Gay Marriage Debate

[Thinking10]

That sounds like outright discrimination. You are assuming that because homosexuality and heterosexuality are different you have a right to discriminate.

****There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples – from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits. Let’s think about that.

Some of the federal benefits that same-sex married couples may now receive

• Social Security Benefits
• Married couples get a big financial boost from certain Social Security benefit programs that have not historically applied to same-sex couples.
• Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits may be entitled to receive retirement benefits based on the deceased spouse’s earning record.
• Spousal retirement benefit. For retired married couples, a person whose calculated Social Security benefit is lower than that of his or her spouse may take half of his or her spouse’s higher benefit, rather than receive the amount calculated from his own earnings.
• Lump-sum death benefit. A surviving spouse gets $255 from the federal government to help pay for funeral arrangements.

Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

That horse has already left the barn. SSM is legal in 19 states and discrimination based on sex continues to be successfully challenged in states that discriminate.

What is your point?

Do you really think that it is truthful or relevant to say that? If you haven’t figured it out yet, homosexuals are citizens an with citizenship comes civil rights.

“Civil rights” are an invention of the 1960’s. What was the history of civil rights anywhere in the world before this time? Marriage isn’t a right of any kind anyway, it is a social institution which recognizes a uniquely beneficial relationship which is beneficial to society.

What would you say if I asked “what would civilization be like without the [”]contributions from known homosexuals ]("Google[/url)throughout the centries? Let’s think about that,

Those homosexuals were dependent on heterosexuals to give them life. They wouldn’t exist if their parents were homosexual.

What ROI do non childless marriage provide that SS marriages can not provide?

Some marriages are childless, but these are exceptions to a rule. The rule does not have to be redefined for these couples.

I can answer that.

There are many contributions married people gay or straight make to their communities other than children. Depending on your perspective there are economic and family benefits. One ROI that is well known is that SS couples adopt many hard to place children. Let’s think about that.

What does the fact that they are homosexual have to do with any of this?

What does that have to do with gay men who what the opportunity to live in monogamous marriage?

Regardless, let’s think about STD rates.

cdc.gov/std/stats12/minorities.htm"]Source: CDC

The highest overall rates of are correlated with social and economic conditions. Why aren’t we talking about that? Let’s think about that.

We had this same discussion on another thread which I challenged and you failed to respond to the challenge, perhaps you will respond on here.

 

[frobert]

Ok, I will respond to the rest. I made a couple of my own that I would like you to respond to.

Scenario 1: STD Rates (An argument in favor of the position that homosexuality is unhealthy. I can’t think of any positive results of homosexual acts, but negative results are evident.)

Perhaps you are unable to think about any positive results because you don’t believe there are any. How about all the psychological effects we attribute to the well being that goes along with being happily married? Now you may not think that is a positive but for married gays it is.

Are homosexuals more likely to belong to different economic classes than heterosexuals? If there isn’t a difference between the economic conditions of homo and heterosexuals, you can’t use that reason to explain their high STD rates. Assume that you are studying STD prevalence among a group of 100 homosexual men and 100 heterosexual men. Assume that all 200 people belong to the same economic class. Based on known STD data, which group would you expect to have a higher STD rate?

Let’s assume that there isn’t any economic differences. I already conceded that the rate is higher, but overall numbers are more. So should’t we be direction our resources to and maybe a little extra to the gay male minorities.

Scenario 2: (On procreation)

Assume that 100 couples are divided into two groups of 50 couples. Group 1 is made of only heterosexual couples. Group 2 is made of only homosexual couples. Isolate these two groups into two separate geographic areas. What should you expect to find in 200 years in the area each group was sent to?

I already conceded that rates are higher and suggested some research into why rates are higher. [ Look STD Health Equity for starters.

Still on 1, 6 to go.](http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/)

 

[Thinking10]

I did answer your post. See the above red text. You didn’t answer my second scenario.

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections”

 

[Thinking10]

That page in no way answers scenario 1. Answer that scenario.

This is all that page says:

STD Health Equity

Health equity is when everyone has an equal chance to be healthy regardless of their background. This includes a person’s race, ethnicity, income, gender, religion, sexual identity, and disability.1

Research shows that there are higher rates of STDs among some racial or ethnic minority groups compared to whites.2-3 It is important to understand that these higher rates are not caused by color or heritage, but by social conditions that are more likely to affect minorities. Factors such as poverty, large gaps between the rich and the poor, few jobs, and low education levels can make it more difficult for people to stay sexually healthy.4

People who cannot afford basic needs may have trouble accessing quality sexual health services.5
Many racial/ethnic minorities may distrust the health care system, fearing discrimination from doctors and other health care providers.6 This could create negative feelings around getting tested and treated for STDs.
In communities with higher STD rates, sexually active people may be more likely to get an STD because they have greater odds of selecting a partner who is infected.7,8

Learning more about STDs and health equity is a first step in empowering affected communities and those who serve them.

 

[frobert]

I did answer your post. See the above red text. You didn’t answer my second scenario.

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections”

I conceded that the rate for specific STDs in gay men were higher. That rate is for all new HIV infections. I actually thought it would be higher than 63%. Why beat a dead horse?

“Learning more about STDs and health equity is a first step in empowering affected communities and those who serve them.” One such effected community are gay youth.

 

[Thinking10]

I conceded that the rate for specific STDs in gay men were higher. That rate is for all new HIV infections. I actually thought it would be higher than 63%. Why beat a dead horse?

“Learning more about STDs and health equity is a first step in empowering affected communities and those who serve them.” One such effected community are gay youth.

Can you conclude that there is something about homosexual sex between men which makes the act more likely to spread disease than heterosexual sex?

You still haven’t answered the second part of my post.

 

[mexolic]

So why do we Catholics waste our time discussing this issue when instead we should be following Christ’s call to serve? The point I’m trying to make is that if homosexuals want truly love each other, they should be able to get married just like anyone else.

I think what you are saying is for Catholics to back off on the gay marriage debate. I would say that we as Catholics are not wasting our time speaking up for traditional marriage, i.e. a man and a woman. And opposing gay marriage is not homophobic if that is what your implying. Just the same, Catholics should not stay silent about being pro-life either. And being pro-life is not abortion-phobic.

 

[edwest2]

I was raised Catholic and I am still practicing, and try to follow all of the Church’s teachings. When I was younger, I was influenced by homophobic material and was quite homophobic myself. I eventually came to the realization that no matter gay or straight, God made us equal, and everyone should be treated as such.

In recent years, the Catholic Church has become more open to gays, and that’s what Jesus would want us to do. However, the debate over gay marriage is still going strong, and it seems the majority of Catholics are against gay marriage. But this debate is useless.

As Christians, our model in everything should be Christ. When Christ came, he preached about caring for the poor and the oppressed above all else. So why do we Catholics waste our time discussing this issue when instead we should be following Christ’s call to serve? The point I’m trying to make is that if homosexuals want truly love each other, they should be able to get married just like anyone else.

The Church teaches us that homosexual activity is not ordered. It’s as simple as that. However, some people are unaware of what the Church teaches about gay marriage.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I’ve worked with lesbians, gays, and other orientations. In the past, it was none of my business what they did on their own time. But now, fake accusations are being thrown around against everybody and LGBT persons have decided to give up their privacy about what should be private.

I was in a hospital waiting room watching a celebrity who appeared on CNN and told people to stop being homophobic. Who was he talking too? The 80 year old lady who was next to me, hooked up to an oxygen tank? 5 year olds who don’t understand sex? I never had an irrational fear of homosexual persons. That word is fake.

Peace,
Ed

 

[frobert]

Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some rights can be obtained but they are not all guaranteed

****There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples – from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits. Let’s think about that.

Some of the federal benefits that same-sex married couples may now receive

• Social Security Benefits
• Married couples get a big financial boost from certain Social Security benefit programs that have not historically applied to same-sex couples.
• Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits may be entitled to receive retirement benefits based on the deceased spouse’s earning record.
• Spousal retirement benefit. For retired married couples, a person whose calculated Social Security benefit is lower than that of his or her spouse may take half of his or her spouse’s higher benefit, rather than receive the amount calculated from his own earnings.
• Lump-sum death benefit. A surviving spouse gets $255 from the federal government to help pay for funeral arrangements.

Would you like me to display the full list for you so you can attend to each benefit? I won’t but can search the over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor out on your own if you like.

That horse has already left the barn. SSM is legal in 19 states and discrimination based on sex continues to be successfully challenged in states that discriminate.

What is your point?

It was in reply to your statement

There is a difference between outlawing homosexual relationships and persecuting homosexuals, and a society where homosexual relationships are not singled out as a legally recognized relationship, such as a marriage or civil union.

You don’t say it but it appears that you would like to reverse the civil rights gays have already won and are continuing to win.

Do you really think that it is truthful or relevant to say that? If you haven’t figured it out yet, homosexuals are citizens an with citizenship comes civil rights.

“Civil rights” are an invention of the 1960’s. What was the history of civil rights anywhere in the world before this time?

Civil rights in the US are is at least as old as women’s suffrage. The International Woman Suffrage Alliance dates back to 1904.

Marriage isn’t a right of any kind anyway, it is a social institution which recognizes a uniquely beneficial relationship which is beneficial to society.

That is your own opinion. Fortunately it is has not been the opinion of the US courts. See above -->horse left barn

What would you say if I asked "what would civilization be like without the contributions from known homosexuals throughout the centries? Let’s think about that,

Those homosexuals were dependent on heterosexuals to give them life. They wouldn’t exist if their parents were homosexual.

O my, O my, O my. That we all have parents is really your response to all the contributions gays have made? Of course we all have parents. If homosexuals took back all their contributions what would your world be like? Would those contributions be replaced by heterosexuals? Perhaps some.

What ROI do non childless marriage provide that SS marriages can not provide?

Some marriages are childless, but these are exceptions to a rule. The rule does not have to be redefined for these couples.

Are you sure?

Here are some interesting stats. [From Childlessness Up Among All Women; Down Among Women with Advanced Degrees (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010...women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/)

• Among 40-44-year-old women currently married or married at some point in the past, 13% had no children of their own in 2008, a small increase from 11% in 1994.
• A rising share of births is to women who never married, and this is reflected in a decline in childlessness among this group.
• Among childless women in 2008, 60% were currently married

 

[frobert]

Can you conclude that there is something about homosexual sex between men which makes the act more likely to spread disease than heterosexual sex?

You still haven’t answered the second part of my post.

Correlation has nothing to do with cause and effect. Being a gay male does not cause HIV. Promiscuity and ** risky sex** is the cause.

You have not answered my question. What does the STD rate of HIV have to do with gay men who want monogamous SSM. You are referencing a different population who happens to be homosexual. The lowest rate of HIV infection is in lesbians but you don’t advocate for all women to become lesbians.

What you won’t address in my question is that monogamy for sexually active people would lower all STD rates and that married men, in general, are more apt to be monogamous.

In would be nice if you answered my questions directly.

 

[frobert]

The Church teaches us that homosexual activity is not ordered. It’s as simple as that. However, some people are unaware of what the Church teaches about gay marriage.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I’ve worked with lesbians, gays, and other orientations. In the past, it was none of my business what they did on their own time. But now, fake accusations are being thrown around against everybody and LGBT persons have decided to give up their privacy about what should be private.

I was in a hospital waiting room watching a celebrity who appeared on CNN and told people to stop being homophobic. Who was he talking too? The 80 year old lady who was next to me, hooked up to an oxygen tank? 5 year olds who don’t understand sex? I never had an irrational fear of homosexual persons. That word is fake.

Peace,
Ed

I respect the CC’s stance on SSM based on their doctrines which does not mean that I agree with them. I am not offended in the least that the CC is fighting SSM,

That said there are a lot of people on both sides of the divide who, let me be nice, who use hyperbole. I am not saying this about you only that I think we can both give examples of it coming from both sides.

 

[Rau]

Well with that line of reasoning, why shouldn’t people who have strong religious belief have to live their live in quite and not out in the public. Not all religions agree so which ones should have to live has you say gays should live? Who gets to decide that?..

They do. The state does not award any status, or provide any service to anyone anyone based on religion.

 

[edwest2]

I respect the CC’s stance on SSM based on their doctrines which does not mean that I agree with them. I am not offended in the least that the CC is fighting SSM,

That said there are a lot of people on both sides of the divide who, let me be nice, who use hyperbole. I am not saying this about you only that I think we can both give examples of it coming from both sides.

I really don’t believe that. I think what we are living through right now was summed up by Pope Benedict:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Whether it’s SSM or legalizing marijuana for recreational use, we won’t wait for science, we want it now.

I’m content to live around most anybody (except Detroit, which I had to leave because the automatic gunfire and crime was getting to me). I’m only advancing Church teaching, which I regard as sound and well-reasoned. In the past, one of the arguments for SSM was ‘I can’t visit my partner in the hospital.’ So, I asked a few times: “Give me the name and address of any hospital where that happened.” I got no replies.

I was in a hospital ER in 2011 and my male friend sat with me. I was in bad shape. NO ONE asked what our relationship was: friends?, neighbor?, brother?, gay partner?

I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years and handled certain documents. Sexual orientation was not on any of them. The only case when orientation might be brought up was if a person showed up in the ER with a certain type of “problem.” There was also a large sign in the ER that was there for certain patients to read:

“No sexual activity for 7 weeks.” Followed by other, more specific instructions.

I had to know all the rules. No one was barred from visiting anyone, except on doctor’s orders related to their illness and no, I’m not referring to anything homosexual. It seems that the family of a gay man might be the responsible party. If mom and/or dad said no, and they were the parents, then those instructions were legal, and the hospital, regardless of what anyone thought, had to go by that.

In the end, same-sex marriage at the ballot booth turned out to be a sham. It didn’t matter what the voters voted. Judges and politicians made up the rules. Besides, a handful of people are much easier to manipulate than the masses.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rau]

In the end, same-sex marriage at the ballot booth turned out to be a sham. It didn’t matter what the voters voted. Judges and politicians made up the rules. Besides, a handful of people are much easier to manipulate than the masses.

Peace,
Ed

Is that because of deficiencies in you Constitution. It provides properly to prevent unfair discrimination, but provides nothing to distinguish Marriage from any other random paring?

 

[frobert]

I really don’t believe that. I think what we are living through right now was summed up by Pope Benedict:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Whether it’s SSM or legalizing marijuana for recreational use, we won’t wait for science, we want it now.

I’m content to live around most anybody (except Detroit, which I had to leave because the automatic gunfire and crime was getting to me). I’m only advancing Church teaching, which I regard as sound and well-reasoned. In the past, one of the arguments for SSM was ‘I can’t visit my partner in the hospital.’ So, I asked a few times: “Give me the name and address of any hospital where that happened.” I got no replies.

I was in a hospital ER in 2011 and my male friend sat with me. I was in bad shape. NO ONE asked what our relationship was: friends?, neighbor?, brother?, gay partner?

I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years and handled certain documents. Sexual orientation was not on any of them. The only case when orientation might be brought up was if a person showed up in the ER with a certain type of “problem.” There was also a large sign in the ER that was there for certain patients to read:

“No sexual activity for 7 weeks.” Followed by other, more specific instructions.

I had to know all the rules. No one was barred from visiting anyone, except on doctor’s orders related to their illness and no, I’m not referring to anything homosexual. It seems that the family of a gay man might be the responsible party. If mom and/or dad said no, and they were the parents, then those instructions were legal, and the hospital, regardless of what anyone thought, had to go by that.

In the end, same-sex marriage at the ballot booth turned out to be a sham. It didn’t matter what the voters voted. Judges and politicians made up the rules. Besides, a handful of people are much easier to manipulate than the masses.

Peace,
Ed

I think too think we are living in a dictatorship. I call it consumerism. We welcomed it because our government and the media told us it was good. Yes a good many people want what they want now. One of my visions of hell is Walmart on black Friday. Some of us lucky ones have a choice to walk away.

I am sorry that you feel threatened. I know what it is to live with fear, to wake up with it and go to bed with it. I do not wish that on anyone.

Peace

 

[edwest2]

I am sorry that you feel threatened. I know what it is to live with fear, to wake up with it and go to bed with it. I do not wish that on anyone.

Peace

Sad that your ability to read my mind is a fiction.

Peace,
Ed

 

[frobert]

Sad that your ability to read my mind is a fiction.

Peace,
Ed

Don’t feel sad, I certainly don’t, I am not a mind reader. It was a feeling I got from the tone of your comment.

 

[CatholicSheila]

In the past, one of the arguments for SSM was ‘I can’t visit my partner in the hospital.’ So, I asked a few times: “Give me the name and address of any hospital where that happened.” I got no replies.

…

It seems that the family of a gay man might be the responsible party. If mom and/or dad said no, and they were the parents, then those instructions were legal, and the hospital, regardless of what anyone thought, had to go by that.

It seems to me you have just answered your own question. When and where did this happen? Whenever the parent refused to allow the partner to visit. It is an issue - not because the hospital cares one way or another, but because without the legal protection of marriage, the rights of parents outweighed the rights of the partner.

 

[Nacho45]

That sounds like outright discrimination. You are assuming that because homosexuality and heterosexuality are different you have a right to discriminate.

****There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples – from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits. Let’s think about that.

Some of the federal benefits that same-sex married couples may now receive

• Social Security Benefits
• Married couples get a big financial boost from certain Social Security benefit programs that have not historically applied to same-sex couples.
• Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits may be entitled to receive retirement benefits based on the deceased spouse’s earning record.
• Spousal retirement benefit. For retired married couples, a person whose calculated Social Security benefit is lower than that of his or her spouse may take half of his or her spouse’s higher benefit, rather than receive the amount calculated from his own earnings.
• Lump-sum death benefit. A surviving spouse gets $255 from the federal government to help pay for funeral arrangements.

That horse has already left the barn. SSM is legal in 19 states and discrimination based on sex continues to be successfully challenged in states that discriminate.

Do you really think that it is truthful or relevant to say that? If you haven’t figured it out yet, homosexuals are citizens an with citizenship comes civil rights.

What would you say if I asked “what would civilization be like without the [”]contributions from known homosexuals ]("Google[/url)throughout the centries? Let’s think about that,

What ROI do non childless marriage provide that SS marriages can not provide?

I can answer that.

There are many contributions married people gay or straight make to their communities other than children. Depending on your perspective there are economic and family benefits. One ROI that is well known is that SS couples adopt many hard to place children. Let’s think about that.

What does that have to do with gay men who what the opportunity to live in monogamous marriage?

Regardless, let’s think about STD rates.

cdc.gov/std/stats12/minorities.htm"]Source: CDC

The highest overall rates of are correlated with social and economic conditions. Why aren’t we talking about that? Let’s think about that.

We had this same discussion on another thread which I challenged and you failed to respond to the challenge, perhaps you will respond on here.

You pulled out the political buzz word “discrimination” in the very first sentence. Awesome!

I love (not really) when people attempt to mix political correctness with the faith of Jesus and the Catholic Church (or any religion) to support their political ideology. It is a real hoot to witness those folks scramble to find some way to justify a clear and blatant wrong. The down side is some people actually fall for it.

 

[frobert]

Correlation has nothing to do with cause and effect. Being a gay male does not cause HIV. Promiscuity and ** risky sex** is the cause.

You have not answered my question. What does the STD rate of HIV have to do with gay men who want monogamous SSM. You are referencing a different population who happens to be homosexual. The lowest rate of HIV infection is in lesbians but you don’t advocate for all women to become lesbians.

What you won’t address in my question is that monogamy for sexually active people would lower all STD rates and that married men, in general, are more apt to be monogamous.

In would be nice if you answered my questions directly.

The original question was what does the STD rate have to do with monogamous SSM. You never answered all you did is ask your own question which I answered in part. Since you are unable or won’t answer I will tell you what Monogamous SSM has to with STD rate in 2 words. Absolutely nothing.

That the CC acts on is doctrines is one thing which I can respectfully disagree with. What the LGBT community finds offensive are people who actually believe that gay men and lesbians are second class citizens who need to shut up, suck it up. Fortunately the courts don’t buy that line anymore than gays and lesbians. A good case can be made that it is this very attitude of second class citizens that turns courts and the public off, it not only is assisting but accelerating the acceptance of full civil rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender so quickly. A Gallup poll conducted in May 2014 found that 55% of Americans support allowing marriage for same-sex couples, the largest percentage ever measured by the organization.