Gay Marriage Debate

[frobert]

No. I am saying this, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12165145&postcount=62
as a counterpoint to the view that only marriage can meet reasonable needs.

That’s good to know that we can suggest readings.

Marriage is the most economical means of meeting for equality. Laws covering marriage are already in place, for civil unions new laws would have to proposed and passed in the federal government and all the state government. Our legislators fight over the minutest things. It would be a total nightmare, but you are welcome to advocate for it.

 

[frobert]

I disagree. I saw the very rapid (5 year period) divide between the normal and abnormal occur right in front of me. I lived through it. I watched it happen. I knew it was wrong. To quote one religious, “You want to tear down everything and replace it with nothing.” Life is easy when there are no standards, no right and wrong, no shame, guilt or sin. Gay marriage is the end result of creating the new opium dens for heterosexuals and spending millions of dollars doing it. We were encouraged by the wolves among us. They led us to spiritual slaughter while all the while saying, “It’s better. It’s OK. It’s more pleasurable. It’s the easy way out. And, most importantly, legal.”

So, gradually, as time passed, aided by the media, more and more took the bait and found themselves addicted to illegal drugs, addicted to sex with fornicators, addicted to masturbation and mentally infected by watching hundreds or thousands of hours of addictive porn. It was all planned for the eventual “triumph.” People who claim to be Christian living like pagans, and the SSM supporters dropping by to tell us how badly “we” messed up marriage over the last 40 years. And while it’s true that if we did wrong, we did do wrong, but we got a lot of pressure from all media to accept worse and worse behaviors as time passed. Things did not become dysfunctional overnight. The opening song to Family Guy sums up the plan when it spits on “Those values on which we used to rely.” Whoever wrote that was and is part of the problem.

The only way some of us survived that time period and kept promoting what worked - normalcy, had to begin by abandoning the media. I’ve started throwing books in the trash, strictly limiting any TV watching and seeing one, maybe two movies a year. There are books and magazines I will never buy and a bunch of web sites I will never visit again. Music? I’ve stopped listening to it. It’s garbage, for the most part. As part of my job, I observe what the media is doing on a daily basis, and the conclusion is simple: embrace darkness, embrace the graphic, embrace cold, heartless killing. Embrace the necessity of killing babies in the womb and immoral sex.

Embrace SSM, soon to be followed by Transgender Marriage - if it’s not already happening. Freedom never meant anyone can do whatever they want. We know, deep down, what’s right and wrong. So, I, for one, am tired of anyone posting promos for SSM on a Catholic web site. I mean, millions of voters voting for nothing. Our permission was never required.

Peace,
Ed

I agree that freedom never meant anyone can do whatever they want. We know, deep down, what’s right and wrong. However I also believe in equality. Our disagreement is not that the US is dysfunctional it is over what each of our perspectives on equality and what is right and wrong. We both believe that not accepting the consequences of living selfishly beyond our limits is the great evil. Excepting a few saintly souls **all the rest of us are **responsible.

 

[edwest2]

Ed…thank you!!! It’s refreshing to see someone boldly post the truth. I only wish more would follow the example.

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I agree that freedom never meant anyone can do whatever they want. We know, deep down, what’s right and wrong. However I also believe in equality. Our disagreement is not that the US is dysfunctional it is over what each of our perspectives on equality and what is right and wrong. We both believe that not accepting the consequences of living selfishly beyond our limits is the great evil. Excepting a few saintly souls **all the rest of us are **responsible.

Well, perspectives are useful only to a point. This is where we are right now.

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.” Pope Benedict

Peace,
Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Is this where we are heading…??

"Woman Marries Man, Becomes a Lesbian, Marries a Woman Who Became a Man "

dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2694393/It-biggest-act-love-Woman-opens-partner-double-mastectomy-bid-male-legally-marry-her.html

The goal of these bizarre stories on popular shows like Oprah is to show the most outrageous acts, bubble wrap them in “love,” present them to the world as a “special relationship,” thus defining deviancy down.

Once this type of absurd relationship is accepted, then any relationship or behavior can be accepted. After all who are we to judge what love is?

 

[JimG]

I disagree. I saw the very rapid (5 year period) divide between the normal and abnormal occur right in front of me. I lived through it. I watched it happen. I knew it was wrong. To quote one religious, “You want to tear down everything and replace it with nothing.” Life is easy when there are no standards, no right and wrong, no shame, guilt or sin. Gay marriage is the end result of creating the new opium dens for heterosexuals and spending millions of dollars doing it. We were encouraged by the wolves among us. They led us to spiritual slaughter while all the while saying, “It’s better. It’s OK. It’s more pleasurable. It’s the easy way out. And, most importantly, legal.”

So, gradually, as time passed, aided by the media, more and more took the bait and found themselves addicted to illegal drugs, addicted to sex with fornicators, addicted to masturbation and mentally infected by watching hundreds or thousands of hours of addictive porn. It was all planned for the eventual “triumph.” People who claim to be Christian living like pagans, and the SSM supporters dropping by to tell us how badly “we” messed up marriage over the last 40 years. And while it’s true that if we did wrong, we did do wrong, but we got a lot of pressure from all media to accept worse and worse behaviors as time passed. Things did not become dysfunctional overnight. The opening song to Family Guy sums up the plan when it spits on “Those values on which we used to rely.” Whoever wrote that was and is part of the problem.

The only way some of us survived that time period and kept promoting what worked - normalcy, had to begin by abandoning the media. I’ve started throwing books in the trash, strictly limiting any TV watching and seeing one, maybe two movies a year. There are books and magazines I will never buy and a bunch of web sites I will never visit again. Music? I’ve stopped listening to it. It’s garbage, for the most part. As part of my job, I observe what the media is doing on a daily basis, and the conclusion is simple: embrace darkness, embrace the graphic, embrace cold, heartless killing. Embrace the necessity of killing babies in the womb and immoral sex.

Embrace SSM, soon to be followed by Transgender Marriage - if it’s not already happening. Freedom never meant anyone can do whatever they want. We know, deep down, what’s right and wrong. So, I, for one, am tired of anyone posting promos for SSM on a Catholic web site. I mean, millions of voters voting for nothing. Our permission was never required.

Peace,
Ed

You are right, Ed; it didn’t start with gay marriage. It started with corruption of the culture. After the contraception revolution came the sexual revolution. Sex, which was correctly viewed by both Catholic and Protestants as belonging solely within marriage—a lifelong commitment of man and woman—came to be seen as a mere plaything. Previously, chastity was expected of everyone, not just homosexuals.

But with the radical change in sex, de-linking it from marriage and children, we soon began to tolerate widespread unchastity of untold varieties: fornication, cohabitation, pre-marital and extramarital sex, pornography. Is it any wonder that those with a same sex orientation thought that ‘well, if everyone else can have all the sex they want with no rules, why not us too?’

 

[shelby_sun]

You are right, Ed; it didn’t start with gay marriage. It started with corruption of the culture. After the contraception revolution came the sexual revolution. Sex, which was correctly viewed by both Catholic and Protestants as belonging solely within marriage—a lifelong commitment of man and woman—came to be seen as a mere plaything. Previously, chastity was expected of everyone, not just homosexuals.

But with the radical change in sex, de-linking it from marriage and children, we soon began to tolerate widespread unchastity of untold varieties: fornication, cohabitation, pre-marital and extramarital sex, pornography. Is it any wonder that those with a same sex orientation thought that ‘well, if everyone else can have all the sex they want with no rules, why not us too?’

I think this has already been said, but many of act and actions people are talking about have been going on for many, many centuries, and some very publically. Orgies, multiple mistresses, homosexual behavior, etc. were very likely going in times before Christ. These things are human flaws and sins. I think people are just starting to recognize and admit their own terrible flaws and don’t want to judge other for theirs so as not to be judged themselves.

 

[JimG]

I think this has already been said, but many of act and actions people are talking about have been going on for many, many centuries, and some very publically. Orgies, multiple mistresses, homosexual behavior, etc. were very likely going in times before Christ. These things are human flaws and sins. I think people are just starting to recognize and admit their own terrible flaws and don’t want to judge other for theirs so as not to be judged themselves.

Well yes, and trying to get formal legal recognition and social acceptance for all their behaviors.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

All of us are required to practice Chastity, even married people.

 

[JimG]

All of us are required to practice Chastity, even married people.

And single people, a concept which was largely forgotten after the sexual revolution.

 

[frobert]

Is this where we are heading…??

"Woman Marries Man, Becomes a Lesbian, Marries a Woman Who Became a Man "

dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2694393/It-biggest-act-love-Woman-opens-partner-double-mastectomy-bid-male-legally-marry-her.html

The goal of these bizarre stories on popular shows like Oprah is to show the most outrageous acts, bubble wrap them in “love,” present them to the world as a “special relationship,” thus defining deviancy down.

Once this type of absurd relationship is accepted, then any relationship or behavior can be accepted. After all who are we to judge what love is?

The Daily Mail is a sensationalist news rag, I am surprised it is appears so often on CAF.

Your “absurd relationship” reasoning is known as the “Slippery Slope Logical Error Fallacy” also known as “the Camel’s Nose”

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

This “argument” has the following form:

1. 
   *]Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
   *]Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
   
   Example of fallacious logic that we have seen on CAF several times.
   1. 
      *]Same Sex Marriage is being legalized
      *]Therefore, before long Incest Marriage will be legalized
      
      This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
      
      Source: Nizkor Project

 

[Nacho45]

Is this where we are heading…??

"Woman Marries Man, Becomes a Lesbian, Marries a Woman Who Became a Man "

dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2694393/It-biggest-act-love-Woman-opens-partner-double-mastectomy-bid-male-legally-marry-her.html

The goal of these bizarre stories on popular shows like Oprah is to show the most outrageous acts, bubble wrap them in “love,” present them to the world as a “special relationship,” thus defining deviancy down.

Once this type of absurd relationship is accepted, then any relationship or behavior can be accepted. After all who are we to judge what love is?

Years ago I heard a similar story. A man claimed to be a woman trapped in a mans body, but was a lesbian, so a lesbian and this man had a relationship.

In the real world, he was a man and she was a woman and they had a relationship. There is no point in confusing people with pointless urges and feelings. I do not think I could live my life as flippant and confused as many people seem to believe is productive.

 

[Nacho45]

The Daily Mail is a sensationalist news rag, I am surprised it is appears so often on CAF.

Your “absurd relationship” reasoning is known as the “Slippery Slope Logical Error Fallacy” also known as “the Camel’s Nose”

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

This “argument” has the following form:

1. 
   *]Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
   *]Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
   
   Example of fallacious logic that we have seen on CAF several times.
   1. 
      *]Same Sex Marriage is being legalized
      *]Therefore, before long Incest Marriage will be legalized
      
      This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
      
      Source: Nizkor Project

1. 1. 
      The Slippery Slope could be considered a logical fallacy if it weren’t proven accurate almost every time. Saying it is an error is either an intentional misleading statement or a completely oblivious statement.

 

[AggieCatholic86]

Predicting human behavior based on what is or isn’t a law that follows logical reasoning is silly. Calling a slippery slope argument a fallacy is a cop-out, whether or not it is actually a fallacious argument doesn’t mean that it won’t happen or isn’t highly probable or inevitable.

Example Humanae Vitae. Paul VI predicted accurately almost everything that would result from the widespread adoption of the pill, yet his reasoning was supposedly a “logical fallacy.” For 400 years all of Christendom aligned in regards to sexual morality, but one little opening by the episcopal church on birth control, and 70 years later they are now appointing gay and female bishops, hell of a non slippery slope.

A judge in Australia just stated that incest and pedophilia could be acceptable in society. rt.com/news/171868-australia-judge-incest-homosexuality/
And now the gay porn world is celebrating two czech identical twin brothers sodomizing each other for the cameras.

 

[Nacho45]

If you are Catholic, the Catholic Church stands firm on the position homosexual relations are sinful and there is no real marriage between same sex couples, which ends all debate. There is nothing further to discuss.

If you are not Catholic, you would be wise to understand why the Catholic Church takes this position.

 

[frobert]

The Slippery Slope could be considered a logical fallacy if it weren’t proven accurate almost every time. Saying it is an error is either an intentional misleading statement or a completely oblivious statement.

If that is what you wish to believe it is ok with me.

 

[frobert]

Predicting human behavior based on what is or isn’t a law that follows logical reasoning is silly. Calling a slippery slope argument a fallacy is a cop-out, whether or not it is actually a fallacious argument doesn’t mean that it won’t happen or isn’t highly probable or inevitable.

Example Humanae Vitae. Paul VI predicted accurately almost everything that would result from the widespread adoption of the pill, yet his reasoning was supposedly a “logical fallacy.” For 400 years all of Christendom aligned in regards to sexual morality, but one little opening by the episcopal church on birth control, and 70 years later they are now appointing gay and female bishops, hell of a non slippery slope.

A judge in Australia just stated that incest and pedophilia could be acceptable in society. rt.com/news/171868-australia-judge-incest-homosexuality/
And now the gay porn world is celebrating two czech identical twin brothers sodomizing each other for the cameras.

If you study non-religious ethics you will learn that incest not considered immoral. It is decriminalize and legal in several European countries. I think if you fear that incest will become legal in the US or whatever country you are from you should be worrying.For the record, I believe incest is immoral not from a religious standard but from a treatment standard. The treatment community believes it is abuse.

 

[frobert]

If you are Catholic, the Catholic Church stands firm on the position homosexual relations are sinful and there is no real marriage between same sex couples, which ends all debate. There is nothing further to discuss.

If you are not Catholic, you would be wise to understand why the Catholic Church takes this position.

I am not Catholic but I understand the CC position and I respect it. I have had several conversations about it with the pastor at the local CC in my community. In fact I seen him this morning. I have to say he is much more pleasant to discuss SSM, homosexuality and other topics that with some posters on CAF.

 

[Lek]

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.

This is my first day on the forum and there’s 97 replies to this thread, so please forgive me if I repeat what has been said. First thing I want to point is that the bible condemns homosexual relations, so as Christians we can’t morally support gay marriage, I firmly oppose gay marriage. Having said that, I’ve come to realize that we are a secular nation, composed of citizens of numerous different faiths and persuasions, who all are entitled to equal treatment under the law. I don’t think it is right for the government to provide certain rights and privileges to one group while excluding others. I would suggest that the government get out of the marriage business altogether, and if they want to provide certain tax advantages or whatever, to establish cicil unions in which two adults can enter into a legal contract to be together exclusively, This contract would be recognized by the government for the purpose of extending those privileges and protections to all citizens equally. Couples could get married in the way that they see fit. This would preclude the government from redefining marriage, which they have no business to do anyway.

 

[Nacho45]

If that is what you wish to believe it is ok with me.

Belief has nothing to do with it.