Gay marriage and other issues concerning homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter peduzzi89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually - I don’t think the word insanity was in there at all - more like, why are you saying that gay people are insane? You know, I don’t think that S&M, tatoos, or pornography are normal and healthy, but the government doesn’t stop people froming doing those things as long as everyone involved does so willingly. I’m not asking you to get a gay marriage am I?
 
Actually - I don’t think the word insanity was in there at all - more like, why are you saying that gay people are insane? You know, I don’t think that S&M, tatoos, or pornography are normal and healthy, but the government doesn’t stop people froming doing those things as long as everyone involved does so willingly. I’m not asking you to get a gay marriage am I?
I think that there is a form of insanity invovled in attempting to force something to work that cannot, to try to make reality conform to oneself rather than conforming to reality. Its profoundly narcissistic.
 
And that’s great that you think that, East and West. But see that’s the difference between pro-gay-marriage people and anti-gay-marriage people (for the most part) - those against are trying to force their personal beliefs on everyone. Those who are for, are just trying to be able to fulfill their own - everyone else, including the Catholic church can keep own practicing life their own way which is perfectly cool with us.
 
And that’s great that you think that, East and West. But see that’s the difference between pro-gay-marriage people and anti-gay-marriage people (for the most part) - those against are trying to force their personal beliefs on everyone. Those who are for, are just trying to be able to fulfill their own - everyone else, including the Catholic church can keep own practicing life their own way which is perfectly cool with us.
Again, I think this akin to saying, “Some people prefer to eat rocks instead of food so we should force them to eat food instead. They should be allowed to go on living their lives as they choose.”
BTW, I appreciate the respectful tone of your posting.
 
Well, if someone really wanted to eat rocks, the government wouldn’t stop them. Or more realistically - something like bulemia - to the vast majority (inc me) - completely abnormal and unhealthy. But the goverment doesn’t have the right to stop someone if they choose to do that as long as they’re not forcing someone else to.

Oh and, no prob. That was my hope - was to find respectful, civilized conversation - which is the best way anything has ever gotten done.
 
peduzzi:

Everything about sin will be selected for condemnation. That is a given fact. But that is not what most people mean, because they erroneously link the sin with a perceptively unchangeable person, who insists that his case is viewed in this way. If one concedes to this then it becomes difficult to paint one in the negative without the other. It becomes the permanent adjective that qualifies the subject.

There is no between at all, as if there were a democratic vote on the degrees of HS that is accepted, or panels deciding how to dignify the act to make it socially acceptable. God says there will be no board rooms to discuss it. He says there will be no podiums to stand on to voice an opinion. The issue became closed the very moment the law was announced.

What transpires in of what is termed a gay* marriage is actually a ritual, not a Marriage in the Holiness of the sense. Since God does not preside over an alliance based on a forbidden act, the void is filled with His enemy. A form of ritual satanic worship is it’s effect, because it declares in contract a life long servitude to sin, and makes a formal promise it will be done as a couple, a double bonus of sorts for satan. Worst of all it makes a mockery of God’s gift of the Sacrament. It goes beyond just ignoring of conscience, but deliberately tarnishes it’s Divinely endowed purity. Guardian angels take their leave at these moments, hoping that God will not take them then.

Unsurprisingly, misfortune in this world is not the normal outcome of the act. In fact satan does as little as he can to disturb the state of these two souls, but the couple are in a perilous position. He will also remain in the sidelines as these two will further assist him by unwittingly incorporating false benefits of a marriage union. They will bring children into the union to further pollute their minds into the acceptance of this union, and such compounding goes on in other fashions, such as persecution of the children because of their guardian’s choice, their social isolation, and the slander they will need to endure in their belief that their caretakers are innocent of any such moral crimes, and certainty only portions of Scripture will be selectively presented to the children as appropriate reading, if at all. The list goes on.

So we can only pray and submit these two unwillingly, soulfully kicking and screaming to the Cure and care of the enemy of all deception, the Blessed Mother, that one day she will succeed in calling them to her Rosary, which will reveal the trick in the mirror, and allow her to fulfill her promises to her devout children.

*I think labels of this sort only help the afflicted in his identity with the sin even though they obstinately do so themselves. One will receive no assistance in this from the afflicted, which is characteristic of the deception. These people are not “Anything” but in error, they are simply acting out a very subtle and deceptive sin.]

AndyF
 
Well, that was a very intelligently and articularly put piece of information, which I appreciate, but I am afraid it is misplaced - it doesn’t get at my point - that even though you believe all that, it should have no bearing on my life. That is, after all what this country was founded on. We left England for religious freedom - so that no one could impose their beliefs on anyone else…that is all I’m asking for.
 
Well, that was a very intelligently and articularly put piece of information, which I appreciate, but I am afraid it is misplaced - it doesn’t get at my point - that even though you believe all that, it should have no bearing on my life. That is, after all what this country was founded on. We left England for religious freedom - so that no one could impose their beliefs on anyone else…that is all I’m asking for.
Gay people do have freedom, but our government/society doesn’t have to condone and/or sanction their relationships. Could we have gay “civil unions?” Sure, if enough people support the idea. Should we? I don’t think so. I don’t see the value to society.
 
I’m not saying you should have to support/condone them, simply give the freedom to those who do
 
Homosexuality does not infringe upon the rights of others.
There are plenty of examples where the promotion of an active homosexual agenda infringes upon the rights of others, primarily, upon those who hold religious convictions.
We must also think of children in homosexual households who will never understand the complementary role of women and men as parents.
 
Well first about the children - if a child is attracted to the opposite sex they will understand (and there is definately no proof to say that gay parents make their children gay), and it’s not like they will teach them that only same sex relationships exist.

The first part, though, I kind of agree with - I can’t stand the whole loud and proud look at us being gay pish posh. I don’t advocate the ideas of gays forcing anything upon anyone just to push an agenda, which is why I am engaging in tasteful, civil discussion. For gays to throw their sexuality in your face is indeed an infringement upon your rights and I think a huge part of why nobody can get across to anyone - because most gays immediately turn everyone else off to discussion with the way they approach things. I more advocate a balance - I don’t think religious morals should affect gays rights to get married but I certainly would not try to begin to make the church recognize them because they have the right not to.
 
Well first about the children - if a child is attracted to the opposite sex they will understand (and there is definately no proof to say that gay parents make their children gay), and it’s not like they will teach them that only same sex relationships exist…
I’m not sure of the prevalence for children of same-sex households to themselves be gay, but I do know that there are many studies showing children are at more risk when raised in same-sex households.
I more advocate a balance - I don’t think religious morals should affect gays rights to get married but I certainly would not try to begin to make the church recognize them because they have the right not to.
The Church has the right here in the US, for the time being, to not recognize gay marriage but as we can see with our neighbors to the north, religious freedoms are becoming more limited in regards to opposing the active homosexual lifestyle.

Have you read anything from the Vatican on the issue?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

“The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.”
 
peduzzi:

Thank you. 🙂

It was my understanding you wanted a general discussion or at least personal views on the topic. I gave my views not targeted to anyone in particular here.

I think what people would like imposed on them is the true religion of God, regardless who it came from. Having found it, the temptation for some would be to reject things that would be difficult, and only submitting to select items they agree with and don’t impinge on their lifestyle, as if this selective adherence would gain them full reward.

Personally I don’t think this would work, what do you think.?

AndyF
 
Hopefully I am clear in that I don’t think anyone should take away the church’s right to oppose the homosexual lifestyle. I’m not saying the church’s should marry gays. In fact I think that gay marriage should be a separate venue from the church. I could give you a whole little speech on civil law based on natural law - but perhaps tomorrow instead because I am dead tired and have class in less than 6 hours :.
 
My original point of starting the thread, though was that I don’t think all of that reason should be used in preventing gays from legally getting married, since people can already get married without the church’s involvement. I think gays should be able to do the same - I’m not asking for the church to accept/recognize/agree with it - just for the legal rights and the name.
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.
You know, I don’t think that S&M, tatoos, or pornography are normal and healthy, but the government doesn’t stop people froming doing those things as long as everyone involved does so willingly.
Nor does the government promote or condone such activities by enacting legislation that would confer benefits to those who engage in such things.
But the goverment doesn’t have the right to stop someone if they choose to do that as long as they’re not forcing someone else to.
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.
I’m not saying you should have to support/condone them, simply give the freedom to those who do
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.
 
To AndyF: thank-you for your respectful responses. And I agree that selective submission to pretty much anything would be kind of pointless. If you just wanted to give your opinion and leave it at that, that’s cool with me - thanks. If you wish to debate more - I am basically looking for the church’s reasoning for why legal-only marriage of gays should be prohibited based on something other than their religious beliefs. I have already rebutted many points people have made - but if you would like to offer some new ones, that would be great, if not that’s cool too. Going to bed now.
 
Well first about the children - if a child is attracted to the opposite sex they will understand (and there is definately no proof to say that gay parents make their children gay), and it’s not like they will teach them that only same sex relationships exist.
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.

A “child” can not understand why he has two moms or two dads. What the child DOES understand is that he is completely dependant upon whatever parent he has, and that his love for the parent is unconditional. Even abused children, when given the choice, will continue to live with an abusive parent because of the elaborate denial system in place for survival purposes. 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 could give you a whole little speech on civil law based on natural law - but perhaps tomorrow instead because I am dead tired and have class in less than 6 hours :.
Honestly, do you think there is anything new under the sun that you can speak to us about? If you do a search on CAF you will see 500,000 threads on this topic. We’ve heard it all before.

If you are TRULY interested in learning the non-religious reasons for keeping traditional marriage between a man and a woman, I suggest you read:
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207203472&sr=8-1

This is an excellent and thorough exploration of the history of marriage and it’s importance to society. It was written by a lib who has no religious axe to grind. I have recommended this book to about 10 other people on CAF who have come to the forums with the same argument you are presenting. Not one of them has read the book. I can only assume their quest for truth is a canard. I hope that’s not the case here.
 
To AndyF: thank-you for your respectful responses. And I agree that selective submission to pretty much anything would be kind of pointless. If you just wanted to give your opinion and leave it at that, that’s cool with me - thanks. If you wish to debate more - I am basically looking for the church’s reasoning for why legal-only marriage of gays should be prohibited based on something other than their religious beliefs. I have already rebutted many points people have made - but if you would like to offer some new ones, that would be great, if not that’s cool too. Going to bed now.
Its because gay marriage is contrary to science of Ethics which is not a religious principle but, rather, a rational one.
 
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207203472&sr=8-1

This is an excellent and thorough exploration of the history of marriage and it’s importance to society. It was written by a lib
A lib? Do you mean a libertarian? I am completely unfamiliar with the man, but in looking at his magazine articles listed on Amazon.com it appears he has written pieces for The Weekly Standard and also for First Things, both with a solid reputation for conservatism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top