Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[SgtSchultz]

Having said that, you may bring up examples such as S & M when at least one consenting adult is going to get physically hurt. Is that OK?

No it is not. Engaging in a harmful act in order to derive “pleasure” from it is deviant and disordered.

Is it immoral even if the party has agreed to it, knowing full well the consequences? Is it immoral to cause harm to yourself, or have harm caused to you, if there is no negative effect on anyone else?

Absolutely. Morality, at least for those who believe in absolute morality, isn’t simply a matter of “consent”. Besides, I’d argue whether someone was capable of giving consent if they were willing to engage in harmful activity. I’d say their faculties and objectivity are compromised.

Also, it is not necessarily clear whether one who deliberately engages in self-harmful activity is not affecting negatively someone else.

In passing, I think it might be genetic.

Then what of people whose attractions change? What of a teen/early 20-something who likes voluptuous blondes developing into a man who likes slender brunettes?

Apart from the obvious limitations, and personally I wouldn’t recommend it, but why can’t you marry someone because you are sexually attracted to them?

Oh, I never said you shouldn’t. In fact, I wouldn’t recommend marrying someone to whom you aren’t sexually attracted. What I said was that one has no right to marry based on sexual attraction as such. Marriage should not be the state affirming the fact that person A fancies person B. We don’t need the government getting involved in affirming such things.

Like I’ve said before, I think the state’s involvement in the marriage business has been detrimental to the concept of the family unit. It lead to no-fault divorce and to common law living arrangements. Once subsidies and benefits enter the picture, others will want in on them too. Regardless of how solid arguments are for one group receiving benefits over another one, people will only see and hear one thing: “I want in on that too!” After all, I pay taxes!" Such subsidies and tax breaks also provide the wrong kind of incentive for marriage – financial.

But…if I’ve classed some type of sex as immoral – that which causes harm to a third party (and possibly one of the partners?), then ‘moral sex’ (which really sounds odd to me), would be sex where no harm was done.

But how are you defining harm? Harm might not be immediate nor easily identified. It may be subtle and it may take years to fully manifest.

 

[SgtSchultz]

Can you think of a single negative social consequence from a secular point of view if homosexual marriage is placed legally on the same footing as heterosexual marriage?

I can’t.

I’ve read Kolasinski’s article from 8 years ago that gets rolled out all the time, but it’s hard to take it seriously.

What about this article?

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0064.html

It was written by a self-professed homosexual who sees nothing inherently wrong about same-sex sexual relations.

The article is summarised here:

[R]edefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it’s true, but others don’t. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven’t taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we’ve allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

 

[Julia_Mae]

OK. Up through 1965 a group of white men could run a black family out of their house, hang their father on a tree in front of their home, burn the house to the ground, and never be arrested. A black could not vote because his/her grandfather could not vote- because his/her grandfather was a slave. Here we are talking about CORE human rights (inalienable rights). The right to be secure in your home (the right to live), the right to vote (the right to rule), the right to live where you wish (the right to live), the right to get an education (the right to live), the right to work (the right to live). Blacks have been struggling for inalienable rights as human beings.

If you are talking about unalienable rights…I am with YOU! Let’s start another thread and seek out this injustice that you say exists. Let’s forget about this nonsense of gay marriage till we find out more about this terrible injustices you have mentioned. I am skeptical about the truth of this happening, but I always welcome the truth.

IIf people are being hurt, than why aren’t the powers (the powerful gay lobby) speaking about these issues? Yesterday I was going to upload a picture from the 20’s of a woman and her husband (both black) hanging from a tree. They were lynched. I know others over that period were hurt as well, but the overwhelming majority were blacks. The fight for civil rights is for unalienable rights (endowed by the Creator)… assembly, religion, safety…

Without the association with the civil rights movement of the 20th century, the gay movement looses credibility. That’s why gay movement fights so vehemently to maintain this facade."

“If you want to corrupt a countries identity, first corrupt their history.”

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/630371/thumbs/s-ANTIGAY-HATE-CRIMES-large.jpg
A cross made of stones rests below the fence in Laramie, Wyo., where, on Oct. 7, 1998, University of Wyoming gay college student Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead.

Highest Number Of Anti-Gay Murders Ever Reported In 2011: The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs

The following are the number of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990:

2008: 1,617 ate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:

• 58.6 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
• 25.7 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
• 12.0 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
• 2.0 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
• 1.7 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.

2007: 1,460 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:

• 59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
• 24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
• 12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
• 1.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
• 1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
  
  2006: 1,415 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
• 62.3 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual biased.
• 20.7 percent were classified as anti-homosexual biased.
• 13.6 percent were classified as anti-female homosexual biased.
• 2.0 percent were classified as anti-heterosexual biased.
• 1.5 percent were classified as anti-bisexual biased.
  
  2005: 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
• 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
• 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
• 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
• 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.
• 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.
  
  For more federal hate crime statistics, visit the FBI’s Overview of Hate Crime Statistics.

 

[Julia_Mae]

We know we have to deal with sin. It is on our televisions every day. It knocks on our door on the weekends. The way we deal with sin is prayer, the Liturgy, and Sacraments. If we are sinning we use the Sacrament of reconcilation.

Marriage is not a sin.

Among the [Catholic] theologians who say the bishops are in the wrong is Paul Lakeland, a professor of religion and director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield University, a Catholic university in Connecticut. “That’s not really an argument that has a theological justification,” Lakeland said of the church’s opposition to same-sex civil marriages. “It’s an argument that’s based more on fear or repugnance.”

article link

 

[Julia_Mae]

No one disputes that homosexuals are children of god… As for the difference between the movement for same-sex marriage and the civil rights movement, you can ask the many veterans of the former who are outraged at the comparison to the former. .

I’m a veteran of the former and this is just more of the same. I have personally been fighting for and advocating for gay people since 1975.

 

[Julia_Mae]

It is no lie to say that gay people (and their supporters) who think that the sexual / emotional union of two people of the same sex is equivalent to the union of two people of the opposite sex are mistaken.

It’s not a lie when you say something you believe to be true. It has no basis in fact, of course, but it is not a lie.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I mean it is easier to count bisexuals because they are people who “go birthways” and often have wives/husbands and children.

Why would that make them “easier to count” and who is doing the counting and why would anyone want to?

As a cultural phenonenon, I might have said a sociological thing. Jung speculated that it is an urban phenomenon, because in cities, sexual roles tend to get confused, because so many different mores exist together.

Jung. I think science has come a ways since Jung.

 

[Julia_Mae]

On the whole, with some exceptions, I find women much more attractive than men, on every level.

Except physically.

I don’t find women sexually attractive, so I can’t choose to find them sexually attractive and have a lesbian relationship with one.

Unlike you.

Who can choose to find men sexually attractive and have a homosexual relationship with one.

Sarah x

I think we might want to take a poll and ask all the straight folks when they decided to be heterosexual.

 

[CopticChristian]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/630371/thumbs/s-ANTIGAY-HATE-CRIMES-large.jpg
A cross made of stones rests below the fence in Laramie, Wyo., where, on Oct. 7, 1998, University of Wyoming gay college student Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead.

Highest Number Of Anti-Gay Murders Ever Reported In 2011: The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs

The following are the number of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990:

2008: 1,617 ate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:

• 58.6 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
• 25.7 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
• 12.0 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
• 2.0 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
• 1.7 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.

2007: 1,460 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:

• 59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
• 24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
• 12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
• 1.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
• 1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
  
  2006: 1,415 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
• 62.3 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual biased.
• 20.7 percent were classified as anti-homosexual biased.
• 13.6 percent were classified as anti-female homosexual biased.
• 2.0 percent were classified as anti-heterosexual biased.
• 1.5 percent were classified as anti-bisexual biased.
  
  2005: 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
• 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
• 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
• 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
• 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.
• 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.
  
  For more federal hate crime statistics, visit the FBI’s Overview of Hate Crime Statistics.

Julia,

This is tragic that people are murdered because people object to their behavior. I am more inclined to be concerned with the persecution of the Palestinians, many that are Catholic…

thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2012/05/05/israeli-persecution-forces-christians-to

These people are being persecuted for their beliefs too.

As you think and believe so you act…they believe and act to serve God…

 

[CopticChristian]

That had me laughing out loud. I think you’ve nailed the differences between the sexes there. I couldn’t even do it fully clothed and drunk!

In passing, I think it might be genetic.

True. This happens in jails for example. Men who engage in male/male sex in that situation are simply relieving sexual tension in a particular way. They don’t ‘become’ gay. In fact, most men who have had sex in jail would emphatically deny that they were homosexual. Especially, as I’ve heard anecdotally, if they performed the ‘male’ role in the act.

That’s not the picture he paints. Here’s some quotes:

That doesn’t imply he chose not to indulge in sexual relations with a man. He is saying that he chose no to be homosexual. Not being gay was a choice.

He chose not to see the attraction as sexual. Not that he wasn’t going to act on it, but he chose not to be attracted. How on earth is that possible? How can you choose to be sexually attracted or not?

A statement that being heterosexual is ‘behaviour’ and that therefore it is a choice.

I’m not and it would be. People can choose to have sex with anyone and anything they choose. But there is no choice as to whom you are sexually attracted to.

If she wanted a family (something the church encourages), there would only be one option to her. Marry a man.

He was implying that if gay people can’t help it, then paedophiles can’t either. With the very obvious yet unstated conclusion, should we simply agree, that if we can’t blame homosexuals for what they do, then we can’t blame paedophiles either. Tell me that is not the clumsiest argument in this thread so far and that it doesn’t reflect well on the person making it.

I’ve no problem with that. But you see gay sex as wrong and a lot of people don’t. So acting freely on it is not a problem. It’s that problem that is never going to be solved.

Apart from the obvious limitations, and personally I wouldn’t recommend it, but why can’t you marry someone because you are sexually attracted to them?

Bradski,

It would be safe to say you disagree.

 

[Patavium]

I’m a veteran of the former and this is just more of the same. I have personally been fighting for and advocating for gay people since 1975.

Here we go again… Julia Mae claiming credentials

 

[Julia_Mae]

I believe you are confusing same-sex attraction with participation in homosexual sexual relations. One doesn’t necessarily choose to whom he’s attracted, but one does choose whether to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex.

You mean when a straight guy is propositioned by a gay guy he chooses not to engage? So, what has this to do with anything? Gay guys are propositioned by gay guys and sometimes they choose not to engage. Not sure what that has to do with anything either. This thread is way off-topic as no one seems to be speaking about the social implications of same sex civil unions.

Are you trying to setup a proof to say that people with SSA don’t have a choice in whether they engage in sexual liaisons with members of the same sex? That’s absurd.

What’s absurd is to think the general population of gay persons should decide to live their lives without sexual activity. Why would they do that? A gay person in the Catholic Church might, but this is about civil law. It’s about legal standing and privileges granted. What these people do in their bedrooms is not only beside the point it is entirely no one else’s business.

Except the Church doesn’t teach that at all. On the contrary, it calls to chastity those with strong desires to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex.

But the topic is not about the Church and what it teaches, it’s about a civil contract and what Americans have the right to access that.

The people pushing for same-sex marriage base their arguments on the fact that people have no choice to whom they’re attracted.

Nope, the arguments are based in law and equal opportunity under the law for American citizens. That is all.

It also goes unsaid that you aren’t entitled to be married to someone just because you find them sexually attractive.

Certainly you are. Just as you are “entitled” to marry someone you don’t find attractive at all. But as most couples who marry share love for one another far beyond simple sexual attraction,I really don’t see how this has anything to do with the topic either.

 

[Patavium]

Bradski,

So what is it then? Homosexuals can’t help it. Pedophiles can’t help it. What then?. Wait a few more years when pedophiles gain majority support like homosexuals?

Now Bradski, let’s throw another wrench. Are you ok with incest? Those are two consenting adults. Some people are just born that way to only engage in incestuous relationships. That should be ok, it is two consenting adults.

 

[CopticChristian]

Marriage is not a sin.

Julia,

There are many Catholics that disagree with the Magesterium. The Magesterium however is what we believe and follow. You have a choice to follow or not follow. Let me give you some examples of other Catholics that dissented…follow their trail and perhaps you may find something of interest there to adhere to…

Martin Luther
John Calvin
King Henry VIII
Martin Bucer

and there were many others…

Good luck following the Theologians…

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m a veteran of the former and this is just more of the same. I have personally been fighting for and advocating for gay people since 1975.

Julia,

How is that working for you?

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s not a lie when you say something you believe to be true. It has no basis in fact, of course, but it is not a lie.

Julia,

So here we see you are a believer in relativism and not absolutes. Good to know.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think we might want to take a poll and ask all the straight folks when they decided to be heterosexual.

Julia,

I believe that your inner world has been eroded by polling believeing that opinion of the populace is what determines beliefs. This is sad.

 

[CopticChristian]

You mean when a straight guy is propositioned by a gay guy he chooses not to engage? So, what has this to do with anything? Gay guys are propositioned by gay guys and sometimes they choose not to engage. Not sure what that has to do with anything either. This thread is way off-topic as no one seems to be speaking about the social implications of same sex civil unions.

What’s absurd is to think the general population of gay persons should decide to live their lives without sexual activity. Why would they do that? A gay person in the Catholic Church might, but this is about civil law. **It’s about legal standing and privileges granted. **What these people do in their bedrooms is not only beside the point it is entirely no one else’s business.

But the topic is not about the Church and what it teaches, it’s about a civil contract and what Americans have the right to access that.

Nope, the arguments are based in law and equal opportunity under the law for American citizens. That is all.

Certainly you are. Just as you are “entitled” to marry someone you don’t find attractive at all. But as most couples who marry share love for one another far beyond simple sexual attraction,I really don’t see how this has anything to do with the topic either.

Julia,

There is no support for legal standing and there is no such belief that behavior should have priveleges. In particular aberrant behavior.

 

[Julia_Mae]

"Unnatural ways of living?”.

Yes. I said that gay folks have been marginalized and forced into an unnatural way of living.

Now. What do most people do in our culture when they marry and have children? They move to the suburbs, and find a good school system. Then they live their lives with other people who are married and have children who go to school wth their children. This is the natural way we do things - some folks want to live in a city, but they also choose family friendly areas commensurate with their incomes and in areas of good schools.

The gay parents were forced into an unnatural life because they were unable to buy hon mes, would have been run out, and were, from suburban neighborhoods, had to live in places far below the standard of living they could afford, sent their kids to bad schools. . To have the other life is to lie about who they are, be subject to gossip anyway and have their children ostracized.

In a couple decades being gay and married and having a family will be accepted widely and they can live m normal lives and then, then we’ll see how their children fared. then we’ll have a standard against which to compare to being raised by heterosexual parents.

The social implications of same sex civil union is: less drug addiction, less violence, less social disruption, more stable families, more children adopted.

People who object like the ones in this thread, are in the minority amongst Catholics, much less the general population.

 

[Patavium]

Yes. I said that gay folks have been marginalized and forced into an unnatural way of living.

Now. What do most people do in our culture when they marry and have children? They move to the suburbs, and find a good school system. Then they live their lives with other people who are married and have children who go to school wth their children. This is the natural way we do things - some folks want to live in a city, but they also choose family friendly areas commensurate with their incomes and in areas of good schools.

The gay parents were forced into an unnatural life because they were unable to buy hon mes, would have been run out, and were, from suburban neighborhoods, had to live in places far below the standard of living they could afford, sent their kids to bad schools. . To have the other life is to lie about who they are, be subject to gossip anyway and have their children ostracized.

In a couple decades being gay and married and having a family will be accepted widely and they can live m normal lives and then, then we’ll see how their children fared. then we’ll have a standard against which to compare to being raised by heterosexual parents.

The social implications of same sex civil union is: less drug addiction, less violence, less social disruption, more stable families, more children adopted.

People who object like the ones in this thread, are in the minority amongst Catholics, much less the general population.

How do you know all this Julia Mae? Those are very strong claims with no evidence of such. On the contrary, most studies still support the biological, and married couple of husband and wife as the BEST environment to raise kids. Also, one study indicates problems with same-sex marriages raising kids. That one study, you dislike.