Gay Marriage in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glennonite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldier_Of_God said:
Unfortunately, this old research is not very conclusive at all. What is not stated is that the ratings of erections were low and not significantly different from “non-homophobic” males. A simple explanation of the results can be made. For example, Sakeim and Becks theory (1983) to the role anxiety and attention in sexual responses can speak to the noted differences. Anxiety can sexually enhance responses and in accordance to their theory, “homophobic” males response to the sexually explicit material is largely a function of threat than actual sexual arousal.
Click to expand...
The paper I referenced was from 1996. They will have taken into account the work you reference from 1983.

rossum
 
StAnastasia said:
LittleSoldier, can you please elaborate on this? If every bit of evil makes the world “more broken” (I’m not clear on what that means), does every bit of good make the world less broken? Or is this a one-way process?

We have a gay choir director and a couple of lesbian families in the parish, with their kids in our parish school. Can you show me the ways in which our parish is now “more broken”? Is this physical brokenness, or psychological? I want to be able to look for the signs. The roof is still intact, and the lighting and plumbing are not broken.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
You may not be able to see the signs of “brokenness” . The spiritual life is incorporeal by definition, and the damage done is not necessarily apparent to the five senses unless it manifests itself outwardly. How many Catholics were fooled for decades by “outwardly” good priests who were harboring Satanic desires to molest children? How much spiritual damage was being done in all of those parishes, unbeknownst to the flock because, well, everything seemed okay? If the choir director is in a state of mortal sin, how can he/she be God’s instrument in presenting sacred music for the liturgy? If a child belongs to a lesbian couple that has invited Satan into their lives, how is this not harmful to all the parties involved?
 
tm30 said:
The ends can never justify the means. One cannot practice evil to bring a supposed “good”. It’s the same reason we can’t just abort a baby to save the life of the mother, or shoot a drug dealer so we can take his money and give it to the poor.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about ends justifying means. I’m talking about two men giving a home to three abandoned, special needs children.
 
tm30 said:
You may not be able to see the signs of “brokenness” .

Oh, I see “brokenness” all right, as when the crowd at a Republican debate booed a gay soldier who had risked his life for his country.
How many Catholics were fooled for decades by “outwardly” good priests who were harboring Satanic desires to molest children?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
Can a soldier not shoot an enemy in a battle during a just war? Can an executioner not kill a convicted criminal who has been sentenced to death?

The discussion is over what ends justify what means.

But can you shoot a drug dealer who has been sentenced to death for his crimes?

rossum
Click to expand...
I may have written that backwards. The ends can never justify the means.

In your scenarios, the soldier is justified by the right to self-defense, and in duty to his country. The executioner is justified by the power granted by a presumed morally justifiable law (this is obviously up for debate in modern times).

You cannot walk up to a drug dealer in his death row cell and shoot him. You do not have the authority to do so, and so it is an evil, because all legitimate authority comes from God.
 
Wardog said:
Drinking is legal, yet sinful.
Gambling is legal, yet sinful.
Divorce is legal, yet sinful

It’s tricky when government gets in the business to regulate sin; I prefer to leave that up to the individuals. Who should get their guidance from their church.

If the government were to legalize gay marriage, would it make you any more likely to enter a gay marriage yourself, or would you follow your own instincts?
Click to expand...
All of these three things have a negative impact on society in many people’s opinions. I’m assuming by drinking you mean drunkenness though btw. Are you arguing that the government recognizing legal divorce has not had a negative impact on our society? The very nature of the current system facilitates allowing people to get a divorce. Two people can split up and solve their problems outside of government intervention. When the government allows for a stamp of approval for a second marriage after the first ends in divorce its shooting itself in the foot. Would anyone here try to argue that divorce does not affect anyone besides the two people involved? If anything we could make a better case at this point and time for how divorce affects society negatively than we could that homosexuality affects society negatively because of the time we have had to see how it has decimated society. I for one don’t plan on supporting legal acceptance of same-sex marriages and allowing it to have the same affect as legal acceptance of divorce has had. The government should be promoting things that will help build up our society not tear it down. We may have different ideas about what “building up our society” means but that’s why we all get to vote. I for one believe that God doesn’t condemn things without a reason and I don’t need to wait till 50 years down the road to see why same-sex marriages will be bad for society.

Also if you want to know why I pick on divorce and same-sex marriage more than I do drunkenness and gambling its because they are much greater threats to the family which is the backbone of our society and civilization.
 
StAnastasia said:
I’m not talking about ends justifying means. I’m talking about two men giving a home to three abandoned, special needs children.
Click to expand...
They do violence to the spiritual lives of these children. That is infinitely worse than a physical life of abandonment. What if, God forbid, you were to die, and your orphaned children were handed over to a loving, well-to-do Muslim couple that encouraged them to convert to Islam?
 
They do violence to the spiritual lives of these children.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t. I told you they get their kids to church on time.
That is infinitely worse than a physical life of abandonment.
Click to expand...
Your “violence” is imaginary; physical abandonment is real.
What if, God forbid, you were to die, and your orphaned children were handed over to a loving, well-to-do Muslim couple that encouraged them to convert to Islam?
Click to expand...
We’ve made provision for our children. If that fell through and our children converted to Islam, God would still be in their lives.
 
Wardog said:
… Once you allow any religion to “impose their own morality” on society, you have to be prepared for the day when it is your religion’s turn to be on the bottom.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Catholicism has been on the bottom since the beginning of this country. Apparently you have no problem with the ACLU imposing their morality on society:
Communism Is The Goal
Click to expand...
Entry of [ACLU founder] Roger Baldwin in the Harvard reunion book on the occasion of the 30th anniversary reunion of his class of 1905 (1935):
Click to expand...
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities. . .and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. . .Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. . .I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
Click to expand...
A year before, he had said: “When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means necessary.” Then in 1978, Baldwin said, “We’ve depended on the courts as the vehicle by which we assert our interpretation of the Constitution.”
Click to expand...
Baldwin wrote in a 1917 letter to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota about how to conceal their real intentions: “Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise . . . We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”
Click to expand...
I suppose Baldwin’s imposition of his interpretation is OK with you since it isn’t a “religion”.
Wardog said:
In America, so long as you have at least 51% of the people agreeing with you, gay marriage will not be approved. So you really don’t have to worry too much about it until your numbers drop below 49%. …
Click to expand...
This is just not true. Take a look at Prop 8 in California: voted in by over 50%, overturned by one judge. The issue is going to the Supreme Court where it will be decided by essentially one justice’s personal preference.
 
StAnastasia said:
No, they don’t. I told you they get their kids to church on time.
Click to expand...
Spiritual education of children starts in the home. If the first lesson is, “homosexual cohabitation is okay”, this is an epic fail. As these children reach the age of reason, I can almost guarantee they will be in rebellion against the Church because they will not be able to square what they think is normal with the infallible teachings of the Magisterium. That is a violation of their spiritual purity, which parents are utmost responsible for protecting. As the Lord said, “woe to anyone who leads these little ones astray…”
Your “violence” is imaginary; physical abandonment is real.
Click to expand...
So is hell.
We’ve made provision for our children. If that fell through and our children converted to Islam, God would still be in their lives.
Click to expand...
And yet they would lose their salvation. What a deal.
 
tm30 said:
or presenting themselves to the community as a family unit.

They are a family unit. And one of their daughters is an altar server. Oh, I know you probably think that puts her halfway to hell, taking away a spot from an altar boy.
I don’t follow. How so?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
The paper I referenced was from 1996. They will have taken into account the work you reference from 1983.

rossum
Click to expand...
Yes, the paper was from the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Did you read the conclusions?
 
qui_est_ce said:
The same could be said about homosexual marriage 50 years ago. As one poster put it, times and society change, and in his opinion, so should the definition of marriage. …
Click to expand...
As you noted, times have changed. The country is in dire financial straits. The government needs all the wealth it can get, so it is redefining “owner” as in owners of wealth and property. Some appointed czar of the government has redefined “owner” of your property as the federal government. That includes everything you own and control. Everything.
 
tm30 said:
Spiritual education of children starts in the home. If the first lesson is, “homosexual cohabitation is okay”, this is an epic fail. As these children reach the age of reason, I can almost guarantee they will be in rebellion against the Church because they will not be able to square what they think is normal with the infallible teachings of the Magisterium. That is a violation of their spiritual purity, which parents are utmost responsible for protecting. As the Lord said, “woe to anyone who leads these little ones astray…”

Actually, the children are not in rebellion.
And yet they would lose their salvation. What a deal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
tm30 said:
I may have written that backwards. The ends can never justify the means.
Click to expand...
You may need to think about that again.
In your scenarios, the soldier is justified by the right to self-defense, and in duty to his country.
Click to expand...
So the ends of self-defence and duty justify the means of killing another human.

That is a case of the ends justifying the means.
The executioner is justified by the power granted by a presumed morally justifiable law (this is obviously up for debate in modern times).
Click to expand...
The end of justice and the rule of law justify the means of killing another human being.

Another case of the ends justifying the means.
You cannot walk up to a drug dealer in his death row cell and shoot him. You do not have the authority to do so, and so it is an evil, because all legitimate authority comes from God.
Click to expand...
My apology for not expressing myself more clearly, I should have said that the legally appointed firing squad can shoot the convicted drug dealer who has been sentenced to death.

My point is that in some cases the ends do justify the means. The debate is about which ends justify which means: the death penalty and abortion to save the life of the mother being two obvious, and contentious, examples.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top