Gay Marriage in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glennonite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wardog said:
Would I want to live in a world that homosexuals will create?
I do not understand this question, because I don’t give up my rights because gay marriage is legalized. If that is your worry, then I don’t share it. Extending the right for others to live together in marriage will not change my lifestyle in any way, nor do I see any harm to anyone else. I understand that it is sinful, but not everyone agrees with me on what sin means in any event.
Click to expand...
so two couples apply to adopt an infant. the law says the couples must be treated equally. The gay couple adopts the infant. You and your spouse are the heterosexual couple that didn’t get to adopt.

The baby is deprived of his or her natural right to a mother and a father.

You own a wedding photography studio. You are a devout Catholic and refuse to photograph a gay wedding. You are sued and loose your business and your livelihood.

Your church is forced to sell off their community hall because they are no longer allowed to refuse its use for gay receptions.

Maybe your personal lifestyle won’t be affected but a whole lot of other people’s will.
 
Wardog said:
Would I want to live in a world that homosexuals will create?
I do not understand this question, because I don’t give up my rights because gay marriage is legalized. If that is your worry, then I don’t share it. Extending the right for others to live together in marriage will not change my lifestyle in any way, nor do I see any harm to anyone else. I understand that it is sinful, but not everyone agrees with me on what sin means in any event.
Click to expand...
As the Church is the Body of Christ I believe it is the Church’s definition of sin and what constitutes sinful behavior that we must accept, as faithful Catholics.

Are you advocating moral relativism?
 
StAnastasia said:
True, but as Robert George points out, if humans couldn’t have babies, they would never have invented the institution of marriage. Marriage would not have been invented just because people were tennis partners, or office workers in the same cubicle, or best friends. So breeding is the foundation for the very institution of marriage.
Click to expand...
That is the most powerful statement on this topic that I have ever come across. Wow.

Thanks,

Glennonite
 
LittleSoldier said:
…I always thought it was obvious to everyone.
Click to expand...
Negatory. Ignorance of this is why we have ideas like “victimless” crimes, and anything between “consenting adults” being OK. It’s not too difficult to see the absurd lengths people can take such a philosophy. Someone in an earlier post mentioned a volunteer to be a cannibal’s dinner.
 
Wardog said:
Would I want to live in a world that homosexuals will create?
I do not understand this question, because I don’t give up my rights because gay marriage is legalized. If that is your worry, then I don’t share it. Extending the right for others to live together in marriage will not change my lifestyle in any way, nor do I see any harm to anyone else. I understand that it is sinful, but not everyone agrees with me on what sin means in any event.
Click to expand...
See my post #231.
 
rossum said:
You would do well to actually have a look at the scholarly evidence before posting. That way you would not make as many errors.

Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I don’t know if St Anastasia is aware of this particular study, but it does offer some “factual evidence” to support his statement.

rossum
Click to expand...
n=35 and 29 sound like small sample sizes. Are we to extrapolate this out to the whole society of 330 million? Were these subjects selected at random? How was “homophobia” and “non-homophobia” determined? Self-evaluation?
 
Wardog said:
Would I want to live in a world that homosexuals will create?
I do not understand this question, because I don’t give up my rights because gay marriage is legalized. If that is your worry, then I don’t share it. Extending the right for others to live together in marriage will not change my lifestyle in any way, nor do I see any harm to anyone else. I understand that it is sinful, but not everyone agrees with me on what sin means in any event.
Click to expand...
The problem is, you’re approaching this from an egocentric position. It doesn’t make you uncomfortable, therefore, it’s none of your business. This is a false premise. Why did we bother with a Civil War since slavery had zero effect on millions of men and women in the North?

Yes, you are your brother’s keeper. Whether it is the person committing the abomination of sodomy and gay marriage; or it’s the forthcoming generations that will be raised with the disordered view that it’s acceptable; or it’s the adult generations of men and women who are marching off the cliff of mortal sin by “accepting” and in some cases “promoting” and “facilitating” this moral sickness.

Christ was very clear about it. If you deny Him before others, He will deny you before the Father. If we refuse to help our brothers and sisters get on the right path, we are denying Christ, plain and simple, because it is His will that all be saved.
 
StAnastasia said:
Then you can imagine how my gay and lesbian friends feel when the sexuality into which they were born is reduced to “gay lifestyle” (whatever that means).
Click to expand...
I see your point, but no one here on this thread has ever condemned a person with SSA. The “gay lifestyle” has been used by SSA people here as those who are actively promiscuous. There is even a thread in the Catholic Living section started by a woman with SSA who “came out” and wished she hadn’t because of the expectations active homosexuals have about how she should behave. Others with SSA expressed the pressure they feel from the gay community as well.

From reading posts by people who have SSA, those who choose to remain chaste and follow Catholic Church Teaching call themselves people with SSA. They do not define themselves by their sexual preferences.
 
Wardog said:
You are correct, where this stops will be the next issue.
Click to expand...
This is correct, but how do you square this with your previous comment, i.e., that it is a worry you don’t share?
Already polygamy is being asked about. But my answer is the numbers involved are going to be pretty small.
Click to expand...
But the impact will be great. Just look at what 2% of the population has accomplished in just 40 years.
I have not heard anyone asking about incest, or about bestiality, so it seems not right to use them as a reason to not authorize gay marriage. …
Click to expand...
You must be new to this topic. Besides, the burden of proof is on the advocate of social change to justify the change; it’s not up to traditionalists to answer, “why not?”, although we’ve fallen into this trap many times.
 
qui_est_ce said:
I see your point, but no one here on this thread has ever condemned a person with SSA. The “gay lifestyle” has been used by SSA people here as those who are actively promiscuous.
Click to expand...
The semantic problem is referring to homosexual couples as having a “gay lifestyle.” We have one local gay couple who both hold down regular jobs, who have adopted three special needs children abandoned at birth. They take care of their kids, chauffeur them to soccer games and birthday parties, cook dinner, wash clothes and clean the house, get their kids to school and church on time, plan family vacations, etc. This sounds like a “family lifestyle” to me.

StAnastasia
 
rossum said:
You would do well to actually have a look at the scholarly evidence before posting. That way you would not make as many errors.

I don’t know if St Anastasia is aware of this particular study, but it does offer some “factual evidence” to support his statement.

rossum
Click to expand...
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.
 
StAnastasia said:
The semantic problem is referring to homosexual couples as having a “gay lifestyle.” We have one local gay couple who both hold down regular jobs, who have adopted three special needs children abandoned at birth. They take care of their kids, chauffeur them to soccer games and birthday parties, cook dinner, wash clothes and clean the house, get their kids to school and church on time, plan family vacations, etc. This sounds like a “family lifestyle” to me.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
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.
 
sedonaman said:
n=35 and 29 sound like small sample sizes. Are we to extrapolate this out to the whole society of 330 million? Were these subjects selected at random?
Click to expand...
If you have a larger study, then please reference it. If you have a study that shows different results then please reference it.
How was “homophobia” and “non-homophobia” determined? Self-evaluation?
Click to expand...
To quote, again, from the Abstract that I already posted:
they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).

If you want to know more of the details of the study I referenced then follow the link I gave and read the whole paper.

rossum
 
tm30 said:
The ends can never justify the means.
Click to expand...
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.
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...
But can you shoot a drug dealer who has been sentenced to death for his crimes?

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top