Gay "marriage" and politics

[gardenswithkids]

My dad was Catholic, as is my mother. He was extremely ill, and she took care of him every day after work, with only the help of nurses. This is why i have so much of a problem with the church about things like homosexuality, because it coincides a lot with my upbringing. I’ve read somewhere that impotent people can’t marry. I don’t think sex and kids should be the defining factor of marriage. I was conceived the last time my parents were able to have sex. After that, my father was impotent. They obviously didn’t have sex, and yet their marriage was loving and full of self sacrificing love. My father will always be my mother’s soul mate, and they had a sexless marriage for the last 9 or so years of it. I think that love, above all things, for your spouse, and for yourself, are the most important things in a marriage.

*Edit. I also think about my father every day, especially as I get older. There are a lot of things I never got the chance to do and learn from him.

What a wonderful testimony to marriage your mother and father provided. I’m sorry for the loss of your father. Both my parents passed away when I was an adult.

You wrote “I don’t think sex and kids should be the defining factor of a marriage.” Sex and children certainly aren’t the only important things in marriage, but they are rather important. The state has an interest in marriage* because* the sexual nature of marriage allows for the possibility of procreation. It is in all our best interest for children to grow up in stable homes.

The kind of witness your mother gave as a loving wife to your father is beautiful–and far too rare these days. Too many children have been abandoned by their fathers or mothers or both. Foster homes and adoption were brought up in a thread about gay “marriage”, which points to both facts that many heterosexuals engage in sexual activities without providing stable homes for children andthere’s something about the word “marriage” that makes people think about children. Sex, marriage and children are intricately connected.

 

[Jermosh]

I lost my father to a massive stroke when I was 12. I can say for a fact that being raised by a single parent, or not having a male role model, was not a walk in the park.

This was because of something unavoidable. I can’t imagine why we’d want to willingly inflict that on a child.

What are the other alternatives to not allowing a single person to adopt? There is astronomical data showing that kids raised in foster homes are setup for disastor in adulthood if they make it that far.

 

[vacanebrake]

I believe the teachings of my Faith are correct as they relate to homosexuals and marriage. As I stated in an earlier post marriage is between a man & a woman. My quandary as a Christian is, who’s greatest commandment is to Love My Lord… followed by Love my neighbor as myself , is passing judgment on people who are human beings just like you & me, yes even some are Catholic. Most people I know (heterosexual/homosexual) are good and yes moral people. I don’t know where I’m going w/ this it just brothers me we all can not find some way to solve this problem. Saying “sorry you loose” ain’t the answer. I do believe it takes both camps to work on solving this. enough.

Peace & all good

 

[Pamm]

I believe in my heart and absolute being that marriage is a commitment between two people, one male and one female. I also believe it is possible to have a committed relationship involving two persons of the same sex. Since I believe that marriage is a sacrament and indeed a commitment before God and blessed by the Church, then it is a religious relationship based on Faith. Marriage is recognized by our government as a civil union – which allows for shared legal bonding for the couple. I believe the government has the ability to recognize that kind of relationship for same sex couples. I do not believe that our Church can recognize same sex marriage as the same sacrament that heterosexuals participate in. Priests do not experience the sacrament of marriage.

Since I believe what gays want is legal recognition for their bond, I think the civil union is the right approach. But let’s call it what it is which is a civil union. Since I am married, I believe I have both a civil and a sacramental marriage. Same sex unions can never be sacramental.

Having said all of this, I have personal friends who are gay. They are involved in the equivalent of a civil union even though it may not be sanctioned as one. I believe they are as committed to their significant other as I am. They should have the same “legal” rights as I have with my spouse.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

…
This is a matter of church and state. It is unfair to push religious beliefs on others, therefore these laws concerning DADT are unconstitutional, because they are based on religion. As for inheritance, gays are denied rights all the time, because, should the family of the deceased contest it, they can easily overturn the person’s will.

As for sin, you can believe it’s a sin, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are denying people rights based on religion, which is against the first amendment.

First off, I’m Canadian, so my concerns are with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not a First Amendment.

However, as well as being Catholic, I am a life scientist (population genetics), and there’s more to this than religious belief. And if marriage were something that was invented in law, rather than something that was seen to be the proper object of legal regulation, then I guess it would be, and only be, what the law said it was. But it is incredible hubris to assume that any legislature or judiciary anywhere, any time, “invented” marriage.

Don’t ask, don’t tell is not entirely based on religion, it would appear. I know of a number of agnostic scientists who have great difficulties with homosexuality, because they note that no one produces sperm adapted to swimming in feces.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[edwest2]

Eris, you make a point that we must acknowledge–many, many children today are raised without both a mother and father. That happens sometimes due to death, but more often than not, it’s because of problems like divorce and sex outside of marriage. We have gotten to the point where we are today discussing gay “marriage” because we somehow forgotten what marriage really is. Many never knew.

When we try to defend Church teachings against homosexuality, we must really acknowledge that heterosexuals have done a bad job of protecting marriage in the past several decades.

As a child who had both a loving mother and a loving father, I find it kind of offensive when people suggest one of my parents (usually my dad) was a sort of un-neccessary luxury. Sure, children can get by without both a mother and a father, but it is not the ideal. As the mother, I can attest that I need my husband to help me raise our family, and he needs me. While we could survive as single parents, our children would dearly miss having both of us. People can get by with only one arm, but we were designed to have both a left and a right arm. Likewise with parents, we were designed to have both a mother and a father.

Sadly, many people do not really know the love of* both* a mother and a father, who are married to each other and living in the same home raising their children together. The people raised by single parents may not even realize that they are missing something important. They may think it is okay to place children who have been entrusted to the state for whatever reason in homes without both a male and female role model (aka mom and dad) for the children because that is how they grew up.

I do not write this to slam single parents or those raised by single parents, but to point out that the sins of heterosexuals against marriage brought us to this point. If we had done a better job over that past forty years of defending marriage from sins by heterosexuals, we would not be having this discussion.

“we” Who is we? I was there for the last 40 years. A review:

1968 Pope Paul VI has Humanae Vitae published. He knows the Pill is out there. He warns Catholics that they will be tempted to use it. And he warns of the consequences. Had it all stopped there, things would be much better today, BUT, outside forces forced the issue in the wrong direction…

1970s Adult Bookstores are selling images of prostitutes because lawyers and judges say OK. Not because Catholics say OK, Lawyers and Judges. Porn is financed by organized crime.

1973 The Supreme Court says abortion is OK. Go ahead, open those abortion clinics. Catholics did not say it was OK.

Let’s legalize topless bars and strip clubs also. That will help keep men’s minds on their wives.

1980s Let’s put porn on cable. Let’s make sure the government cannot interfere. Then we’ll offer it in Motels too.

How about No-Fault Divorce? A Catholic idea? I open the newspaper in the 1980s and I see a lot of ads like this. “No kids? $75 and you’re out.” Kind of like abortion - give them the money, sign a few papers. It’s nobody’s fault.

1990s George Michael is singing I Want Your Sex (you don’t need no Bible just look in my eyes). Broken families litter the landscape. A divorced Catholic friend of mine gives me this response when I bring up annulments. “I’m not getting an annulment. Then my kids would be bastards.”

Throw in the internet by the end of the decade and you’ve got more porn addicts, along with the drug addicts and TV addicts.

And the lawyers were running around: “You can’t Censor Anything!” The ACLU woke up one day and said, “Hey! You can’t have no Nativity in front of a public building. It’s unconstitutional!” We’ll take anybody and everybody to court!

No, no, no. The “we” in the equation were the manufacturers of birth control pills, who had to move product, organized crime selling dope who had to move product, and pornographers who had to get as many people as possible addicted so they could move product. And who made all this legal - even now, marijuana is part way there - the lawyers and judges.

Plans are already in place for Beyond Gay Marriage and it will be all about lawyers and judges – again.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Peace,
Ed

 

[hellopeople]

For example you cannot consummate a same-sex “marriage”.

What is gay sex then?

 

[hellopeople]

With all due respect, may I ask why you would consider being with someone of the same sex if you’re bi-sexual? I think it’s easier for bi-sexual people as opposed to homosexuals because bi-sexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. Don’t you think life would be easier for you in every way if you choose someone of the opposite sex rather than the same sex?

This seems kind of silly to me. If someone loves someone of the same sex, even if they are attracted to people of the opposite sex, why settle for someone from the opposite sex they do not love? You marry who you love, whether it is a man or woman.

 

[edwest2]

I believe the teachings of my Faith are correct as they relate to homosexuals and marriage. As I stated in an earlier post marriage is between a man & a woman. My quandary as a Christian is, who’s greatest commandment is to Love My Lord… followed by Love my neighbor as myself , is passing judgment on people who are human beings just like you & me, yes even some are Catholic. Most people I know (heterosexual/homosexual) are good and yes moral people. I don’t know where I’m going w/ this it just brothers me we all can not find some way to solve this problem. Saying “sorry you loose” ain’t the answer. I do believe it takes both camps to work on solving this. enough.

Peace & all good

At what point are you or the Church passing judgement? Even the Church recognizes that people can live as they wish. No priest will be pounding on your door Monday if you missed Mass Sunday. Right now, the Church is reaching out to Catholics who haven’t been to Mass in 20 or 30 years.

The solution is not marriage for two people who are physically mismatched. There would be no problem if they could get irrevocable property and inheritance rights and hospital visitation, but this option has been discarded. Why? Because leaders and spokesmen for this movement insist on equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Just like a hammer is not a saw, two men are not biologically compatible just as two women are not. This is not about politics, it’s about biology.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

This seems kind of silly to me. If someone loves someone of the same sex, even if they are attracted to people of the opposite sex, why settle for someone from the opposite sex they do not love? You marry who you love, whether it is a man or woman.

You choose to pursue a specific type of person. Right? We all have our preferences, straight or gay. I’m not BUT if I were to search for a man at this point in my life, I would look for someone who is moral; likes kids and cats; loves God; is over 40; secure; and having big brown eyes wouldn’t hurt his chances either. A very handsome, attractive, immoral, jobless, 25 year old atheist who hates kids and cats wouldn’t be an option for me not matter how attracted I would be to him. So if a** bi-sexual **person could **choose to **pursue either men or women, why not choose to pursue the opposite sex? We could argue this or that all day but the bottom line is straight relationships are more common and more accepted. And that’s not my rule. It’s just the way it is. So I don’t think what I said is silly at all.

 

[vacanebrake]

At what point are you or the Church passing judgement? Even the Church recognizes that people can live as they wish. No priest will be pounding on your door Monday if you missed Mass Sunday. Right now, the Church is reaching out to Catholics who haven’t been to Mass in 20 or 30 years.

The solution is not marriage for two people who are physically mismatched. There would be no problem if they could get irrevocable property and inheritance rights and hospital visitation, but this option has been discarded. Why? Because leaders and spokesmen for this movement insist on equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Just like a hammer is not a saw, two men are not biologically compatible just as two women are not. This is not about politics, it’s about biology.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

Don’t actually get your point in your first paragraph.

I do agree, I think, w/ your second parag. there is no marriage unless it is between a man and a woman. I also agree that members of the "…movement…"are asking for equality where it can’t exist. The point I was trying to make there is a secular solution that could be worked out, outside of marriage.

Peace & all good:banghead:

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

Don’t actually get your point in your first paragraph.

I do agree, I think, w/ your second parag. there is no marriage unless it is between a man and a woman. I also agree that members of the "…movement…"are asking for equality where it can’t exist. The point I was trying to make there is a secular solution that could be worked out, outside of marriage.

Peace & all good:banghead:

I wrote down what the solution could be but it is being rejected by gay groups.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Eris_Discordia]

You choose to pursue a specific type of person. Right? We all have our preferences, straight or gay. I’m not BUT if I were to search for a man at this point in my life, I would look for someone who is moral; likes kids and cats; loves God; is over 40; secure; and having big brown eyes wouldn’t hurt his chances either. A very handsome, attractive, immoral, jobless, 25 year old atheist who hates kids and cats wouldn’t be an option for me not matter how attracted I would be to him. So if a** bi-sexual **person could **choose to **pursue either men or women, why not choose to pursue the opposite sex? We could argue this or that all day but the bottom line is straight relationships are more common and more accepted. And that’s not my rule. It’s just the way it is. So I don’t think what I said is silly at all.

Well to answer your question, I don’t look at gender at all in considering whoever I am dating. Currently, I am dating a man. However, just because I am bisexual doesn’t mean I am choosing someone based on gender in the least. If my boyfriend was the same person, only a woman, I would still date him. To me gender is not a factor at all. I find myself far more attracted to women, but only because the personality of the women in question is what I am really attracted to. My boyfriend is the ONLY man I am attracted to, yet there are many women that I am attracted to. However, I would not pursue a relationship with them because I am monogamous, and some of these women are straight, and I respect people’s orientation. I refuse to flirt with a girl if she is straight, because I don’t want to make her uncomfortable. I have boundaries. It’s not as simple as just “Choosing to be straight” because I have no control over where my affections lie. To me, I dance to the beat of a different drum, and society has very little influence over my choices. If I love a woman, or a man, or a trans-person, or a hermaphrodite, and that person feels the same way about me, I will listen to my heart, and not the din of disapproval around me.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

First of all, this is a strawman. It’s not pushing religious beliefs on others, because it’s not like we’re arresting people for being gay. We’re merely not handing out marriage licenses to gay couples.

How is it a strawman? if you are referring to the fact that I brought up that people are denied rights, it is NOT a strawman, because it is supported by fact. Also, whenever those who are against gay marriage speak, inevitably, they bring up a religious argument. So yes, it is a matter of forcing religion on people. With all due respect, I’ve seen many government officials debate on it, and religion is brought up. Also, there are still sodomy laws on the books of some states.

However, it begs the question, why is it unfair to push religious beliefs more than any other belief? After all, slavery was faught largely due to religious reasons. You also raise the issue of the constitution. The constitution does not contain the phrase “seperation of church and state”. It says “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, not “shall make no law based on religion”. The founders were concerned about a state church, like what they have in England. Indeed, George Washington said “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the bible”, and John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate

Then how do you explain some of the founding fathers being atheists? Also, the issues of slavery was not fought for religious reasoning, but because of the disparity of wealth between the south and the north. Also, most of the founding fathers rarely practiced their religion, and were taking the ideas of the Enlightenment writers.

Religious belief is protected in the First amendment, in the Bill of Rights. Religion is personal and varied, which is where separation of church and state came from. Human rights issues are something completely different, and with something like homosexuality, where people are being denied rights because of who they love based on a religious argument, it is not fair to force these on people, because it affects their lives.

Also,

Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion–as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], … ("Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary

Two people who love, care for, and respect each other does not make a marriage though. It’s an important part, but it’s not sufficient. For instance, if you are in a marriage, and love, care for, and respect people in addition to your spouse, does that constitute polygamy?

No, because I said two specifically in my post. Nowhere did I say more than two.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

First off, I’m Canadian, so my concerns are with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not a First Amendment.

However, as well as being Catholic, I am a life scientist (population genetics), and there’s more to this than religious belief. And if marriage were something that was invented in law, rather than something that was seen to be the proper object of legal regulation, then I guess it would be, and only be, what the law said it was. But it is incredible hubris to assume that any legislature or judiciary anywhere, any time, “invented” marriage.

Don’t ask, don’t tell is not entirely based on religion, it would appear. I know of a number of agnostic scientists who have great difficulties with homosexuality, because they note that no one produces sperm adapted to swimming in feces.

Blessings,

Gerry

I don’t know much about Canadian law, I’m afraid

However, men and women can’t reproduce with others of the same sex, but how did DADT come in to this equation? Sorry, your post is a little mixed up.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

What a wonderful testimony to marriage your mother and father provided. I’m sorry for the loss of your father. Both my parents passed away when I was an adult.

You wrote “I don’t think sex and kids should be the defining factor of a marriage.” Sex and children certainly aren’t the only important things in marriage, but they are rather important. The state has an interest in marriage* because* the sexual nature of marriage allows for the possibility of procreation. It is in all our best interest for children to grow up in stable homes.

The kind of witness your mother gave as a loving wife to your father is beautiful–and far too rare these days. Too many children have been abandoned by their fathers or mothers or both. Foster homes and adoption were brought up in a thread about gay “marriage”, which points to both facts that many heterosexuals engage in sexual activities without providing stable homes for children andthere’s something about the word “marriage” that makes people think about children. Sex, marriage and children are intricately connected.

Thanks. I’m sorry you lost your parents. My mom and dad had something that is far to rare these days. If people were like them, I doubt the divorce rate would be so high. My mother is strong for taking care of my dad. If I am ever in a situation like that, I hope to share the same kind of strength and courage that she had.

I guess because of my own view on marriage, I don’t want to have biological children. I’ve always wanted to adopt, especially older children, because they have a low chance of adoption. But in the context of having to be able to procreate to be married, then what about those who are infertile?

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

Well to answer your question, I don’t look at gender at all in considering whoever I am dating. Currently, I am dating a man. However, just because I am bisexual doesn’t mean I am choosing someone based on gender in the least. If my boyfriend was the same person, only a woman, I would still date him. To me gender is not a factor at all. I find myself far more attracted to women, but only because the personality of the women in question is what I am really attracted to. My boyfriend is the ONLY man I am attracted to, yet there are many women that I am attracted to. However, I would not pursue a relationship with them because I am monogamous, and some of these women are straight, and I respect people’s orientation. I refuse to flirt with a girl if she is straight, because I don’t want to make her uncomfortable. I have boundaries. It’s not as simple as just “Choosing to be straight” because I have no control over where my affections lie. To me, I dance to the beat of a different drum, and society has very little influence over my choices. If I love a woman, or a man, or a trans-person, or a hermaphrodite, and that person feels the same way about me, I will listen to my heart, and not the din of disapproval around me.

Give yourself all the credit you deserve. You said you have no control over where your affections lie but you refuse to pursue women under certain circumstances. So many people put their own needs first but you tend to think of the other person. I have a lot of respect for you. I hope things work out well between you and your boyfriend

 

[OraLabora]

What is gay sex then?

Homosexual sex. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not consummation in any normal sense.

Consummation involves “two becoming one flesh”. Biologically that is only possible in the marital act because that is in fact the only human physiological process that actually requires two individuals to accomplish. You don’t need two to breathe, take nutrition, drink, walk, etc. But you do need a man and a woman to engage in the procreative and unitive union. It is a union that the human race depends on for continuity.

Same-sex relations do not and cannot have this particular aspect. Moreover there is no single defining sex act for same-sex couples. Different couples do different things, which I will leave to people’s imaginations. None of this repertoire of sex acts is even remotely necessary for the survival of the individual or of the community or race. They are really only acts of mutual gratification. And this is not the same as, say a post-menopausal or sterile couple engaging in intercourse. Even if the act is rendered sterile by nature or circumstances, it is still essentially the same physiological process. It’s sort of like eating a meal that includes a food that tastes good but you cannot digest it for some reason and it passes through you undigested or only partially digested. The meal is still a valid physiological process even though a flaw in your metabolism prevents you from “completing” the meal, that is, digesting it completely.

Think of this also: legally a marriage can be annulled for non-consummation. For a heterosexual couple that is easy to define: sexual intercourse never took place.

But what about for a same-sex couple? What if partner A insists it was consummated because he was able to have sex in the manner which pleased him, but partner B insists it wasn’t because his sexual preference was not fulfilled? The result would be a legal quagmire.

I realize that this is hypothetical and unlikely to happen frequently, but it helps illustrate that there really is only one definition of marriage and one definition of consummation. In the former case, it is the union of a man and woman, and in the latter, it is vaginal sexual intercourse between the husband and wife.

 

[doanli]

“we” Who is we? I was there for the last 40 years. A review:

1968 Pope Paul VI has Humanae Vitae published. He knows the Pill is out there. He warns Catholics that they will be tempted to use it. And he warns of the consequences. Had it all stopped there, things would be much better today, BUT, outside forces forced the issue in the wrong direction…

1970s Adult Bookstores are selling images of prostitutes because lawyers and judges say OK. Not because Catholics say OK, Lawyers and Judges. Porn is financed by organized crime.

1973 The Supreme Court says abortion is OK. Go ahead, open those abortion clinics. Catholics did not say it was OK.

Let’s legalize topless bars and strip clubs also. That will help keep men’s minds on their wives.

1980s Let’s put porn on cable. Let’s make sure the government cannot interfere. Then we’ll offer it in Motels too.

How about No-Fault Divorce? A Catholic idea? I open the newspaper in the 1980s and I see a lot of ads like this. “No kids? $75 and you’re out.” Kind of like abortion - give them the money, sign a few papers. It’s nobody’s fault.

1990s George Michael is singing I Want Your Sex (you don’t need no Bible just look in my eyes). Broken families litter the landscape. A divorced Catholic friend of mine gives me this response when I bring up annulments. “I’m not getting an annulment. Then my kids would be bastards.”

Throw in the internet by the end of the decade and you’ve got more porn addicts, along with the drug addicts and TV addicts.

And the lawyers were running around: “You can’t Censor Anything!” The ACLU woke up one day and said, “Hey! You can’t have no Nativity in front of a public building. It’s unconstitutional!” We’ll take anybody and everybody to court!

No, no, no. The “we” in the equation were the manufacturers of birth control pills, who had to move product, organized crime selling dope who had to move product, and pornographers who had to get as many people as possible addicted so they could move product. And who made all this legal - even now, marijuana is part way there - the lawyers and judges.

Plans are already in place for Beyond Gay Marriage and it will be all about lawyers and judges – again.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Peace,
Ed

Ed, agree totally, spot on.

I might add the US Supreme Court ruling taking God and prayer out of public schools have played a part too, IMHO.

I’m afraid we’re going to see things get even worse before they get better if we are given that time. I fear for my son and his children…

 

[edwest2]

Don’t fear for your son or his children. Give them some advice and encouragement, even a little. Evil goes forward when good people say and do nothing. Once again, I wish to stress, it is only the behavior that is the concern and not people with same-sex attraction. I am single and I must remain chaste. I am accountable to God as well.

Peace,
Ed