Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

  • Thread starter Thread starter Womanoffaith10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Promoting hatred, prejudice, and the marginalization of people should also be. No one is suggesting any Catholic gay weddings. This is not a Catholic issue, this is a legal civil issue.
You don’t have to. The gay rights movement is already persecuting Christians left and right even in states that don’t recognize any kind of gay union.

Not agreeing with someone’s sex life or mating preference is neither hatred nor prejudiced.

And gay behavior is anything but marginalized. The secular, largely anti-Catholic media in this country has gone out of its way to promote it.
I’m one of the ones who suggested it in the first place. That was a couple-three decades ago. Yes, I do believe in love in action. Yes, I believe this is love.
Your beliefs do not warrant subsidizing on my part.
I think this issue is more complicated than who should and who shouldn’t have sex with whom. And that would bring us to the actual topic of the thread which, so far, I have not seen discussed: the social implications of same sex marriage, which are all incredibly positive, IMO.
Research with adequate sampling says otherwise.
 
Why would you think that according gay folks civil rights and benefits of marriage under the law is not giving them God?
Julie Mae, how many times do I have to tell you this is not a civil rights issue. It may be a benefits issue, but it has no resemblance to the civil rights struggle of the 20th century.

Let’s compare this to the Gay movement with the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century.
  1. Are gays secure in their homes?
    Yes, and if not I will personally fight for that right.
  2. Have gays been denied the right to vote?
    No.
  3. Have gays been restricted on where they can live?
    No.
  4. Have gays been denied access to education?
    No.
  5. Have gays been denied employment?
    No.
**The fight for Civil Rights has been for Inalienable rights (natural rights-granted by the Creator).
In contrast, the Gay cause is for social acceptance. **
 
Moses was God’s Prophet. Mosaic Law is considered the Word of God. Under Mosaic Law there was divorce. You said:

Sometimes there is.
The only Mosaic laws binding Christians are the Ten Commandments.
 
Your beliefs do not warrant subsidizing on my part.
We’ll take your part and increase the funding to train to people to torture. Or we’ll just decide that the government does all sorts of things against our ve beliefs and will tax us into poverty to pay for it without caring a whit what our opinions are.

Of course, gay families will be contributing to the economy also.
Research with adequate sampling says otherwise.
Read it. It’s flawed, IMO and unreplicated. Be that as it may, there are a host of other factors that will improve a great deal if gay persons are participating in a culture of marriage and stable family relationships.
 
]Do you think heterosexuals want to marry to promote acceptance of their lifestyle? I know two sets of married gay people, one men and the other women. I have to say, I don’t think any of them give a hoot in a holler about what anyone thinks of them.
Then why do they want me to subsidize and recognize their relationship?
Does “accept their lifestyle” mean : “let them get married?” Well, then yeah.
Evidently, it also means bully the social sciences so that their relationships look better in paper than in reality.
Why would heterosexuals object if the state suddenly banned marriage?
I even know GLBTQ people who are against so-called “gay marriage” who would call that an uneconomical idea.

Although the states would be within their right to do so.
Why would anyone want to be married?
Raising healthy kids so that civilization survives, for one.
Gay folks are not different from straight folks except in the area of who they make their primary emotional attachment to.
Gay folks cannot reproduce without third-party intervention. That’s why they are different. The state investment in marriage isn’t about emotional attachment or satisfaction, it’s about the kids.
They want to get married. Not all, but many. That’s it, no big agenda, they are just acting like everyone else.
“They” is too general since a lot of GLBTQ folks reject so-called “gay marriage”. These days, a lot of straights in the movement tend to be pushier and more intolerant of other views.

If it’s no big deal, why is it part of diversity curricula, paraded around main streets of our largest cities and unapologetically presented in the media?
The “lifestyle” they want accepted, is just like yours.
There is no obligation for us to accept any kind of sexual behavior, regardless of who wants it to be.
 
But it’s not promoting a gay lifestyle. It’s promoting what had been a straight lifestyle, to gays.
This really is an absurd statement. A “straight lifestyle,” by definition, includes heterosexuality. The only way gays can adopt a “straight lifestyle” is to become heterosexual.

Your use of the past tense of the verb “to have” is equally absurd.
 
Or we’ll just decide that the government does all sorts of things against our ve beliefs
As in the courts deciding who can marry and who can’t even when the voters decide.
and will tax us into poverty to pay for it without caring a whit what our opinions are.
Of course, gay families will be contributing to the economy also.
States that have gay rights are in demographic decline. Gay families are unstable and have comparable or higher divorce rates.

If you want to stabilize or increase government revenue stream, lower taxes, deregulate and get off the back of the private sector and don’t appoint judges who will overturn the will of the people.

Don’t impose social engineering experiments that don’t work.
Read it. It’s flawed, IMO
How is it flawed?
and unreplicated.
Well, when is it going to be replicated? Or is your side going to just sit on it so you can keep on saying that?
Be that as it may, there are a host of other factors that will improve a great deal if gay persons are participating in a culture of marriage and stable family relationships.
I haven’t seen the results. Gay rights have been around in many EU nations and Massachusetts for some time now and I don’t see much improvement. The northeast is still sliding away in demographic decline as is Canada and most of Europe.

In Massachusetts, it wasn’t long after “gay marriage” was legalized that gay divorce was demanded.

Family to me is more than just two sex partners having fun on the state’s dime. Most of the children in same-sex relationships come from prior heterosexual relationships. That alone says a lot about the stability of homosexuality.

If gay behavior was so economical, it would have been encouraged and subsidized for some time now, not to mention practiced much more.
 
The only Mosaic laws binding Christians are the Ten Commandments.
Oh, I should correct myself. The only Old Covenant law that binds Christians is that which comes directly from the Father. This includes the 10 Commandments. It also includes a ban on sodomy, bestiality, and homosexuality.
 
But it’s not promoting a gay lifestyle. It’s promoting what had been a straight lifestyle, to gays.

Promoting hatred, prejudice, and the marginalization of people should also be. No one is suggesting any Catholic gay weddings. This is not a Catholic issue, this is a legal civil issue.

I’m one of the ones who suggested it in the first place. That was a couple-three decades ago. Yes, I do believe in love in action. Yes, I believe this is love.

I think this issue is more complicated than who should and who shouldn’t have sex with whom. And that would bring us to the actual topic of the thread which, so far, I have not seen discussed: the social implications of same sex marriage, which are all incredibly positive, IMO.
Julia,

Since your interest is in Faith building…what Faith are you building here? I cannot make sense of it.
 
Julie Mae, how many times do I have to tell you this is not a civil rights issue. It may be a benefits issue, but it has no resemblance to the civil rights struggle of the 20th century.
This is stunning to me. I would ask how old you are or what cave you were hiding in for the last 50 years, but it would seem rude and break my policy of no personal questions. So, let’s see:

Let’s compare this to the Gay movement with the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century.

**1) Are gays secure in their homes? **
*Yes, and if not I will personally fight for that right. *
NO! If they are more secure now, as black Americans are more secure now, it’s because we have been fighting this battle for decades. And, it’s way easier to hide gayness from your neighbors than blackness.

They are also not secure on the street. Not from “straight” thugs or bully cops.

Have their homes been attacked? yes Have they been vandalized? yes

**2) Have gays been denied the right to vote? **
No

I have no idea if some gay person somewhere was turned away from a polling place because they were gay. Probably. But not in wholesale numbers because you usually can’t identify them on sight. However:

Have they been lynched, beaten, tied to fences and clubbed to death?

YES. YES,YES,YES,YES .

**3) Have gays been restricted on where they can live? **
No.

YES. In the City and County of Denver until sometime in the 1980s, very recently, two unmarried or unrelated in the first degree persons could not purchase a residential property or occupy one as tenants. That’s just one case, there were laws like this all over the country right up to the 80s.

Those are laws, not just people who wouldn’t rent to them. And there were plenty, so, gays in most urban areas ended up having to live in the more blighted areas of town in substandard housing far below what they could afford. Probably those neighborhoods contributed to some of the problems their children had which their nicer suburbanite counterparts didn’t have to contend with.

OTOH, marginal neighborhoods where gays bought homes saw a decrease in crime and a rise in property values as they spent their incomes restoring the homes and landscaping properties.

4) Have gays been denied access to education?
No.
Yes, when they were identified as gay, or even suspected of it, many boys were ejected from private schools and in particular Catholic schools.

5) Have gays been denied employment?
No.
I swear, you just made this up as a joke or something. Yes, of course they have, as is seen in court cases they filed over it which finally got the Court to say you cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation? OF COURSE there were. Gay teachers? Omigosh, tarred and feathered for life. Did you not ever watch Madmen where the art director was fired for being gay? Do you think that was just made up? Then there is the military, you do remember you couldn’t get a job in the military if you were gay?

Where do you think that famous “closet” came from? You think gay folks aren’t still losing jobs for being gay? Or hiding the fact to keep jobs? You think Rock Hudson would have been hired as a movie hunk if anyone knew he was gay? There’s a thread here on CAF where a woman just told me she couldn’t cut her hair too short as a form of penance because people whould think she was a lesbian, which happened in highschool and she was badly harrassed over it.

No discrimination against gays? There hasn’t been anything else.

**
The fight for Civil Rights has been for Inalienable rights (natural rights-granted by the Creator).
In contrast, the Gay cause is for social acceptance.
*You know, if you aren’t old enough to know how much discrimination and violence has been directed at gay people, you sure aren’t old enough to have marched and sat in with us for black Americans, so I think maybe you don’t have a clue what the Civil Rights movement was about. Guess what?
*
It was for social acceptance
. Know how you get that? By passing laws against discrimination so that the people become integrated into the society that marginalized them. Then, familiarity and time cause the hate and fear to dissipate. And anew generation thins the bizarre notions of their parents and grandparents are embarrassing to them.

Some of us are still fighting the same fight for freedom in this country. For everyone. Gay marriage is here to stay, so maybe we should start exploring the topic of the thread: the social issues that surround it, because those are what you will have to deal with.
 
Why would you think that according gay folks civil rights and benefits of marriage under the law is not giving them God? .
If giving benefits is giving God, then the ex-Soviet Union and Communist China have been the most religiously faithful countries in the history of man kind. However, we know this to be false.
Jesus did not say “Fix one another.” He said “Love one another.” .
The order of the great commandments are important.

Jesus replied, “The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Acceptance of my brothers and sisters as beloved children of God is all I have to offer. I think it would work better if we all offered it.
Julia they are not asking that we accept them as beloved children of God. They are asking us to accept their “gay lifestyle”. Their cause has nothing to do with equality, nor acceptance as children of God.

**Father Barron talks about this misunderstand of acceptance of people, and acceptance of ideas. ** youtube.com/watch?v=6jOSRQlNmtA&feature=autoplay&list=UUcMjLgeWNwqL2LBGS-iPb1A&playnext=1
 
Then why do they want me to subsidize and recognize their relationship?
Maybe because they have been “subsidizing” yours involuntarily for all their lives.
Gay folks cannot reproduce without third-party intervention. That’s why they are different. The state investment in marriage isn’t about emotional attachment or satisfaction, it’s about the kids.
No, it isn’t. It’s about the conservation of property and the orderly dissemination of goods and collection of taxes. The government never needed in any way to be involved in marriage. They do it for the money.
“They” is too general since a lot of GLBTQ folks reject so-called “gay marriage”.
I said “not all but some.” sheesh
If it’s no big deal, why is it part of diversity curricula, paraded around main streets of our largest cities and unapologetically presented in the media?
Why would they apologize? Why is anything people want to become law “paraded around main streets?”
There is no obligation for us to accept any kind of sexual behavior, regardless of who wants it to be.
Well, I don’t think refusing them legal status is going to change what they do in the bedroom, so, I think the point is irrelevant.
 
This is stunning to me. I would ask how old you are or what cave you were hiding in for the last 50 years, but it would seem rude and break my policy of no personal questions. So, let’s see:

Let’s compare this to the Gay movement with the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century.

**1) Are gays secure in their homes? **
*Yes, and if not I will personally fight for that right. *
NO! If they are more secure now, as black Americans are more secure now, it’s because we have been fighting this battle for decades. And, it’s way easier to hide gayness from your neighbors than blackness.

They are also not secure on the street. Not from “straight” thugs or bully cops.

Have their homes been attacked? yes Have they been vandalized? yes

**2) Have gays been denied the right to vote? **
No

I have no idea if some gay person somewhere was turned away from a polling place because they were gay. Probably. But not in wholesale numbers because you usually can’t identify them on sight. However:

Have they been lynched, beaten, tied to fences and clubbed to death?

YES. YES,YES,YES,YES .

**3) Have gays been restricted on where they can live? **
No.

YES. In the City and County of Denver until sometime in the 1980s, very recently, two unmarried or unrelated in the first degree persons could not purchase a residential property or occupy one as tenants. That’s just one case, there were laws like this all over the country right up to the 80s.

Those are laws, not just people who wouldn’t rent to them. And there were plenty, so, gays in most urban areas ended up having to live in the more blighted areas of town in substandard housing far below what they could afford. Probably those neighborhoods contributed to some of the problems their children had which their nicer suburbanite counterparts didn’t have to contend with.

OTOH, marginal neighborhoods where gays bought homes saw a decrease in crime and a rise in property values as they spent their incomes restoring the homes and landscaping properties.

4) Have gays been denied access to education?
No.
Yes, when they were identified as gay, or even suspected of it, many boys were ejected from private schools and in particular Catholic schools.

5) Have gays been denied employment?
No.
I swear, you just made this up as a joke or something. Yes, of course they have, as is seen in court cases they filed over it which finally got the Court to say you cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation? OF COURSE there were. Gay teachers? Omigosh, tarred and feathered for life. Did you not ever watch Madmen where the art director was fired for being gay? Do you think that was just made up? Then there is the military, you do remember you couldn’t get a job in the military if you were gay?

Where do you think that famous “closet” came from? You think gay folks aren’t still losing jobs for being gay? Or hiding the fact to keep jobs? You think Rock Hudson would have been hired as a movie hunk if anyone knew he was gay? There’s a thread here on CAF where a woman just told me she couldn’t cut her hair too short as a form of penance because people whould think she was a lesbian, which happened in highschool and she was badly harrassed over it.

No discrimination against gays? There hasn’t been anything else.

**

*You know, if you aren’t old enough to know how much discrimination and violence has been directed at gay people, you sure aren’t old enough to have marched and sat in with us for black Americans, so I think maybe you don’t have a clue what the Civil Rights movement was about. Guess what?
*
It was for social acceptance
. Know how you get that? By passing laws against discrimination so that the people become integrated into the society that marginalized them. Then, familiarity and time cause the hate and fear to dissipate. And anew generation thins the bizarre notions of their parents and grandparents are embarrassing to them.

Some of us are still fighting the same fight for freedom in this country. For everyone. Gay marriage is here to stay, so maybe we should start exploring the topic of the thread: the social issues that surround it, because those are what you will have to deal with.
Julia,

Being born black, Yellow, Red, White has nothing to do with behavior. There is no civil rights issue for behavior. If I want to act out my behavior and ask for a civil right people would think I am as crazy as these guys.
 
This really is an absurd statement. A “straight lifestyle,” by definition, includes heterosexuality.
No, that’s redundant. The “straight lifestyle” you want to deny them is marriage and children, lifelong commitment and being part of the family culture. And BTW, “gay lifestyle” has always been fairly absurd. Like all gay people live the same way and do the same things.
 
No, that’s redundant. The “straight lifestyle” you want to deny them is marriage and children, lifelong commitment and being part of the family culture. And BTW, “gay lifestyle” has always been fairly absurd. Like all gay people live the same way and do the same things.
Julia,

Now you are Faith Building…yipee…:extrahappy:

I want to deny “gay” people marriage…yes sirree…I do…:dancing:

I want to deny “gay” people children…yup I do…:tiphat:

I see no reason for an absurd notion of those that cannot procreate to marry and I am concerned about the best interest of the children and choose not to agree to social experimentation to see what happens…:frighten:

I don’t care if they want to commit to each other because what they are committing to is certainly far from grace and that is their choice…:bigyikes:

I agree with you that the “gay lifestyle” is totally abusrd…you are right on…:bowdown2:
 
Well, when is it going to be replicated? Or is your side going to just sit on it so you can keep on saying that?
MY SIDE? Wait, what? How can anyone “sit on it.” The things is a product of a researcher deciding to pursue it, getting funding, and spending rather a large amount of his professional life conducting, analyzing and publishing it. Just because someone does a study doesn’t mean someone else is going to come along and say, “Hey, I think I’ll replicate that!”

There are all kinds of experiments and researches that have never been replicated.

There all kinds of researches that have been replicated and refined and that have clearly shown the genetic link to homosexuality, but those we don’t believe, or cite or read.

This one thing a guy did, which has results at variance with a number of other studies, now suddenly gets waved everyone’s face while proclaiming SCIENCE SAYS GAY PARENTS BAD!!!

Sorry, it just doesn’t work like that. You want to start a whole thread just on that study, I’ll go through it and point out the problems. But no one has proven anything at all in any direction. That’s the “scientific fact.”
Most of the children in same-sex relationships come from prior heterosexual relationships. That alone says a lot about the stability of homosexuality.
No, it says a lot about how repressed and closeted gay people were until very recently. When gays started coming out in the last twenty years, they divorced their staright partners and often took their children with them. And if there is instability, like there’s not with heteros, it is certainly attributable to the fact that our culture forced these people into the shadows and compelled them into unnatural ways of living.
 
Where do you think that famous “closet” came from? You think gay folks aren’t still losing jobs for being gay? Or hiding the fact to keep jobs? You think Rock Hudson would have been hired as a movie hunk if anyone knew he was gay? There’s a thread here on CAF where a woman just told me she couldn’t cut her hair too short as a form of penance because people whould think she was a lesbian, which happened in highschool and she was badly harrassed over it.
Gays can “hide” their gay-ness in the closet, because homosexual behavior is a choice. Black Americans have never been able to hide the color of their skin. This is the primary reason why the black community, among others, can’t accept the moral equivalence argument advanced by gay activists.
 
Julia they are not asking that we accept them as beloved children of God. They are asking us to accept their “gay lifestyle”. %between%
They want to be married and have families. How is that a “gay lifestyle?”

When Jesus said “Do unto others…” I took Him seriously. I want to be part of my society, I want family and children and freedom. And my belief is meaningless unless I want that for everyone else, too.
 
Sorry, it just doesn’t work like that. You want to start a whole thread just on that study, I’ll go through it and point out the problems. But no one has proven anything at all in any direction. That’s the “scientific fact.”
Then we can agree that the “no differences” paradigm was a hasty conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top