Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[rossum]

This does not follow. Gun laws change but this doesn’t change what a gun is.

A gun is a physical object, and has its own separate existence apart from the laws. Civil marriage is not a physical object and has no existence apart from the laws which define it.

If the laws change then civil marriage changes, as it has done in the past, and will do so in future.

rossum

 

[markeverett49]

A gun is a physical object, and has its own separate existence apart from the laws. Civil marriage is not a physical object and has no existence apart from the laws which define it.

If the laws change then civil marriage changes, as it has done in the past, and will do so in future.

It’s refreshing to hear that if laws allowing same-sex marriage were overturned tomorrow you would not complain, given that people have only the rights the law presently recognizes, and the only reason they have them is that the law presently recognizes them.

The union of a man and woman that produces a child who will need years of care and supervision is every bit as real as a gun. The law did not invent conjugal sex. That same-sex couples CANNOT have conjugal sex is an OBJECTIVE reason to distinguish them from couples who can. Further, although some couples may have conjugal sex that never results in childbirth, the sex is still conjugal, whereas no same-sex coupling can be for the most obvious of biological reasons: male and female bodies are complementary in a way which those of same-sex couples can never be. (This has nothing to do with law or religion; it is how human beings, a sexually reproducing species, are.)

Gay people may be kind and loving as they like, and I wish them all every good thing, but to pretend that they are capable of conjugal sex is just to chuck reality in favor of make-believe.

 

[rossum]

It’s refreshing to hear that if laws allowing same-sex marriage were overturned tomorrow you would not complain, given that people have only the rights the law presently recognizes, and the only reason they have them is that the law presently recognizes them.

That is not what I said. In a democracy, all voters have an (name removed by moderator)ut to the laws of the country. Those who want to change the laws can either get a majority of their fellow citizens to agree with them, or use the courts to overturn illegal laws.

The first method was used to change laws on divorce. The second method was used to change laws on miscegenation in the US.

Both methods are being used to change the laws on SSM, though in the UK the courts seem to be less commonly used than in the US.

One can disagree with a law while still recognising it and obeying it.

rossum

 

[Slavonic]

Slavonic,

Other than a burning in your bosom how is it you conclude that two men yearning for each other have the same bonds and feelings as a man and woman yearning for each other? What is the basis for your certainty that they are equivalent?

We cannot know if same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are equivalent, inferior, or superior. No outside observer can understand the feelings and bonds between any particular couple. Those feelings and bonds are shared exclusively between them.

I don’t quite understand how emphasizing emotional bonds in against Church teaching. From my perspective, emotional bonds apply to all marriages within and outside the Church. For marriages within the Church and based on Church teaching, how can the couple truly invite God into their shared life if they do not have an emotional bond between each other?

 

[CopticChristian]

We cannot know if same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are equivalent, inferior, or superior. No outside observer can understand the feelings and bonds between any particular couple. Those feelings and bonds are shared exclusively between them.
I don’t quite understand how emphasizing emotional bonds in against Church teaching. From my perspective, emotional bonds apply to all marriages within and outside the Church. For marriages within the Church and based on Church teaching, how can the couple truly invite God into their shared life if they do not have an emotional bond between each other?

Slavonic,

You admit that you do not know and propose something “as if”…this is nonsense.

. If the same feeling and bonds between the partners are the same, why should the gender of the partners matter?

If you cannot know then your suggestion to say “why should genders matter” is relevant to nothing.

As a Byzantine Catholic or as any Catholic homosexuality, that is the act of homosexuality, acting, doing is sin and disordered. I suggest you read your Catechism. If you are of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, turned Eastern Catholic then know what our Brothers in the east say about this perverted message you espouse…

holy-trinity.org/morality/homosexuality.html

Thus, the Orthodox Church cannot subscribe to the demand that homosexuals be recognized by society and its agencies as legal spouses and as deserving the same respect as men and women enjoy in the state of wedlock.

Society and its values, religious and societal, have legitimate claims over the behavior of its members, especially in so vital a function as the sexual one on which not only the survival but its quality as well depend. No one has the right to do whatever he wishes with his body and still claim recognition and respect on the part of society.

The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality should be treated by society as an immoral and dangerous perversion and by religion as a sinful failure. In both cases, correction is called for. Homosexuals should be accorded the confidential medical and psychiatric facilities by which they can be helped to restore themselves to a self-respecting sexual identity that belongs to them by God’s ordinance.

In full confidentiality, the Orthodox Church cares and provides pastorally for homosexuals in the belief that no sinner who has failed himself and God should be allowed to deteriorate morally and spiritually.

Psychiatric restoration, without religious direction and reconciliation with God, is bound to prove short lived.

A healthy society and various religions do not recognize perversions. Rather, they work to restore the homosexual to the status of a self-esteemed individual and thus to a valued instrument of their own survival and wellbeing under God.

Here you will find the Coptic Orthodox speaking and teaching.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/ShenoudaHomosexuality.php

It is claimed that homosexuality is a kind of love between man and man.

No, my brothers. Love should be spiritual; love should be pure. We love others in purity. We love others in the Spirit. And loving others should not be against our love of God, because our Lord Jesus Christ has said, ‘He who loves father, son, wife, sister, or brother, more than Me, is not worthy of Me, is not worthy to be My disciple.’ We cannot love any other person more than our Lord Jesus Christ. Every love which we have, should be love in the

Lord. We love in the Lord, not against. The homosexual love is not love, but lust, and there is a great difference between love and lust, lust of the flesh. The word love is not suitable for such a relation, because in the Gospel we say, ‘God is love.’ How can we say, ‘Homosexuality is love?’ It is not love; it is a bodily lust, a deviated lust of the flesh, a lust that should be corrected. If a man loves another man, can he abuse the man whom he loves? Is this love or destruction? If a person loves a man, can he lead this man to lose his eternity and be punished in the next life? Is this a kind of love, to lose ones image, the image of God

Some people try to provide an excuse for the homosexual saying that he was born in this manner, that there was no express choice, and so unfairly burdened, he should not be held accountable. I tell you that if he was born in the manner described, we need to heal him, to purge him, to correct him, to pray for him, to guide him to repentance, to treat him medically and spiritually. But we may not say to him, all right, we accept you as a member of the Church and give you the Body and Blood of our Lord. **While he remains in such a state, he is an abomination./**QUOTE]

Homosexuals are not immoral in and of themselves. Homosexuals acting on their thoughts and in their behavior are immoral, contrary to the Will of God, contrary to Church teaching, East and West as well as Eastern Orthodox.

You are espousing something that is contrary to Catholic teaching and as long as you carry the Monikor of “Byzantine Catholic” on your title you will be in constant need of correction espousing support for what has been determined to be immoral. Your support of this nonsense is contrary to Church teaching.

I have read all your threads and it is time for you to come to understand that you have errored and need admonition as a Christian brother…you will thank me as I continually admonish you with the Love of Christ…stop this nonsense.

 

[Slavonic]

You admit that you do not know and propose something “as if”…this is nonsense.

What is also an “as if” is the supposition that a particular opposite-sex married couple has a relationship worthy of calling a marriage. Except for cases of marriages for inheritance or immigration purposes the marriage of two people of the opposite sex is generally accepted. In other words, their is no burden of proof on opposite-sex coupes to say their relationships are worthy of marriage or society’s acceptance. Perhaps in part because no one really understands a couple but themselves. So, same-sex couples deserve the “benefit of the doubt” that opposite-sex couples receive.

It also true that one cannot say that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are not equal based no my use of “if”. We really just have to rely on the partners and take their word for it.

 

[CopticChristian]

What is also an “as if” is the supposition that a particular opposite-sex married couple has a relationship worthy of calling a marriage. Except for cases of marriages for inheritance or immigration purposes the marriage of two people of the opposite sex is generally accepted.** In other words, their is no burden of proof on opposite-sex coupes to say their relationships are worthy of marriage or society’s acceptance**

. Perhaps in part because no one really understands a couple but themselves. So, same-sex couples deserve the “benefit of the doubt” that opposite-sex couples receive.

It also true that one cannot say that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are not equal based no my use of “if”.** We really just have to rely on the partners and take their word for it./**QUOTE]

Slavonic,

It is not too late. You will thank me and other Catholics for admonishing you as you brandish the name “Byzantine Catholic”.

Who decides what is wrong and what is right? Me, you, a homosexual. Here is the root of your error.

The heavenly Father gives you free will but to eat of the tree of knowledge of what is good and evil is at the root of your errors in thinking. Praise the Lord for your acknowledging this error…it is not too late…

What Father raises his children to rely on what they think is right and wrong? What Father says…“tell me children…do you believe that what you do is pleasing in the eyes of God?” and accepts this as correct by no means…for to you and all Christians were given the utterance of Scripture so that you may know what it is and what is not correct…

What Father leaves his children no legacy of any kind? Are we to say that the Father in heaven is the least of any Father, of course not, for don’t you know that the Father has given us the Church by which you can know the manifold wisdom of God and the Church is where you will find the Pillar and foundation of truth…For whatever is beatiful, whatever is pure, whatever is worthy to be called good in the eyes of the Father is not…

presenting your sinful thouhgts of a same sex relationship as pleasing…thank God I found your need of correction…I would hope that other Catholics on this thread continue to admonish you, seek your confessor, pray…you are not lost yet…for it is by grace you have been saved,

amazing grace
how sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me
once we were lost
and now are found
you may be blind now but you shall see…Ok…

 

[markeverett49]

That is not what I said. In a democracy, all voters have an (name removed by moderator)ut to the laws of the country. Those who want to change the laws can either get a majority of their fellow citizens to agree with them, or use the courts to overturn illegal laws…

One can disagree with a law while still recognising it and obeying it.

Right, but one cannot say a current law is WRONG (or RIGHT) if one’s standard of, say, what marriage is is whatever the law currently says it is. The BEDROCK of the notion that laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying is that they are UNJUST. The justice appealed to is not simply the current law, but rather the standard by which current law may be judged.

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s refreshing to hear that if laws allowing same-sex marriage were overturned tomorrow you would not complain, given that people have only the rights the law presently recognizes, and the only reason they have them is that the law presently recognizes them.

The union of a man and woman that produces a child who will need years of care and supervision is every bit as real as a gun. The law did not invent conjugal sex. That same-sex couples CANNOT have conjugal sex is an OBJECTIVE reason to distinguish them from couples who can. Further, although some couples may have conjugal sex that never results in childbirth, the sex is still conjugal, whereas no same-sex coupling can be for the most obvious of biological reasons: male and female bodies are complementary in a way which those of same-sex couples can never be. (This has nothing to do with law or religion; it is how human beings, a sexually reproducing species, are.)

Gay people may be kind and loving as they like, and I wish them all every good thing, but to pretend that they are capable of conjugal sex is just to chuck reality in favor of make-believe.

Mark,

Here is the logic of a gay man that is offered concerning homosexual relationships…

Can a gay man in a committed, monogamous relationship with a good man for years produce virtue? I believe that you can experience love, forgiveness, grace and mercy of God in an intimate homosexual relationship. How can this be evil?

When I give myself to my partner and he gives himself to me are we not actually not giving ourselves to each other? With that understanding is this intimacy with my partner de facto sinful?

Ultimately it seems that intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening; relationship-building is a good thing in a homosexual relationship. To suggest that it is not prejudices the physical act over intention–that is, when it comes to sex, it prejudices the life-giving biology of sex over the life-giving intimacy of sex

The notion that sex is for intimacy, bond creation, household strengthening and relationship building are the building blocks of asking for acceptance of homosexual relations. The fact that it is not and never has any potential for life-giving biology as intended is discarded…in favor of the pleasure that is associated with and then names given to that pleasure.

 

[rossum]

Right, but one cannot say a current law is WRONG (or RIGHT) if one’s standard of, say, what marriage is is whatever the law currently says it is. The BEDROCK of the notion that laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying is that they are UNJUST. The justice appealed to is not simply the current law, but rather the standard by which current law may be judged.

So, which version of marriage do we decide is RIGHT? Solomon with 700 wives? Nehemiah with his ban on marriage outside your own community? Historically there have been many different versions of marriage. Is divorce RIGHT or WRONG? How do you propose to get agreement on the question?

I prefer to let each generation decide for itself what sort of civil marriage it wants, through the democratic process. I don’t need an eternal definition of marriage because I wont be around here in 100 years, let alone eternally.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

IIf the same feeling and bonds between the partners are the same, why should the gender of the partners matter?

Are you saying that there should be **no **prohibitions for people who have “feelings and bonds” between them, if they want to marry?

 

[PRmerger]

So, which version of marriage do we decide is RIGHT?

The one that God decreed: between 1 man and 1 woman who are free to marry.

 

[rossum]

The notion that sex is for intimacy, bond creation, household strengthening and relationship building are the building blocks of asking for acceptance of homosexual relations. The fact that it is not and never has any potential for life-giving biology as intended is discarded…in favor of the pleasure that is associated with and then names given to that pleasure.

So, how do you analyse sexual relations between an eighty year old woman and her eighty year old husband. There is no “potential for life-giving biology” there. What about two eighty year old lesbians? Two eighty year old gay men?

If you are going to make the potential for procreation a prerequisite for marriage, then you have to deal with the case of post-menopausal women and others who are infertile for whatever reason.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

The inability to have children is not a bar to marriage.

You are correct.

But marriage must be ordered towards procreation.

A couple in their 60’s marriage, while infertile, is still ordered towards the proper end of marriage–unity and procreation; homosexual unions are not ordered towards procreation.

What’s the diff?

Take this analogy, borrowed from Bad Catholic

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules their play is still ordered toward its proper end.

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

 

[PRmerger]

So, how do you analyse sexual relations between an eighty year old woman and her eighty year old husband. There is no “potential for life-giving biology” there. What about two eighty year old lesbians? Two eighty year old gay men?

If you are going to make the potential for procreation a prerequisite for marriage, then you have to deal with the case of post-menopausal women and others who are infertile for whatever reason.

rossum

See my example above.

The 80 year old man and woman are like senior citizens playing baseball against the (World Champs!) St. Louis Cardinals.

Still ordered towards winning. Although they will, of course, never win.

The Lesbian couple is like the team that comes without bats, gloves, and a baseball, and thinks that they can play baseball with their backs to the infield.

Not ordered towards winning. They aren’t even really playing baseball, are they?

 

[CopticChristian]

So, how do you **analyse sexual relations **between an eighty year old woman and her eighty year old husband. There is no “potential for life-giving biology” there. What about two eighty year old lesbians? Two eighty year old gay men?

If you are going to make the potential for procreation a prerequisite for marriage, then you have to deal with the case of post-menopausal women and others who are infertile for whatever reason.

rossum

Ross,

What gives you the notion that I or you need to analyze sexual relations? Are you a sex therapist?

Male and female he made them and joining at age 19-100 does not change that.

80 year old lesbians and 80 year old gay men should come home to the Catholic Church like all sinners.

 

[CopticChristian]

So, which version of marriage do we decide is RIGHT? Solomon with 700 wives? Nehemiah with his ban on marriage outside your own community? Historically there have been many different versions of marriage. Is divorce RIGHT or WRONG? How do you propose to get agreement on the question?

I prefer to let each generation decide for itself what sort of civil marriage it wants, through the democratic process. I don’t need an eternal definition of marriage because I wont be around here in 100 years, let alone eternally.

rossum

Ross,

You wrongly believe that everything is up for vote. Some things we vote on, some things we vote on and get negated by the courts, some things we vote on get negated by the courts and then appealed and then reversed and it is never just what we vote on.

Families have a hierarchy where decisions are made for the benefit of all. Children don’t vote for what is best for the family. If you want to claim that the Homosexual minority, is a minority and represents 3% or less of the population then get used to Majority rules. You cannot have it both ways.

neosecularist.com/2012/05/10/gay-marriage-and-why-the-majority-rules-not-the-tyranny-of-the-minority/

You cannot argue for protection of a right that does not yet exist as explained here…

 

[Bradski]

zIf you want to claim that the Homosexual minority, is a minority and represents 3% or less of the population then get used to Majority rules. You cannot have it both ways.

I take it that you woulodn’t be happy with the majority decision in the case of gay marriage?

 

[PRmerger]

I take it that you woulodn’t be happy with the majority decision in the case of gay marriage?

What we would be happy with is that the Truth regarding homosexual unions is reflected in our country’s laws.

 

[CopticChristian]

I take it that you woulodn’t be happy with the majority decision in the case of gay marriage?

Bradski,

I am not happy with any decision, however it comes about, that suggests that two homosexual/sodomite/lesbian/gay/ people are united in any union that is referred to as “marriage”, that would be a fair statement.

You must recall that the right to “Marriage” or “to Marry” is embedded in the law…

Skinner vs Oklahoma…that says that the right to marry is linked to procreation. It clearly states that the “right to marry **AND **procreate” is a right…you are going to have a stiff challenge to unimbed the word AND from the right to marry…and this is not a religous declaration…it is case law…

There is no right to marry, according to case law, that is not tied to the right to Marry and Procreate…get over it…