Gay marriage is a civil right

[Ashley42]

Gay sex is damaging see my last post

narth.com/menus/medical.html

Sorry, but NARTH has to be the absolute worst reference you could give to back your point. Their agenda is religious, not scientific. What they are doing has been widely condemmed by scientific organisations, such as the American Psycological Association. I actually went to a protest against them when they came to London. Remind me to dig out my leaflet…

You have just admitted that homosexuality ought not to be and have made a moral statement that condemns homosexuality. You have agreed with us that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.

No, I was saying what things might be like in an alternate (more simple) reality. We don’t live in that reality. We live in this one.

things can be wrong for reasons other than direct harm.

Only when oppinion comes into it.

There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. That is an oxymoron

Only by your definition. See my post about scope.

To say it is a civil right would be funny if it weren’t besmirching those who did fight for real civil rights.

Your pathetic arguments would be funny if they weren’t mocing people’s civil rights.

 

[free2pray]

Sorry, but NARTH has to be the absolute worst reference you could give to back your point. Their agenda is religious, not scientific. What they are doing has been widely condemmed by scientific organisations, such as the American Psycological Association. I actually went to a protest against them when they came to London. Remind me to dig out my leaflet…

I suppose that just because they have some people who have some religious beliefs all the concerns and articles that they post from hundreds if not thousands of medical professionals should be thrown out out. Well i think all your arguments for homosexual marriage should be thrown out because you are gay and are basis.

 

[free2pray]

NARTHs mission statement nothing about God or Religion

"We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals."

The articles that they have on there website are still from Medical professionals but who cares they have some people who work for them who are Religious.

 

[free2pray]

Sorry, but NARTH has to be the absolute worst reference you could give to back your point. Their agenda is religious, not scientific.
…

Why do you lie just to make your points? Try actually going to their website and try actually reading those articles before you say that their agenda is Religious that is just so much baloney i don’t even no why you would say it unless you are lying to make you point. The site is for homosexuals to get psychiatric help if they want it and they link you to medical articles from REAL Doctors who really practice medicine so that homosexuals can get the truth about there behavior being harmful to the body as a way to help them see that there lifestyle is not safe and to encourage them to seek their aid in being free of those tendences.

 

[free2pray]

Hey Ashely42

This is Narth’s side of the story concerning the APA read it if you like

narth.com/docs/presstask.html

 

[Ashley42]

Regarding NARTH, well there is just no real way to change sexual orientation. Their claims are based on people who were never really gay to start with, maybe just a bit confused about their sexual orientation, or those that are simply in a deep state of self denial about their true sexual orientation.
What NARTH does can be very psycologically damaging to a person. Their work has been condemmed by most professionals in the field.

One thing that is interesting is WHY anone would want to change their sexual orientation. The reason is that they are encouraged to do so, even forced in some cases, to change, otherwise they will not be accepted by their family, their curch, their community, etc. If people were more accepting of homosexuality, then you would probably find that people don’t actually want to change.

Why do you lie just to make your points? Try actually going to their website and try actually reading those articles before you say that their agenda is Religious that is just so much baloney i don’t even no why you would say it unless you are lying to make you point.

Of course, they try to distance themselves from the religious agenda because they know that people in the know will mock them for it. But it’s not difficult to see right through it. You just have to look at their clients, workers and the events they attend and host.

George Alan Rekers is listed on NARTH’s website as an officer. Despite NARTH’s leaders’ position that NARTH is a secular organization, Rekers has testified in court that he believes the Bible to be the infallible word of God and that homosexuality is a sin.[25] His personal beliefs regarding homosexuality, according to the ACLU, interfere with his being able to give an unbiased professional opinion on LGBT topics, including gay adoption.[26] Rekers was an expert witness in a 2004 case involving gay adoption in Arkansas. The state had banned LGBT people from adopting in 1999. In January 2005, Timothy White, Pulaski County’s circuit court judge ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers’ testimony “extremely suspect.” He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his “own personal agenda.”[27]

In 2008, Rekers was also an expert witness in a case defending Florida’s gay adoption ban. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said “Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.”[27]

 

[Mea_Culpa]

One thing that is interesting is WHY anone would want to change their sexual orientation. The reason is that they are encouraged to do so, even forced in some cases, to change, otherwise they will not be accepted by their family, their curch, their community, etc. If people were more accepting of homosexuality, then you would probably find that people don’t actually want to change.

Maybe they recognize that their “lifestyle” is objectively wrong in the eyes of God. There is such a thing as right and wrong - even those trapped in slavery to sin can see the light and get out of it, with the help of Jesus Christ.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

suritter

The reason gay marriage is not possible is because marriage is intimately tied to sex, which of course is related to procreation. But our culture is blind to this connection (witness the attitude toward contraception) and therefore our culture can’t fathom the idea that marriage is only for a man and a woman.

If they can’t fathom it, haven’t they lost their common sense?

No advanced culture in the history of the world has countenanced marriage between members of the same sex. Not even the Greeks and Romans in their most depraved days countenanced it.

Modern civilization is a train that has completely fallen off the common sense track of every nation in the history of the world.

 

[Ashley42]

Maybe they recognize that their “lifestyle” is objectively wrong in the eyes of God. There is such a thing as right and wrong - even those trapped in slavery to sin can see the light and get out of it, with the help of Jesus Christ.

Maybe. But if that’s the case, then the so-called “evidence” based on the “conversion” of these people should not be relied upon - in particular for those who are not of a religious background. If someone wants to deny who they are for religious reasons, then they are free to do so. But using this as “proof” is simply wrong and unscientific.

The reason gay marriage is not possible is because marriage is intimately tied to sex, which of course is related to procreation. But our culture is blind to this connection (witness the attitude toward contraception) and therefore our culture can’t fathom the idea that marriage is only for a man and a woman.

Different people define the term “marriage” in vastly different ways. (see my post about ‘scope’). About the only thing that all definitions have in common is the fact that marriage is the recognition of a union between individuals. Any definition over and above that varies from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion. Just because other people do not share the same definition you do, it does not mean that they are wrong. All it means is that their definition is different from yours.

How much more simple can I make it?

 

[surritter]

But let’s get to the SUBSTANCE. Why do these relationships need certifying?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Any definition over and above that varies from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion. Just because other people do not share the same definition you do, it does not mean that they are wrong. All it means is that their definition is different from yours.

No civilization in the history of the world has countenanced marriage between members of the same sex. Not even the Greeks and Romans in their most depraved days countenanced it.

This is something new and truly bizarre in the history of the world. Where do you get off saying, “All it means is that their definition is different from yours”?

Wouldn’t this new definition of marriage be like redefining democracy as the tyranny of the few over the many … a complete mockery of how democracy has always been defined?

 

[Ashley42]

No civilization in the history of the world has countenanced marriage between members of the same sex. Not even the Greeks and Romans in their most depraved days countenanced it.

This is something new and truly bizarre in the history of the world. Where do you get off saying, “All it means is that their definition is different from yours”?

Wrong. There have been numerous recognitions of homosexual unions in the past. Only by your narrow definition could they not be defined as marraige.

Wouldn’t this new definition of marriage be like redefining democracy as the tyranny of the few over the many … a complete mockery of how democracy has always been defined?

sigh Need I dignify this with a response? Democracy is all about subjecting all of the people to the will of the majority. Thankfully we have systems in place to protect minorities who need protecting cue Prop 8 trial. Does it always work? We’ll see I guess.
But this is not a ‘new’ definition, just a different one. New to you maybe.

 

[Lethe]

…so we are continually told today by some. Or, more often, it’s just taken for granted though no one’s arguing for it. In the recent threads on gay marriage within this sub-forum, it is often asserted, but I’ve yet to hear the argument, that gay marriage is a civil right. It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court of the US has (rightly, I think) upheld that marriage itself is a civil right. But, whether we can apply that right to this or that particular “expansion” of marriage (eg, gay, polygamous, etc) is an altogether separate issue.

Given that there is such an overwhelming lack of historical support for attempts to redefine marriage (and hence, the family) to include homosexual unions, even among States which were much more friendly to homosexuality than ours (eg, the Greeks)

Ha sorry what? Ancient Greece was definitely far more pro-homosexual than modern US, though modern Greece may have fought back against that… Historically, Greece was pretty pro male-male relationships, and put them above male-female relationships. Your wife was for kids only, love was with another male.

And I totally agree with those who say anyone can marry (the opposite sex) so fighting gay marriage isnt fighting a civil right - they have the right to marry the way people always have.

However, I dont think there’s any comparison you can make - polygamy is a totally unequal relationship and allows only husband/wife (usually husband) to have extra partners, so devalues the other gender in the relationship, and obviously the other sorts of things people think come into the ‘slippery slope’ (e.g. marriage to animals, children) are wrong because they involve people who cannot consent to marriage, do not understand what they would be consenting to, and would likely be abused. Homosexual marriage is alone in the fact that it can include two monogamous people, both with the ability to make the choice and consent to the marriage, but who are denied it.

The problem is mainly also that non-religious people (such as myself) see no reason why they should have to obey someone else’s religion. It smacks of intolerance and self-centeredness. Is there a reason, without the Bible or other religious text, why gay people shouldnt be united in a legal union? No, not really. Certainly, they cannot natrually produce children, but nor can some heterosexual couples. Besides, many already have children from previous relationships or from IVF etc, and should those children be denied the extra support and financial help of a marriage?

And I am a firm believer that two parents are better than one, whatever gender they are.

 

[edwest2]

So two people of the same sex get married and then what? Just live day to day like every straight married couple? Let’s look at what’s going on in Massachusetts:

massresistance.com/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Would you want your child exposed to sexual indoctrination in the second grade, before he has the intellectual or emotional maturity to understand what was going on?

massresistance.org/docs/issues/king_and_king/

The State is telling parents they cannot opt their kids out. The State is in charge, not you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wrong. There have been numerous recognitions of homosexual unions in the past. Only by your narrow definition could they not be defined as marraige.

Oh, really? Name one. And stop playing word games. Homosexual unions are not the same as marriage. Name a civilization that countenanced marriage between members of the same sex.

Good luck finding one. Somehow I suspect you won’t bother to look.

 

[surritter]

As I’ve said before, the problem in all this is that people have forgotten that marriage is built around sexuality, because sexuality is intimately tied with procreation, and marriage is the unit from which a family begins.

Since sexuality and procreation are not seen as integral to marriage anymore, of course you can try to call it anything!

Here’s an analogy that Catholics on this thread might be able to relate to. Only men can be priests, because priests offer sacrifice, and the sacrifice is Jesus. (I don’t intend to debate that point, but just follow me here…). Once the sacrifice part of it is stripped away, as Protestants have done, then anyone can call himself or herself a “priest.” But trust me, they are not priests. They are not ordained.

And hey, I have no problem with women preaching or leading a service. In the Protestant world, that’s fine, because they (usually) are not pretending to be leading a sacrificial liturgy.

So back to our topic… if sexuality that is rightly ordered to procreation is stripped out of the definition of marriage, then it’s not a marriage. It’s merely a contract. It has NOTHING to do with sex. So that type of contract should be allowed between any number of persons of any gender.

 

[Ashley42]

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. These same sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages. Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for “to marry”, i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was “united in a stable and permanent marriage” to Antonius. Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages. By Juvenal’s time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were “nothing special.”. These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.[41]

So as usual, the Christians come along and ruin it for everybody.

msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

gayteens.about.com/od/rightsandactivism/qt/marriage_hist.htm

And stop playing word games. Homosexual unions are not the same as marriage.

Not to you, maybe. But to me, they are. And to the state, they sometimes are, but should be.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ashley42

The sources you identify are vague and second hand. Please cite specific passages (in Cicero, for example) in which the word “marriage” is used rather than homosexual union.

Reproducing the exact text and the year of the translation and the translator’s name would help. It would also help to know if the translator was homosexual.

Please cite your sources for the other “facts” as well. There is no end of rank absurdity coming from your side of the matter, such as Elton John’s recent pontification that Jesus was queer.

Will Durant in his *Story of Civilization *volumes, while he acknowledges the extent of homosexual perversions, never mentions homosexual marriage in Greece or Rome. He would certainly not have missed that item if it were so!

 

[Ashley42]

Please cite specific passages (in Cicero, for example) in which the word “marriage” is used rather than homosexual union.

Why? Sometimes they don’t use the word marriage depending on their own oppinion and target audience. A marriage is simply a recognition of a union, so any recognised homosexual union could be called a marriage.

As for my sources:
“Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.” - John Boswell
penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html
fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/juv-sat2eng.html

“O Father of our city, whence came such wickedness among thy Latin shepherds? How did such a lust possess thy grandchildren, O Gradivus? Behold! Here you have a man of high birth and wealth being handed over in marriage to a man, and yet neither shakest thy helmet, nor smitest the earth with thy spear, nor yet protestest to thy Father?”

 

[Mea_Culpa]

suritter

The reason gay marriage is not possible is because marriage is intimately tied to sex, which of course is related to procreation. But our culture is blind to this connection (witness the attitude toward contraception) and therefore our culture can’t fathom the idea that marriage is only for a man and a woman.

If they can’t fathom it, haven’t they lost their common sense?

No advanced culture in the history of the world has countenanced marriage between members of the same sex. Not even the Greeks and Romans in their most depraved days countenanced it.

Modern civilization is a train that has completely fallen off the common sense track of every nation in the history of the world.

Charlemagne - I think you’re on to something here. This demand to recognize homosexual couplings as “marriages” is another consequence of the plague of contraception and abortion. If normal people have taken the procreative aspect out of marriage, homosexuals look at that and say - what they have looks like our couplings. There is no real committment, there is 50% divorce among normal people, sex is just for fun - many heterosexual marriages these days are no more a real marriage than two homosexuals living together.

The Church warned about all this back in the 1960’s in Humanae Vitae. Many people didn’t want to hear it - but the Church was right then, and it’s right now. What the whole push for homosexual “marriage” really does is that it shines a spotlight on just how far the institution of marriage has been degraded in our culture, that anybody could look at a homosexual coupling as equivalent to a real marriage.