Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[CopticChristian]

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.

Julia,

Once upon a time there were homosexuals that paraded their bodies on Castro street. Many used drugs, many prostituted, many drank, many had sexual partners too many to count.

In a far off land there were homosexuals that wanted to have special priveleges because of their behavior. They politiced and paraded that their rights were violated. Some became “like” their normal counterparts and even suggested that now everything was fine since their familes were like other families and their children were children rasied by homosexuals…a bold experiment…ignoring any notion of what is in the best interest of the child. People wrote books, people wrote poems, many had parties and celebrated the triumph they believed they had…and still…on a dark night…

on Castro street some did not get the message and they used drugs, prostituted, drank, had many sexual partners and wondered about those that were writing the books, the poems and celebrating…what was that all about…eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we may die and for them nothing changed…

 

[Bradski]

But why aren’t you “free”, Bradski?

If you want to have sex with someone else, besides your beloved,* who has any authority over you to stop you from doing this, *if your paradigm is truly “consenting adults”?

No-one except myself. I have a code of ethics if you like. Quite a quaint term, but valid nevertheless.

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.

Apart from a proportion of the population feeling aggrieved? Neither can I.

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.

I was going to quote some of it, but it’s only running through the same arguments as we’re having now. He brings nothing new to the table. Or brought, rather.

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

I’d say that that is a personal opinion so if you think it’s wrong, then fair enough.

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.

Well, you believe in an absolute morality, so again, it wouldn’t be OK for you. And ‘harmful activity’ means different things to different people. There are some people who feel the need to have a limb amputated. I think that any reasonable person would class that as a mental disorder. But if you like getting tied up and beaten with copies of Bee Keepers Monthly then I’m not going to say there’s anything immoral about that.

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

If they do, then I think it’s wrong. If they don’t…then it’s open to debate.

]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?

Beats me. I’ve always been the voluptuous type myself. And I think we’re getting further from the argument.

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.

The government has no interest in why someone wants to get married. You don’t fill in a questionnaire giving the reasons why you want a license when you roll up to get one. You could get one even if the only reason you want to get married is that you both like that business with the Bee Keepers Monthly. They will tell you why you can’t get married, but the state has *absolutely no interest at all *in the reasons why you do.

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.

Agreed.

 

[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?

You’re comparing paedophilia with homosexuality yet again. You obviously feel there’s a comparison and that allowing men to have sex with children is equivalent to allowing men to have consensual sex with each other. Please tell me I’ve misinterpreted your meaning.

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.

Well, that’s something I rarely think about. Probably because the only time I get to hear it is when someone arguing against gay marriage decides to play the slippery slope card. It’s definitely not because I see bumper stickers everywhere saying: ‘I Want to Marry my Dad and I Vote!’

Do you think that there’s a responsibility that a parent has to its child, even if that child is of the age of consent?

Do you think that there’s an automatic trust that a child develops with the parent and to a similar extent that siblings develop with each other?

Do you think that the relationship between close family members is completely and utterly different to any other relationship at all?

Do you think that a sexual component within that relationship would utterly destroy that trust and that relationship?

Do you think that it would be the lowest act imaginable to purposely use that position of trust for sexual ends?

Do you think that it would also destroy the relationship between all other family members?

 

[RobbyS]

No-one except myself. I have a code of ethics if you like. Quite a quaint term, but valid nevertheless.

Apart from a proportion of the population feeling aggrieved? Neither can I.

I was going to quote some of it, but it’s only running through the same arguments as we’re having now. He brings nothing new to the table. Or brought, rather.

I’d say that that is a personal opinion so if you think it’s wrong, then fair enough.

Well, you believe in an absolute morality, so again, it wouldn’t be OK for you. And ‘harmful activity’ means different things to different people. There are some people who feel the need to have a limb amputated. I think that any reasonable person would class that as a mental disorder. But if you like getting tied up and beaten with copies of Bee Keepers Monthly then I’m not going to say there’s anything immoral about that.

If they do, then I think it’s wrong. If they don’t…then it’s open to debate.

Beats me. I’ve always been the voluptuous type myself. And I think we’re getting further from the argument.

The government has no interest in why someone wants to get married. You don’t fill in a questionnaire giving the reasons why you want a license when you roll up to get one. You could get one even if the only reason you want to get married is that you both like that business with the Bee Keepers Monthly. They will tell you why you can’t get married, but the state has *absolutely no interest at all *in the reasons why you do.

Agreed.

From a “secular” point of view, I think freedom of religion is worth preserving. Gays want to criminalize any criticism of their conduct, including from the pulpit. It is called “getting even,” and they are willing to disturb the peace in order to get their way. Beyond that, there is an effort to cut the ties between the law and any
fix morality. So all depends on who controls the reins of government, who has the power. Revolutions, including sexual ones are always dangerous. You start out going north, but then all of a suddenly you find yourself in a cloud of uncertainty.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

It is homosexual sex that is

an unnatural way of living.

and no one is “forcing” them into that behavior, any more than a heterosexually attracted person is “forced” to engage in sexual relations with the opposite sex, including whether that potential partner is married, single, taken a vow of celibacy, etc.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This:

one has no right to marry based on sexual attraction as such.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Across, you have to believe it’s a sin before you feel remorse.

I think that is why people in our modern world don’t face sin. They don’t want to feel bad about themselves or anything they may have done.

Nobody wants to see themselves as being bad. Have you ever read Dale Carnegie’s book “How to Make Friends and Influence People”. He has several stories of people who we can see as objectively doing wrong, but nevertheless they justify themselves. We believe we are justified through Christ our redeemer. Thanks for leading me to understanding more about justification… I had to look this one up.

The Catholic doctrine on justification

We have an authentic explanation of the Catholic doctrine in the famous “Decretum de justificatione” of the Sixth Session (13 Jan., 1547) of the Council of Trent…

The process of justification (processus justificationis)

… What then is meant by justification? Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer …Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13; James 2:17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity (fides informis) cannot possess any justifying power. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail…

**Justifying yourself leads to misery (for you and all those around you). Our prisons are filled with people justifying themselves. We visit them as adopted Children of God **

 

[PRmerger]

I have personally been fighting for and advocating for gay people since 1975.

And the Catholic Church has been doing this for 2000 years.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I think that is why people in our modern world don’t face sin. They don’t want to feel bad about themselves or anything they may have done.

This description means they want to be sociopaths. Because someone doesn’t think something is sinful, and you do, doesn’t mean they are “justifying” themselves. All the non-Catholics using birth control aren’t “justifying” their “sin.” I doubt they give it a thought. This doesn’t mean they don’t have an operating conscience.

The topic is same sex marriage. Marriage is not sinful. Being in love is not sinful. Being gay is not sinful. Some people, including those who promulgate moral teachings in the Church, think sex between even some married people is sinful. But why would those people think so? They do not. They are justifying nothing, they are living their lives.

 

[fix]

This description means they want to be sociopaths. Because someone doesn’t think something is sinful, and you do, doesn’t mean they are “justifying” themselves. All the non-Catholics using birth control aren’t “justifying” their “sin.” I doubt they give it a thought. This doesn’t mean they don’t have an operating conscience.

The topic is same sex marriage. Marriage is not sinful. Being in love is not sinful. Being gay is not sinful. Some people, including those who promulgate moral teachings in the Church, think sex between even some married people is sinful. But why would those people think so? They do not. They are justifying nothing, they are living their lives.

What is your point?

 

[PRmerger]

No-one except myself.

Then you are bound by nothing at all, Bradski. For if you make the rules, you can change the rules ad lib.

This reminds me of times when I was playing a game with my then 7yr old daughter in which she made all the rules. She told me, “You can’t walk on the carpet 'cause it’s hot lava”.

Ok. I complied. She complied.

Then she wanted something that was on the carpet and she walked over to get it, stating,
“Well, it’s not hot lava anymore!”

Okey dokey. She makes up the rules. She’s not bound by them. She can change them ad lib.

In the end, when one is bound by “no one but myself” when it comes to moral authority, it is essentially the same as “I am bound by* nothing.”*

 

[PRmerger]

But why aren’t you “free”, Bradski?

If you want to have sex with someone else, besides your beloved,* who has any authority over you to stop you from doing this, *if your paradigm is truly “consenting adults”?

And this prompts another question, Bradski.

If sex is an enjoyable activity that only requires “consenting adults” (provided, they are “free” to consent, as you say), why would anyone NOT be free to enjoy this with anyone (adult) of one’s choice, even if he/she is in a “committed” relationship with someone else?

I would never be offended if my DH had an itch at work and asked a co-worker to scratch his back.

Similarly, by your paradigm, why would you be offended if your DW had a sexual itch at work and asked a co-worker to satisfy it?

Of course, the “consenting adults who are free to consent” presupposes this unstated paradigm: sex cannot just be for pleasure. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have a problem with your DW having a pleasurable experience with a co-worker.

 

[stewstew03]

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

I can appreciate your passion for social justice - I don’t begrudge you for that (you would have fit right in with Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement). However, with this one statement you seem to be marginalizing a group of people that you recognize as a minority.

Many years from now, when SSM becomes the law of the land across the nation, and SSM becomes the “new normal” (maybe I’m stretching your prediction) – will you fight for those of us who are in the minority? Will you protect us against a majority who thinks the Catholic Church is a “hate group”? (See, e.g., the Southern Poverty Law Center’s identification of the Family Research Council as a hate group). Will you fight for a minority’s civil right to disagree with the majority?

As I said, I can appreciate your passion for civil rights – no qualms there. My hope is that you truly believe in freedom and civil rights and social justice for people of all stripes – not just for those with whom you happen to agree.

 

[Julia_Mae]

What is your point?

My point is exactly what I said:

**They are justifying nothing, they are living their lives.
**

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

Patavium, don’t forget that to an unbeliever, there can’t be absolute morality. So it’s all good!

 

[CopticChristian]

My point is exactly what I said:

**They are justifying nothing, they are living their lives.
**

Julia,

You once said this…

As for myself, I think nothing can be proven or disproven to a mind already made up.

and this is true. You have your mind made up and your point of view is your point of view. You want to fight for what is a sinful life because you want to believe that there is oppression. The oppression is of their own making when it comes to homosexuals behaving and wanting acceptance. I don’t and others don’t have to accept this behavior and neither should you.

You also said this…

I am Catholic. ALL the answers are inside, as Christ lives in me. Also in you.

and to be Catholic you should look to see what the Church teaches and what Christ teaches to fight for what is truly good.

Later you said this…and I would ask that you should see that homosexuals that are actively living in sin need to give up their sinful lives.

To be in the Church, you have to receive the Sacraments. It took Saint Augustine a long time, years, to give up his mistress and his sinful life, even though he believed in Christianity and Jesus

And while you say we should not force Catholicism…I see you forcing what you believe to be a cause beyond a cause…

Our job is not to force Catholicism on the world, but to be Christ to it. If we did that, we wouldn’t be able to build churches fast enough to hold the converts.

Your teaching experience and observation of animals needs to take into account that any conclusions you draw from animals should take into account that animals operate from no better than an adolescent mentality. You have children and know that adolescents don’t think things through. You should also realize that animals do not do what humans can and that is self reflective thinking.

What animal has built a library, written a book, or left a written legacy for other generations of animals. I believe that the Leakey’s have contributed to the field of behavior and the living one is Athiest…but the Leakeys are not the Church.

 

[Patavium]

Patavium, don’t forget that to an unbeliever, there can’t be absolute morality. So it’s all good!

Yes, indeed. It is a morality based on popular response (relativist at its best). Now, there is popular support for gay marriage, and perhaps in the future there will be popular support for pedophilia (Why not?, it happened in the ancient history with the Greeks and Romans).

 

[fix]

My point is exactly what I said:

**They are justifying nothing, they are living their lives.
**

Culpability varies. Objective sinfulness does not.

 

[Faithdancer]

Culpability varies. Objective sinfulness does not.

Amen- Moral Theology 101. btw I just started a thread for Catholics to discuss the issue of gay “marriage” from a moral theology standpoint, in the Moral Theology forum.

I will say as a teaser for that new thread that if its true that most Catholics support gay marriage (one poll doesn’t convince me, btw), then there is a lot of work to be done, because those Catholics are in grave error and in urgent need need of catechism.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Patavium, don’t forget that to an unbeliever, there can’t be absolute morality.

And apparently to many “believers” as well. (I’m sure you get my drift.)