D
Denae
Guest
:yup:
- Status
R
rpp
Guest
Using this logic, you may as well get rid of laws against theft, rape and child abuse.
It does not work in other countries. Phemie, in your own country, people are being prosecuted for being Christian and proclaiming Christian beliefs.
Allowing sexual deviants to have fake marriages does not help them. Homosexuality, and other sexually deviant behaviors, are very serious mental disorders whose medical cause is not yet known. The medical industry has abandoned and betrayed those who suffer from these terrible disorders.
If you think gay marriage is good, then logically you must support the idea that schizophrenics should not be treated. It is the same type of thing.
More and more I avoid posting these threads as the topic has been done to death. However, your comment “working in other countries” was so laughably and obviously false, especially coming from a Canadian, that I had to respond. Do not expect to stick around on this thread.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I agree totally with the OP. “Gay marriage” has absolutely no place in the Catholic Church! “Gay marriage” should be illegal everywhere. As another poster said, homosexuality and other sexually deviant behaviors are mental illnesses. I honestly believe that. Before the 70s, they were classified as mental illnesses by medical authorities. Now, they are not. You can thank Kinsey for a lot of this stuff. Him and his “studies” helped bring about a lot of this junk.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
But my question is this, Rpp: in what way is homosexuality a mental disorder or a psychological problem? Not even the Roman catechism makes such a claim–on what basis do you make it? You don’t explain your reasoning at all, appearing to use the passion with which you hold your belief as the proof of the belief’s veracity. Also, in what way does it logically follow that not treating a schizophrenic is analogous to a same-gender couple receiving from the state inheritance rights, for instance? I don’t think logic is involved at all. Your argument is entirely emotional and irrational.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
We should probably be clear that most of the people supporting same-sex marriage are not looking for a Roman priest to say a blessing over homosexual couples. What they are looking for are the protections and responsibilities which the state provides and demands from their heterosexual counterparts. In this purely secular sense, if a same-sex couple receive the protections and responsibilities the state gives heterosexual couples, it is not a “fake marriage”. From a Roman perspective, there may be nothing sacramental involved, but it is no more or less fake on the one hand, and no more or less real on the other, than a heterosexual couple receiving a marriage license and trotting off to a justice of the peace to make it official.
But my question is this, Rpp: in what way is homosexuality a mental disorder or a psychological problem? Not even the Roman catechism makes such a claim–on what basis do you make it? You don’t explain your reasoning at all, appearing to use the passion with which you hold your belief as the proof of the belief’s veracity. Also, in what way does it logically follow that not treating a schizophrenic is analogous to a same-gender couple receiving from the state inheritance rights, for instance? I don’t think logic is involved at all. Your argument is entirely emotional and irrational.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
B
BlaineTog
Guest
^What Danae said.
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
Why would the state want to protect homosexual couples; It’s not like the state is going to get any children from them to continue life.
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
We live in a strange world where heterosexual couples are more popular calling themselves “partners” (have you noticed that?) - but homosexuals want to call each other a “spouse”.
P
Phemie
Guest
I don’t recall saying that I thought SSM was good. I was simply saying that if Churches are worried about being sued for not performing SSM they ought to do the same thing they do in Germany, France and many other countries – only celebrate religious marriages and leave the legal side of it to the State. The Bishops Conference in Canada have already mentioned that possibility. After all, why should churches act as agents of the State?
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
What the state is interested in protecting and encouraging is consumption, spending, economic growth. If the state honors heterosexual households for contributing such things, it should honor homosexual households for contributing the same. Moreover, the homosexual market is a rather wealthy one–household-income wise, there’s lots of disposable income in this market. It’s only logical that a state and the economic machine behind it to encourage the development and spending of this income.
In other words, “marriage” in the eyes of the state doesn’t have all that much to do with procreation, particularly in terms of our service-industry oriented economy. Perhaps a better tack for the anti-gay marriage folks who are so hung up on procreation would be for them to consider fighting to make state-blessed marriage on demand impossible save for those who are committed to breeding, or to those who have already bred. It would make more sense for these folks to attack same-sex couples and work for the disenfranchisement of infertile heterosexual couples by seeking to prevent either group from receiving state marriage protections. Logically, it would also make more sense for such people to decry monogamy and start supporting arranged polygamous marriages as the latter have exponentially more potential for producing children and have a greater socio-economic impact overall (through the intermarriage /connection of various tribes, dynasties, families, etc.). Marriage has a lot more to do with romance these days than with consciously fulfilling any social purpose or duty. Perhaps if anti-gay marriage folks were to decry this trend?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Charles, there’s no guarantee that a “married” heterosexual couple will procreate–so are you saying that the state should make the promise to breed a prerequisite for granting the protections and responsibilities of marriage? I hardly think so. (But perhaps this is the position you should be advocating–see final paragraph below.) Anyway, I don’t think the state needs to grant rights, protections and responsibilities to heterosexual couples in order to encourage procreation. Nature does a fine job on its own without the state having to do anything–with or without the state, people will breed. So it’s only right that the state protections of “married” couples are not dependent on those couples’ capacities to engender children.
What the state is interested in protecting and encouraging is consumption, spending, economic growth. If the state honors heterosexual households for contributing such things, it should honor homosexual households for contributing the same. Moreover, the homosexual market is a rather wealthy one–household-income wise, there’s lots of disposable income in this market. It’s only logical that a state and the economic machine behind it to encourage the development and spending of this income.
In other words, “marriage” in the eyes of the state doesn’t have all that much to do with procreation, particularly in terms of our service-industry oriented economy. Perhaps a better tack for the anti-gay marriage folks who are so hung up on procreation would be for them to consider fighting to make state-blessed marriage on demand impossible save for those who are committed to breeding, or to those who have already bred. It would make more sense for these folks to attack same-sex couples and work for the disenfranchisement of infertile heterosexual couples by seeking to prevent either group from receiving state marriage protections. Logically, it would also make more sense for such people to decry monogamy and start supporting arranged polygamous marriages as the latter have exponentially more potential for producing children and have a greater socio-economic impact overall (through the intermarriage /connection of various tribes, dynasties, families, etc.). Marriage has a lot more to do with romance these days than with consciously fulfilling any social purpose or duty. Perhaps if anti-gay marriage folks were to decry this trend?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Gay “marriage” is a farce - any inheritance rights, etc., they claim to need can easily be taken care of through a will. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman - in the eyes of the Church, it is a sacrament and is holy. Sodomy is a sin. Homosexuality is a gravely disordered condition - acting on these gravely disordered impulses is a mortal sin. You can’t have a sacrament at the heart of which is a mortal sin - in other words, gay “marriage” is an impossibility in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
The sexual left has beaten the drum that “men and women are the same” for so long now, many people accept it as fact. If men and women are the same, why shouldn’t it be OK for men to marry men and women to marry women? The fact is, men and women are different.
And pointing out that gay “marriage” is a farce, travesty, and a sin is not “beating a dead horse” - that’s just what the gay agenda people would like - for us to get over ourselves and shut up about it already.
The sexual left has beaten the drum that “men and women are the same” for so long now, many people accept it as fact. If men and women are the same, why shouldn’t it be OK for men to marry men and women to marry women? The fact is, men and women are different.
And pointing out that gay “marriage” is a farce, travesty, and a sin is not “beating a dead horse” - that’s just what the gay agenda people would like - for us to get over ourselves and shut up about it already.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
Gay marriage has a place in Canada, it’s called Marriage.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
In our “free and democratic society” of California, it was actually 4 appellate court judges that overturned a ballot initiative passed in the March 7, 2000 Primary Election - a 61.4% majority of voters adopted Proposition 22 which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So please don’t lecture us on how we can’t force the majority to accept our minority views - that’s exactly what the gay agenda is doing. And California is burning because of it, by the way. Good-bye, Sodom and Gomorrah.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
If the majority voted for racial segregation, by your argument, it would be so.
If the majority voted to abolish Catholicism, by your argument, it would be so.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Ah yes, straight out of the gay agenda handbook - any opposition to homosexuality must be equated with racial discrimination. To be against homosexual “marriage” is the same as being against mixed racial marriages. To be against teaching the homosexual lifestyle in the public schools is the same as being a white supremacist.
This is BUNK. Homosexuality is a gravely disordered condition, not something we need to “tolerate” and “celebrate.” All the gay agenda shouting to the contrary, there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing.
By the way, I was responding to another poster who said in our free and democratic society, we can’t make other people believe as we do. I was merely pointing out that it’s not me, it’s the gay agenda who is subverting the will of the majority and pushing their “lifestyle” on everybody else.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
The Gay agenda…equality…
L
LRThunder
Guest
They do have equality. They can marry members of the opposite sex like heterosexuals can.The Gay agenda…equality…
L
LJN21
Guest
On this forum it has been beaten to death. On the day this thread was started there were four other threads about how horrible gay “marriage” is. I agree its an abomination, but every other thread doesn’t have to be about it.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
What does equality mean in terms of homosexuality?The Gay agenda…equality…
That we have to accept fake “marriages” between homosexuals, even when the majority of people have voted to make law that says marriage should be between a man and a woman.
That in government funded schools that our kids are mandated by law to attend, it is taught that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable “lifestyle choice”
In what ways are homosexuals not treated equally … are they not allowed to vote? own property?
This is just more whining from the sexual left - “look at me, I’m such a victim.” Please get over it.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
As opposed to the sexual right?
W
Walden
Guest
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the prohibition on same-sex marriage had no rational basis, they opened the door for these arguments (at least in Massachusetts). One of my law professors was a clerk at the court during that time. He asked one justice if they had considered this natural extension of their logic and the justice replied. “We never really thought about that.” By the way, you forgot about the common-law prohibition against marrying someone with a “loathsome disease”.
- Status