Gay Marriage as a Social Issue

[catharina]

What new custom? Giving same sex couples the same legal rights as married couples? Do you honestly think that will be the end of society as we know it?

Sarcasm will get you no where and such a question is way off topic. As I said, there is no reason why any society should or would support under the law an arrangement that exists as an unproven social experiment. Don’t you know that? Are your values so free of a solid base that anything goes for you? Good luck with that.

 

[Squishy]

Sarcasm will get you no where and such a question is way off topic. As I said, there is no reason why any society should or would support under the law an arrangement that exists as an unproven social experiment. Don’t you know that? Are your values so free of a solid base that anything goes for you? Good luck with that.

The same legal rights for gay couples as straight? This is what the argument comes down to. And what you are arguing against. How it is off topic i dont know.

Do you think that gay couples should have the same rights as Hetrosexual couples?

 

[catharina]

The same legal rights for gay couples as straight? This is what the argument comes down to. And what you are arguing against. How it is off topic i dont know.

Do you think that gay couples should have the same rights as Hetrosexual couples?

You said -Do you honestly think that will be the end of society as we know it?-. At least pay attention to what YOU are saying. That question was OFF TOPIC. If or when gay partners can present more than social experimentation to support their call for gay unions on the same baseline as heterosexual marriage, there is no point in considering it. Can SOCIETY expect a good result from such a NEW custom? Why? Says who?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Im not talking about raising children in a gay relationship. In fact i said in an earlier post it was not a reason for or against the gay marriage argument. Its a completly different issue.

Not “a completely different issue” in the United States of America, where status and categories and “standing” imply other “rights.”

Further, the gov’t has a right to regulate (i.e., set boundaries on) marriages even without the issue of parenthood because a ‘marital bond’ is a category with other actual and implied legal ramifications.

 

[Squishy]

You said -Do you honestly think that will be the end of society as we know it?-. At least pay attention to what YOU are saying. That question was OFF TOPIC. If or when gay partners can present more than social experimentation to support their call for gay unions on the same baseline as heterosexual marriage, there is no point in considering it. Can SOCIETY expect a good result from such a NEW custom? Why? Says who?

Do you think that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples?

 

[catharina]

Do you think that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples?

Do I think that a society should overturn all of its recorded history to ratify a legal right for a subgroup when there is no iota of proof that such would support the COMMON GOOD of that society? Absolutely not. Why would YOU think otherwise?

 

[Squishy]

Do I think that a society should overturn all of its recorded history to ratify a legal right for a subgroup when there is no iota of proof that such would support the COMMON GOOD of that society? Absolutely not. Why would YOU think otherwise?

Society already did overturn all of its recorded history to ratify a legal right for this subgroup. It no longer made homosexual relationships illegal. Now either let them finish the job and give them the same rights as other couples. Or get on the streets and campaign against homosexual relationships fill stop.

Their is no middle ground. If homosexual relationships are allowed in society those who wish to have a legaly binding union should be allowed to have that.

 

[catharina]

Society already did overturn all of its recorded history to ratify a legal right for this subgroup. It no longer made homosexual relationships illegal. Now either let them finish the job and give them the same rights as other couples. Or get on the streets and campaign against homosexual relationships fill stop.

Their is no middle ground. If homosexual relationships are allowed in society those who wish to have a legaly binding union should be allowed to have that.

My, you seem to be single-minded. The adjustments made to cover legal partnerships and the attendant healthcare needs of households apply to sisters or brothers or unrelated friends living together if they so wish to claim the benefit of partnership for legal and medical purposes. This qualification of assistance has nothing to do with any -rights- that are extended to homosexual unions. For that type of claim, society would have to overlook the COMMON GOOD and decide to treat all in a wishy-washy, squishy way because certain demands are made. Societies don’t do that!

 

[Chiltepin]

Thats mabey a valid point.

Thanks

I would not have an issue with people chemicaly adjusting who they where sexualy atracted to. Is it even possible? But i do believe that people who are born with same sex attraction. Should never be ashamed of it. They should be as proud of who they are as anyone else. God (no i do not believe in him but i like using this sentance!) made us all the way we are. Each of us is perfect (me slightly more than everyone else)

Is it even possible? No idea, they would have to do research which would not receive funding and be hotly opposed by gay rights activists.

Yes people should accept who they are, but the culture should stop forcing them to accept a gay lifestyle. A lot of people who are Catholic and have SSA accept it, but do not act on it or join their interests and identity to gay activism because their stronger identity is that of a Catholic.

I do not have SSA, so I cannot speak for those who do. I know there are several who have bravely come forward with it on these forums so that we may better understand their position. Some of those people would probably not submit to such a medical treatment as they see it as their cross to bear, an extra God-given suffering through which to find spiritual growth.

If on the other hand they found this attraction more than they could handle, why shouldn’t they be able to adjust this chemical or hormonal imbalance like we do with other chemical or hormonal conditions? Forgive my use of the word imbalance, but that is what I see it as. From an evolutionary standpoint you have an attraction to the opposite sex for the survival of the species. So when I use the word imbalance I don’t mean that they have any less human dignity than someone who has another sort of imbalance or even someone who is balanced (whatever that means.) It would likely become a huge morality debate. I’m not sure if I would agree with the morality of such a treatment, but the research wouldn’t hurt anyone and would likely give a more detailed understanding of the medical aspects of homosexuality.

I am pro-abortion. However adoption is ALWAYS a more preferable option for unwanted pregnancyies. I know that I would be happy for unwanted children to be adopted by the right gay couples. They can give them just as much love and parenting as any hetrosexual couple. And more than a lot of them. But i was trying to keep the argument away from adopting children and gay marriage. As they are not connected in my mind.

Then the conversation here is likely to reach a stalemate unless you are able to at least understand why these issues are connected in our minds. I won’t try to explain at this time because I did not carefully read the whole thread and it is likely that someone already did. Anyway there are a lot of heterosexuals we also see as abusing the state of marriage and this complicates the issue. Thats why a lot of us keep our heads down on that one and fight against abortion. How long can we keep our heads down, who knows? How long before the gay rights movement becomes so strong that legislation is passed to force the Catholic Church to marry gays, which we simply cannot do?

 

[Chiltepin]

This is not a thread about what people think of gay marriage.
This is not a thread about what people think of homosexual actions.
This is not a thread about the Church’s doctrine concerning the Sacrament of marriage.
This is not a thread about my personal viewpoints either.
This is not even a thread about Catholicism in particular.

Now listen carefully and don’t sully this thread with any of the dead end nonsense listed above which killed the last thread.

What I am asking is why is everyone so concerned with gay marriage in the United States?

To elaborate, the U.S. is a democratic country as well as a melting pot of different cultures. Is it really of major social concern to the religious person if another lives a homosexual lifestyle? Even if it is, yet society chooses a liberal route anyway, why do religious feel the need to be so vocal about it? Lastly, can there be a middle ground for social dialogue on the matter?.

I apologize, I do think I had resorted to some of the things you asked for us not to. So to answer some of the questions you have put in a way that does interfere with your banned-list …

I am not terribly vocal on this topic, but I can tell you a few reasons why some groups are. Sometimes it is straight up bigotry (example: “God Hates Gays” type of signs and yells, God doesn’t hate His children, only their sins.)

Other times, which may be more the case with people here, there is a fear of an erosion of all social norms and ultimately a state of anomie(scary place to be).

Why are people so concerned with a social issue in a democratic country? Because it is a sociological issue. I do not know what the right political or legal response to this issue is, but laws are a form of social sanction that people have been using for some time now. We have social sanctions both positive, and negative, formal and informal to enforce our norms.

Perhaps you do not think the answer is in formal sanctions. Perhaps by reiterating that this is a social issue, you are saying that society should deal with this informally (example: pat on the back, a nice greeting card, social exclusion, giving the stink-eye.) Ha, here I am teaching a sociology lesson because I’m not allowed to frame this in a religious context!

Why do the religious feel a need to be vocal about it? Some of us may fear that with increasing governmental control of all aspects of our lives, even sacramental Catholic marriage could be controlled by the state. With the Gay Rights movement picking up steam, can you imagine something happening where a religion comes under severe penalty for its refusal to marry Gays in its own Sacramental way?

Is there middle ground? I have no idea. Less government interference in everyone’s lives so that we can be an actual free country maybe? I guess that reveals my political leanings. I’m rarely political, but you asked us not to be religious. Strange things were bound to happen!

 

[c659smith]

I will try to tackle these one at a time. But i doubt we will come to an understanding.

Countrary to the nature of man. This one seems strange to me. These people are born with feeling of same sex attractions. They are able to find love with one another. This is not something that has been forces on them it is the way they are born. You could actually say that it is you who is going against their nature. By trying to make them fit in with your preconceptions of how they should act and feel.

It does not ‘promote’ vice. Its allowing people who are homosexual to be treated with the dignaty and respect they deserve. No one is asking you to condone their life style choices. But as long as homosexuality is legal, those vices will always be present. Crimialise homosexuality if you feel this way. Good luck finding support for that.

It teaches young people to love who they are. And not the labels that you put on them. What right do you have to say that someone who was born having a sexual attraction to the same sex is wrong?

Actually yes. It changes the definition of marriage. From a the legal union of a man and a women, to the legal union of 2 people. Not really a big deal if you ask me.

Explain this further please

I think you are right here.

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

What is written over and over again in the Old Testament and New Testament makes homosexual acts

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

1 Timothy 1:10
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

Genesis 19:1-38
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” …

I think the Bible is clear on the fact that a homosexual act is a grave sin.

 

[rpp]

There is absolutely NO proof that people are “born” with same sex atttraction. To make such a claim is the equivalent of claiming that Obama id pro-life. No proof, but lots of evidence to the contrary.

 

[stcalixtus]

If someone chooses to be a practicing homosexual that is clearly a sin as the Catholic catechism states, so I will go along with that, as I must. I will not condone homosexual sex, under no circumstance, With that in mind, some one who is gay and is celibate is in full communion with the church, as is a heterosexual who only has intercourse with a spouse.Why is it so difficult for you to understand this? this is Catholic doctrine and there is no doubt about that fact! so what is your problem? homosexual sex is completely un-acceptable, as is adultery, murder,fornication, and many other sins. Do you condone sin? as put forth by our church?

 

[Brendan]

Do you think that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples?

They do, especially in regards to civil marriage contracts.

Every mentally competent adult person who is currently not with a civil marital contract has the legal right to enter into a civil marital contract with one other, adult, human, consenting, unmarried, mentally competent person of the opposite sex.

That applies equally to all persons, gay or straight.

Marital law is contract law, and contract law is equal when all person may enter into in under the same conditions as apply to everyone else. This is clealy true in marital contract law.

If you disagree, can you list any examples of when a homosexual person tried to enter into a martial contract under the terms listed above and was prevented from doing so?

 

[stcalixtus]

They do, especially in regards to civil marriage contracts.

Every mentally competent adult person who is currently not with a civil marital contract has the legal right to enter into a civil marital contract with one other, adult, human, consenting, unmarried, mentally competent person of the opposite sex.

That applies equally to all persons, gay or straight.

Marital law is contract law, and contract law is equal when all person may enter into in under the same conditions as apply to everyone else. This is clealy true in marital contract law.

If you disagree, can you list any examples of when a homosexual person tried to enter into a martial contract under the terms listed above and was prevented from doing so?

this is allowed in only two states right? seems like you are blurring the line between civil union and a traditional marriage…The Catholic church will never recognize a gay marriage…never.

 

[edwest2]

The same legal rights for gay couples as straight? This is what the argument comes down to. And what you are arguing against. How it is off topic i dont know.

Do you think that gay couples should have the same rights as Hetrosexual couples?

Gay people should have equal protection under the law, but marriage is not a right. It is entirely voluntary.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Benadam]

in animals a pairbond is formed to create an environment that’s safe to reproduce and if necessary care for and raise the next generation. That bond is elevated in humans to a sacrament bestowing on the environment and all humanity a life that always began in a santified state. As a social foundation the pair bond has roots in the journey of life that are very primitive , sublime. Any two people can create the environment and experience a quasipairbond but the bond flows from deep within the reproduction of flesh and it flows from both genders.

 

[Elizabeth502]

in animals a pairbond is formed to create an environment that’s safe to reproduce and if necessary care for and raise the next generation. That bond is elevated in humans to a sacrament bestowing on the environment and all humanity a life that always began in a santified state. As a social foundation the pair bond has roots in the journey of life that are very primitive , sublime. Any two people can create the environment and experience a quasipairbond but the bond flows from deep within the reproduction of flesh and it flows from both genders.

Couldn’t be stated more eloquently, i.m.o.

Good job.

 

[AndyF]

Jacob Fenton:

Your making an impossible demand. Religion is inseparable from daily life. There is a very real command structure we live under like it or not. We live in an all encompassing Autocracy, which includes lessor democracies and monarchies, and civil authorities convenient to man.

Whats more, your speaking to servants. Even civil authority is a servant. Nations/Municipalities/Organizations/etc. are a collective of servants. Name a lessor entity and his/it’s function is to serve.

No servant has the authority to exclude the Master’s influence in order to facilitate him making his own opinion or act. Everything a servant does,think and say is being measured for correctness.

What you are experiencing and able to discern is simply behaviours of servants in whatever form doing and not doing what they are told. In this issue your witnessing a collective servant who wants to enact a law that permits what the Master forbids. What do you expect us to do or say? I assume you would want the best for us and wish us good fortune in our relation with the Master, so therefore you would want us to conform to His laws not the servant’s in question. Right?

So you want it straight, no fooling around. So has J. Nicholson says, “That’s has good has it gets.”

If you want us to be adventurous, then all I can say is you first, let me know how the disagreement with the Master works out.

“Fullness of wisdom is fear of the Lord;
she inebriates men with her fruits” Sir 1,14

Andy

 

[Jacob_Fenton]

I apologize, I do think I had resorted to some of the things you asked for us not to. So to answer some of the questions you have put in a way that does interfere with your banned-list …

I am not terribly vocal on this topic, but I can tell you a few reasons why some groups are. Sometimes it is straight up bigotry (example: “God Hates Gays” type of signs and yells, God doesn’t hate His children, only their sins.)

Other times, which may be more the case with people here, there is a fear of an erosion of all social norms and ultimately a state of anomie(scary place to be).

Why are people so concerned with a social issue in a democratic country? Because it is a sociological issue. I do not know what the right political or legal response to this issue is, but laws are a form of social sanction that people have been using for some time now. We have social sanctions both positive, and negative, formal and informal to enforce our norms.

Perhaps you do not think the answer is in formal sanctions. Perhaps by reiterating that this is a social issue, you are saying that society should deal with this informally (example: pat on the back, a nice greeting card, social exclusion, giving the stink-eye.) Ha, here I am teaching a sociology lesson because I’m not allowed to frame this in a religious context!

Why do the religious feel a need to be vocal about it? Some of us may fear that with increasing governmental control of all aspects of our lives, even sacramental Catholic marriage could be controlled by the state. With the Gay Rights movement picking up steam, can you imagine something happening where a religion comes under severe penalty for its refusal to marry Gays in its own Sacramental way?

Is there middle ground? I have no idea. Less government interference in everyone’s lives so that we can be an actual free country maybe? I guess that reveals my political leanings. I’m rarely political, but you asked us not to be religious. Strange things were bound to happen!

Your answer, good sir, I like. It makes worlds of sense. Thank you. There is no need to be sorry especially if that’s what it took to produce this answer to my questions (which are admittedly annoying). I think you are one of the few who is touching on something much deeper than the Gay Marriage issue itself, and something more important: our rights as Catholics.

Anyway, more thoughts from you, Chiltepin, are certainly welcome.