Gay Marriage Debate

[SMGS127]

SMGS,

I think you might want to consider whether the gay male crowd really has anything to do with the lesbian crowd.

PS, I know that gay men have different interests and tastes, and I know there’s some things I’ll never know about the gay male crowd, since lesbians and gay men really have very little in common, but I do know actively gay men, and I’ve seen the different paths they can take. I’ve had very few friends actually go into the cocaine/meth/sex route, but I know it exists and it’s not small. I just refuse to say it makes up the majority experience, because clearly it doesn’t for the actively gay men I know.

say this, in part, because of an experience I had about two months ago, which I hesitate to relate, but here goes…

As you know, I’m committed to be faithful to my marriage, and to avoid sexual sin. In an effort to do this, I have put strict filters on my computer, and done various other things to make the near occasion of sin very far away. But we can’t entirely remove the possibility of sin, and this is where my recent story comes in…

I live in a large metropolitan area – you know which one, but I’m going to keep it unspoken right now. Years ago, I visited a local gay bookstore a number of times, not for any wholesome reason whatsoever, but simply out of sinful curiosity. The bookstore is right in the middle of the “downtown” area of a prominent suburb, in a location where it couldn’t possibly be missed. The store markets itself as mainstream and accessible, and doesn’t even have a sign that children should not enter. It’s really the most logical place for a young person interested in homosexuality to step inside, if they’re curious about being gay.

Despite all this, one large portion of the store is set aside for gay porn magazines. (And of course, the rest of the store is a feast of R-rated flesh, too). To my shame, this is the portion of the store I was headed toward when I stupidly visited the place two months ago.

But here’s the disturbing part. When I walked up to the magazines, there were two older men there, browsing. Shortly after I stopped to pick up a magazine, the two men started grabbing their crotches, and then doing more – directly in the sight of the man who worked at the store. I was a bit taken aback, and high-tailed it out of there. (I’d been coming for sin, sure, but not to be sexually harassed!).

I don’t understand. They were partially hooking up to arouse you? Or was it just a spontaneous thing? Or were they trying to get you to join them?

It’s not like making out randomly in a store is isolated to gay men (although crotch-grabbing…I’ve never seen that; that’s weird). I’ve seen heterosexual and lesbian couples just start making out in a corner of a store before. It’s more common amongst new couples. But if they were doing it to arouse you or something, yeah that’s weird too.

For my part, I just don’t see how this experience cannot reflect very badly on ordinary gay men. At the very least, no one has put a stop to this, and the store is right in the middle of the largest gay community in my metro area. I just don’t understand it. Perhaps it is just a matter of good gay men remaining silent, but I’m afraid it speaks to something more sinister.

I think there’s a group of people who love to push boundaries, because they feel like the LGBT community is less willing to tell them off for it. I don’t think they make anywhere near a majority of even gay men; I do, however, think they make the most noise and visual impact. You see this in PRIDE parades as well, where a minority of people can define the whole parade by wearing very little.

For example, imagine if they were the only two gay men in the world who did this. But they did this all the time, at various places. People would think it was significantly more prevalent, because these two men would stick out in their minds a lot more for their actions than the two lesbians quietly having a picnic together in the park.

I’ll tell you this: if I were “out and proud”, I sure as hell would be unbelievably embarrassed by the things that the gay male community considers acceptable. Maybe it’s just the older generation of gay men that is the problem – but whatever it is, there is a problem.

Well I don’t know what the gay male community considers acceptable. I certainly would have made a face and a disgusted noise if two guys had done that in front of me.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

PS, I know that gay men have different interests and tastes, and I know there’s some things I’ll never know about the gay male crowd, since lesbians and gay men really have very little in common, but I do know actively gay men, and I’ve seen the different paths they can take. I’ve had very few friends actually go into the cocaine/meth/sex route, but I know it exists and it’s not small. I just refuse to say it makes up the majority experience, because clearly it doesn’t for the actively gay men I know.

Well, I’m sure my friends would think I was pretty much incapable of going to a gay bookstore, too.

I don’t think andrewstx is proposing that most gay men proudly are part of the hook-up culture, or that they proudly subvert sexual norms on monogamy or exhibitionism. I’m certainly not proposing that. But I do think that the lure of the excesses of being a gay man is very strong. At the very least, the gay male culture has to be much more aware of the harms involved here, as another gay poster round these parts, PutresOmega, has been saying.

I don’t understand. They were partially hooking up to arouse you? Or was it just a spontaneous thing? Or were they trying to get you to join them?

Oh, man, did I imply that they were “hooking up”? Ack – help me get that image out of my head!

No, they were looking at me, and touching themselves. I felt, I’m sure, not unlike many women feel when they are being sexually assaulted – a combination of feeling at some level flattered and yet feeling tremendous discomfort. Yes, they were trying to get me to join them.

I think there’s a group of people who love to push boundaries, because they feel like the LGBT community is less willing to tell them off for it. I don’t think they make anywhere near a majority of even gay men; I do, however, think they make the most noise and visual impact. You see this in PRIDE parades as well, where a minority of people can define the whole parade by wearing very little.

I can say, however, that 90% of gay men use porn frequently, and a good amount of that porn glorifies exhibitionism, sexual promiscuity, and even sexual violence. I don’t have much experience of straight porn (double-), but I have a hard time believing it is anywhere near as transgressive as gay porn.

Well I don’t know what the gay male community considers acceptable. I certainly would have made a face and a disgusted noise if two guys had done that in front of me.

The one who really disgusts me is the guy who was working there. It’s obvious he had a deal with these guys not to interfere. I don’t think I was in danger, really, but the conspiratorial nature of it certainly tended toward not protecting the customer. If I had had such an experience when I was 19, it could have been disastrous (and I’m sure 19-year-olds do walk into that store).

 

[SMGS127]

Well, I’m sure my friends would think I was pretty much incapable of going to a gay bookstore, too.

I don’t think andrewstx is proposing that most gay men proudly are part of the hook-up culture, or that they proudly subvert sexual norms on monogamy or exhibitionism. I’m certainly not proposing that. But I do think that the lure of the excesses of being a gay man is very strong. At the very least, the gay male culture has to be much more aware of the harms involved here, as another gay poster round these parts, PutresOmega, has been saying.

I dunno that much about gay male culture; all I know is what I see from my friends…but that’s disturbing, and I wouldn’t have put up with that back then, and I don’t now.

Oh, man, did I imply that they were “hooking up”? Ack – help me get that image out of my head!

Sorry, it’s a cultural thing among young people that “hooking up” doesn’t necessarily mean sex. It just means casual anything. In this case I meant making out and crotch grabbing. I find it hard to believe that any PDA (at least in the manner you described) is anything but casual.

No, they were looking at me, and touching themselves. I felt, I’m sure, not unlike many women feel when they are being sexually assaulted – a combination of feeling at some level flattered and yet feeling tremendous discomfort. Yes, they were trying to get me to join them.

Well, yes, that’s disturbing, and I’m sorry you had to go through it.

I can say, however, that 90% of gay men use porn frequently, and a good amount of that porn glorifies exhibitionism, sexual promiscuity, and even sexual violence. I don’t have much experience of straight porn (double-), but I have a hard time believing it is anywhere near as transgressive as gay porn.

Well, I will say that porn usage is nearly universal among men, from my understanding. I only know a single guy (that isn’t a super-hardcore practicing Catholic) in my friend group that doesn’t use porn. I wouldn’t have any idea about what porn they watch though, sorry . But I will pray for you to help keep your inclinations towards porn at a minimum, if you wish .

The one who really disgusts me is the guy who was working there. It’s obvious he had a deal with these guys not to interfere. I don’t think I was in danger, really, but the conspiratorial nature of it certainly tended toward not protecting the customer. If I had had such an experience when I was 19, it could have been disastrous (and I’m sure 19-year-olds do walk into that store).

Yeah, that’s gross too. I don’t know who would do something like that. It sounds more creeper than gay, to be honest…

 

[shelby_sun]

I do think it is unfair to say gays are more into hooking up, porn, or any other unfavorable behavior. I know many gay couples that have been together many years. I know gay couples that are raising wonderful children. Some of the long time gay couples feel no need to get married. In fact, I have only known one gay man that would be considered out of hand, but he is strictly my experience. I would not go out on a limb think I know how most gay people are.

Heterosexuals are doing as much unfavorable behaviors, such as, drinking and drugs, a great deal of hooking up with different people before they get married, affairs once they are married, extreme sex acts, etc. Just because they do them differently doesn’t mean they do them less often.

I have three teenagers and the kids they know, the vast majority of them are straight, and they are doing some pretty bad stuff starting a very young ages. A huge amount ofstraight college kids are about as wild as people get. One cannot look at their own experiences and area and determine how the rest of the world lives.

 

[andrewstx]

I’m not sure whether you are referring to all who experience an exclusive same sex attraction, or just those who are participants in same sex sexual relations. But either way, that’s quite a generalisation and held with extraordinary conviction!

Do you exclude from your description persons who have lived long and monogamous homosexual relationships, like the former Australian High Court judge and one-time president of the International Commission of Jurists, Justice Michael Kirby, who has had a single partner since 1969?

And, surely you exclude those persons who struggle with homosexual attractions and strive to live a chaste life?

Of course I am excluding those, who like myself are living in chastity.

 

[Rau]

Of course I am excluding those, who like myself are living in chastity.

I’m pleased, But how do you reconcile your statement: “I still insist that homosexuals are interested in only one thing, the next conquest. I think based on evidence that they are selfish, stereotyping, and not interested in anyone but their own selves. Rejected by their own families, by each other and by themselves they die lonely, bitter deaths.”

…with the fact of long-term monogamous same sex sexual relationships, which while morally wrong, do not suggest the lifestyle you describe. I provided this example of such a relationship: “the former Australian High Court judge and one-time president of the International Commission of Jurists, Justice Michael Kirby, who has had a single partner since 1969”.

Is it possible you have generalised from the worst to the “rest”?

 

[shelby_sun]

I’m pleased, But how do you reconcile your statement: “I still insist that homosexuals are interested in only one thing, the next conquest. I think based on evidence that they are selfish, stereotyping, and not interested in anyone but their own selves. Rejected by their own families, by each other and by themselves they die lonely, bitter deaths.”

…with the fact of long-term monogamous same sex sexual relationships, which while morally wrong, do not suggest the lifestyle you describe. I provided this example of such a relationship: “the former Australian High Court judge and one-time president of the International Commission of Jurists, Justice Michael Kirby, who has had a single partner since 1969”.

Is it possible you have generalised from the worst to the “rest”?

There are many heterosexual people who one can find that live the same way as these so called homosexuals his knows. It is completely unfair to stereotype all gays that way just because this guy chose to be involved and live that kind of life around those types of homosexuals as it is to say all heterosexuals have affairs, are all drunks, cheat, commit fraud, just because many do. It kind of seems he might have some resentment possible over rejection issues…maybe.

 

[djames99]

Christ said these things, and he speaks of works of charity. Charity is also telling people what they may not want to hear in fraternal love. The Pharisees could have made the same argument against Christ himself. One may certainly feel oppressed while in this condition. Being ‘oppressed’ for a good cause is therapy. Mom may ‘oppress’ us with restricted privileges while we refuse to do our duties. It is the world’s duty to ensure the person changes, and God also insists that the person suffer social losses while he is obstinate in sin. God does not want his community tainted. These rules don’t come from people, they are just doing what God tells them to do, and they want to join him in heaven.

Marriage is defined by God, and in that definition each partner needs to be the opposite sex. The civil marriage is not a marriage but a cult ritual officiated by a minister who represents the prince of this world. It is a ritual in the class of witchcraft,oujia boards,devil worship,etc., the latter more fitting. One who ‘binds’ in occult ritual does a very dangerous thing, and is bound to the prince who will ensure both are ‘bound’ in torment in the afterlife, unless they use their allotted time in this temporal world to make a change of heart. While those who are married by the grace of God becomes consecrated to each other by it, in the occult ritual, each curses the other and shares it in the afterlife.

Of course, temporal life allows for change, and we are encouraged to make haste and ask for forgiveness and embark on a spiritual regime for change, and a road to the regaining of friendship with God.

But why do people accept it anyway?. It is baffling. Many people have had absolute cures through the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and her Rosary. This proves 1/ God was right, it is a trick. 2/It is NOT scientifically permanent. 3/Best of all, the results are an absolute revelation to the Truth.

The Church is the True Church established by Christ and is representative of Him. The Church has always taught that we are to be charitable to people who are caught in the habit of capital sin. The attitude is remedial and a work of love, not acceptance. Always, the only goal of the Catholic is to help the afflicted… ‘change’.

On the thread name, the Church teaches that articles that have been announced De Fide are not debatable. If one debates it, then he is a spokesman of the prince of this world, since we are only to advance arguments in favor of God’s opinion.

Your membership in the Catholic Church was a right decision, now comes the hard part. Will a person stay just because there is agreement, or will he truly seek an Authority who will warn him when he is wrong no matter how delectable life may be to him.?

As for myself this world is so full of people and churches ready to agree with me on every point, I am certain their motive is hellbent on having me join them in the netherworld. Rather, I’d prefer to have an Institution who cares so much for me it will scold and chastise me when I’m wrong and guide me to the truth. Just like Mom and Dad!!

No wonder they call her, Mother Church.

 

[Rau]

…
But why do people accept it anyway?. It is baffling. Many people have had absolute cures through the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and her Rosary. This proves 1/ God was right, it is a trick. 2/It is NOT scientifically permanent. 3/Best of all, the results are an absolute revelation to the Truth.

If one believes that miracles can happen, then NOTHING is “scientifically permanent”.

 

[theCrow]

More conservatives are starting to understand that the sanctity of a couple’s marriage should be determined by their faith and that the legality of their marriage should be determined by law – equally applied to all.

This means that government should respect the right of churches to perform only blessings in which they believe, and it should respect the inherent right of citizens to marry the person they love, without using tax dollars to deny them that basic freedom. Amen to that. The foundation of the Republican Party respects personal freedom without unnecessary government intrusion. So why should marriage be any different?

 

[Rau]

More conservatives are starting to understand that the sanctity of a couple’s marriage should be determined by their faith and that the legality of their marriage should be determined by law – equally applied to all.

This means that government should respect the right of churches to perform only blessings in which they believe, and it should respect the inherent right of citizens to marry the person they love, without using tax dollars to deny them that basic freedom. Amen to that. The foundation of the Republican Party respects personal freedom without unnecessary government intrusion. So why should marriage be any different?

They are “starting to understand” are they, those slow-thinking backward leaning conservatives…

You can’t rewrite the language. “Marriage” means marriage and it pre-dated the establishment of your State. Later, the State decided to implement a legal framework to be attached thereto. Well and good.

A similar legal framework may be desired by same sex couples, or other committed couples where the relationship is not marital. The State is welcome to provide it, and if the framework needs a name, let it provide one. The word Marriage however is already used.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

More conservatives are starting to understand that the sanctity of a couple’s marriage should be determined by their faith and that the legality of their marriage should be determined by law – equally applied to all.

This means that government should respect the right of churches to perform only blessings in which they believe, and it should respect the inherent right of citizens to marry the person they love, without using tax dollars to deny them that basic freedom. Amen to that. The foundation of the Republican Party respects personal freedom without unnecessary government intrusion. So why should marriage be any different?

A blatant “re-write” of current events, let alone revisionist history.

Almost every state DEFINED marriage as between a man and a woman. It was gay activists who brought suit, spending tax dollars, to have that changed.

Yes, conservatives respect personal freedom without unnecessary government intrusion. If gays want to call their “arrangements” a marriage…fine. BUT it should not be legally recognized as such.

 

[cycleman]

A blatant “re-write” of current events, let alone revisionist history.

Almost every state DEFINED marriage as between a man and a woman. It was gay activists who brought suit, spending tax dollars, to have that changed.

Yes, conservatives respect personal freedom without unnecessary government intrusion. If gays want to call their “arrangements” a marriage…fine. BUT it should not be legally recognized as such.

Marriage is being redefined by the State as the union of two people, it is no longer just between a man and a woman. And, yes, it is being called marriage, not civil union or something else. The Church does not have ‘copyright’ on the word ‘marriage’ as it pertains to the civil law. But, this is ‘civil marriage’.

The Catholic church has never recognized all civil marriages (e.g. the previously divorced). Civil same sex marriages are just another form of civil marriage that the church does not recognize.

The Church has had, and will always have, the freedom to define sacramental marriage as they see fit.

Time to move on. Civil marriage is what the state defines as marriage, sacramental marriage is what the Church defines it to be, and they are not the same thing

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Marriage is being redefined by the State as the union of two people, it is no longer just between a man and a woman. And, yes, it is being called marriage, not civil union or something else. The Church does not have ‘copyright’ on the word ‘marriage’ as it pertains to the civil law. But, this is ‘civil marriage’.

The Catholic church has never recognized all civil marriages (e.g. the previously divorced). Civil same sex marriages are just another form of civil marriage that the church does not recognize.

The Church has had, and will always have, the freedom to define sacramental marriage as they see fit.

Time to move on. Civil marriage is what the state defines as marriage, sacramental marriage is what the Church defines it to be, and they are not the same thing

I am not considering the Church’s position in this discussion. I am being strictly secular.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).

When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question.

So too with the definition of marriage.

 

[cycleman]

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).

But, this redefinition of marriage is simply an expansion of marriage, Within the expanded definition, the State will be continued by the majority who will continue to choose heterosexual union. It does absolutely nothing to impede the continuation of the State.

 

[Elizium23]

But, this redefinition of marriage is simply an expansion of marriage, Within the expanded definition, the State will be continued by the majority who will continue to choose heterosexual union. It does absolutely nothing to impede the continuation of the State.

Yes it does! It destroys the relationship between fecundity of a sexually complementary man and woman, and the ability to bear and raise children for the well-being of the State. If you’re going to say that homosexual couples are equal to fertile couples then you’re saying that there is no value in the heterosexual couple’s contribution of children to society and therefore that society has no compelling interest to encourage growth of families or the bearing, raising and education of children in that framework. It’s a recipe for utter disaster. The USA has signed its own death warrant.

However, that death warrant is not based on homosexual marriage alone. It’s also including the other Population Control measures like contraception and abortion. In case you haven’t noticed, the USA has a sub-replacement fertility rate now, and there is no sign of that reversing. So immigrants will be the ones to continue the state, and I know how much conservatives hate that, so someone better do something.

 

[kozlosap]

Marriage is being redefined by the State as the union of two people, it is no longer just between a man and a woman. And, yes, it is being called marriage, not civil union or something else. The Church does not have ‘copyright’ on the word ‘marriage’ as it pertains to the civil law. But, this is ‘civil marriage’.

The Catholic church has never recognized all civil marriages (e.g. the previously divorced). Civil same sex marriages are just another form of civil marriage that the church does not recognize.

The Church has had, and will always have, the freedom to define sacramental marriage as they see fit.

Time to move on. Civil marriage is what the state defines as marriage, sacramental marriage is what the Church defines it to be, and they are not the same thing

:thumbsup:Excellent post! I don’t quite understand why some posters just cant let this issue go. Civil marriage for straight and gay people is here to stay and no matter how much moaning and hair tearing goes on, it will not change. The same is true for ABC…

 

[davidv]

:thumbsup:Excellent post! I don’t quite understand why some posters just cant let this issue go. Civil marriage for straight and gay people is here to stay and no matter how much moaning and hair tearing goes on, it will not change. The same is true for ABC…

This sentiment is contrary to Jesus’ command to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

 

[shelby_sun]

This sentiment is contrary to Jesus’ command to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

This is what people say to justify condemning someones else beliefs or behavior. There our those of us who do not go out and preach the Gospel, we try to go out and live it to the best of our abilities. When I get everything right all the time maybe I will preach to others, but too many of those preaching should be looking at themselves before they worry about others belief and behavior.

 

[Elizium23]

This is what people say to justify condemning someones else beliefs or behavior. There our those of us who do not go out and preach the Gospel, we try to go out and live it to the best of our abilities. When I get everything right all the time maybe I will preach to others, but too many of those preaching should be looking at themselves before they worry about others belief and behavior.

Guess who else condemns peoples’ behavior? JESUS!

Jesus was clear that while he spoke of great mercy, forgiveness and salvation, mankind should be freed of sin through our own endeavors. What did he tell the woman caught in adultery? Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more. What did he tell the woman at the well? You have been with seven men, and none of them is your husband. What did he tell the Scribes and Pharisees? O brood of vipers, O ye hard of heart.

Our Lord had strong words for sinners, there is no doubt of that. The Gospel is a message of repentance. We all work in preparation for the Final Judgement, which will be presided by JESUS, Our Lord and King. The Gospel of Marriage is a Gospel of Love, it reflects the eternal love of the Holy Trinity, not depraved and debased lust such as is present in homosexual relations or other infertile sodomy.

Our Lord entrusted the Keys of Heaven to His Church. She is entrusted with the power and authority to interpret the Word of God, which she does, unfailingly until the end of days, and so we can know with absolute surety that homosexual acts are an abomination unto the Lord.