and dad.

The definition of marriage has already changed in that you can get married without any religoius affiliation whatsoever - which already deviates from its original purpose.

Wrong. It did not originally exist for this purpose and since time began there has always been the “right” to marry without religious affiliation. Your starting point is incorrect so your argument carries no weight.

So those legal rights should be extended to anyone who are in the same type of committed relationship.

Who else do you wish to extend these alleged rights to? Perhaps you should do some research into the original objectives of the gay rights movement. You should know the goals of the group you have aligned yourself with.

 

[peduzzi89]

My my my - if I had lots of time on my hands, nothing would make me happier than to continue debating all of these points…but sadly I am a college student and have not the time. I knew this would be an impossible argument - I knew I would not change any of you and you would not change me. I started it because I knew it would be the great way to get your sides of the story and your opinions, because if you are going to advocate something you should no all points of view on the issue. I very much appreciate all the answering - especially blessedtoo for his/her very meticulous critique of my arguments - you gave me many valid points to think about.

 

[Jennifer123]

My my my - if I had lots of time on my hands, nothing would make me happier than to continue debating all of these points…but sadly I am a college student and have not the time. I knew this would be an impossible argument - I knew I would not change any of you and you would not change me. I started it because I knew it would be the great way to get your sides of the story and your opinions, because if you are going to advocate something you should no all points of view on the issue. I very much appreciate all the answering - especially blessedtoo for his/her very meticulous critique of my arguments - you gave me many valid points to think about.

Nothing is impossible with Christ!!

I hope you do indeed reflect on what we’ve discussed. You won’t hear this from your professors, your friends, or your media. I know I didn’t when I was an idealized young liberal on the college campus, but it’s important. I hope you can see that the orthodox religious view is more than just reflexive homophobia or ignorance.

God bless you in your studies.

 

[blessedtoo]

I very much appreciate all the answering - especially blessedtoo for his/her very meticulous critique of my arguments - you gave me many valid points to think about.

You know, that’s a great start. It’s important to have ALL the information available when forming one’s views. God bless you for considering another perspective.

 

[SCALCO]

I knew this would be an impossible argument - I knew I would not change any of you and you would not change me.

As Jennifer said, nothing is impossible with Christ.
Love never fails…1 Corinthians 13:8

 

[urban-hermit]

Dear peduzzi89 - If you are still reading, I will try to summarize one of the points made in the book by David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, which blessedtoo has recommended.

You had asked how re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples would damage marriage. In a nutshell, it damages marriage by taking away any preferential treatment from the idea of traditional (heterosexual) marriage.

Why should traditional (heterosexual) marriage get preferential treatment?

Marriage builds up society and ensures its future survival as no other arrangement can do. It is the best way to conceive and raise future citizens to people society. Children have a right to know and be raised by both a mother (female parent) and a father (male parent), and ideally these should be their biological parents whenever possible - in other words, we should not intentionally create situations where children will be denied one of their parents. Society has a responsibility to encourage the best outcome for the child, who is unable to influence the situation himself/herself.

Hence the special status given to marriage, to encourage people to enter into marriage and make the sacrifices that it demands, for the good of others and the future of society.

If gay people want to “marry” one another and refer to it as “marriage”, well … some of them already are doing that. But from a legal standpoint, it is not marriage until the word gets legally re-defined - and doing that would weaken society, and, perhaps unintentionally from your point of view, but still, it would end up denying children one of their most basic rights.

As you yourself said at one point, my rights end where another’s begin. I feel strongly that any “need” gay people may feel to have their relationships praised by society is outweighed by the need society, and, in particular, children, have for traditional marriage.