Gay marriage is a civil right

[Des]

If you are suggesting that unless I take the ‘side’ of the Catholics on this thread, I am not a Catholic, then, regrettably, I have to tell you that you are incorrect.

I’m saying if you are to call yourself a Catholic then take the side of the Church and not your own personal feelings between yourself and your partner. If you disagree with the Church then you really aren’t Catholic in your heart and you do a disservice to this forum by leaving the word Catholic up in your profile like that. If you’re still battling it out with your conscience then that’s an entirely different matter than already giving into this belief that it’s ok. I’d likewise say the same to any poster who keeps Catholic in their profile while arguing for abortion. It’s very self deceiving.

 

[spn82756]

I’m saying if you are to call yourself a Catholic then take the side of the Church and not your own personal feelings between yourself and your partner. If you disagree with the Church then you really aren’t Catholic in your heart and you do a disservice to this forum by leaving the word Catholic up in your profile like that. If you’re still battling it out with your conscience then that’s an entirely different matter than already giving into this belief that it’s ok. I’d likewise say the same to any poster who keeps Catholic in their profile while arguing for abortion. It’s very self deceiving.

I think to a certain extent we may be confusing some of what Alexia is saying. IMHO… she is not defending anything wrong per se…but rather saying that civilly in some places homosexual unions are recognized. I disagree with that totally…but unless I have missed something I don’t think that she has in any way stated that gay marriage should be recognized by the Church. We all agree on that.

 

[Des]

So, it is by no great effort on my part that I escape the ‘sin clause’; I escape it simply because I was born this way

So by this reasoning, a hideous looking heterosexual man who cannot find a woman who will Marry him, can escape the sin clause of having premarital relations with a prostitute to relieve himself of these desires?

Can there be men out there who can escape the sin clause of adultery because they found out later on they cannot be faithful to just one woman?

As hard as it may be for you all, the Church has spoken for 2000 years about homosexual relationships. That is to refrain from them even if you’re inclinations are strong.

 

[Des]

I think to a certain extent we may be confusing some of what Alexia is saying. IMHO… she is not defending anything wrong per se…but rather saying that civilly in some places homosexual unions are recognized. I disagree with that totally…but unless I have missed something I don’t think that she has in any way stated that gay marriage should be recognized by the Church. We all agree on that.

Oh I understand that part. My concern is only that word Catholic in her profile while believing she has a loop hole to get out of the sin of being in a homosexual relationship. If someone want’s to chose to beleive that then fine, but how can one pretend to be part of the Fold where the message has been very clear for 2000 years how wrong it is in God’s eyes.

 

[spn82756]

Oh I understand that part. My concern is only that word Catholic in her profile while believing she has a loop hole to get out of the sin of being in a homosexual relationship. If someone want’s to chose to beleive that then fine, but how can one pretend to be part of the Fold where the message has been very clear for 2000 years how wrong it is in God’s eyes.

But from what I have gathered from the posts…she is not in a homosexual relationship. I think that she is in relationship devoid of sex. That’s all I’m trying to point out. I think we’re all on the same side my friend.

 

[Des]

But from what I have gathered from the posts…she is not in a homosexual relationship. I think that she is in relationship devoid of sex. That’s all I’m trying to point out. I think we’re all on the same side my friend.

But it’s more than friendship as she already stated so it has to get romantic to bring it to the status of relationship even if it’s just a kiss or holding hands. That would be entertaining homosexual desires which is against the teachings of the Church.

 

[Cominghome89]

But it’s more than friendship as she already stated so it has to get romantic to bring it to the status of relationship even if it’s just a kiss or holding hands. That would be entertaining homosexual desires which is against the teachings of the Church.

Honestly, I think too much is being thrown against Alexia. First of all, just because she feels a different love than “sisterly” for her partner, does not mean that kissing and holding hands are involved. Further, you can kiss or hold the hands of your child, and nothing sexual is involved.

What she is saying, and what I tend to agree with, is that this situation, this relationship, is extremely unusual (as her statistic points out) but not inherently sinful.

There ARE indeed people who do not feel heterosexual attraction. Is it easier to live that life of celibacy alone than with another member of the same sex? Who knows, I have no idea how that situation feels. But rather than tell her that she should not label herself a Catholic, I applaud her openness, and her chaste response to what has to be an EXTREMELY difficult life. If you think she should not live with her partner in this chaste relationship, maybe keep it to yourself? Telling her she shouldn’t call herself a member of the Church is definitely not the loving response that is called for.

Alexia, although these situations are rare and I can never claim to understand them, I am very interested in your perspective. Do you ever think that perhaps a single life of celibacy would be easier than your current situation? Is it ever tempting not to be chaste in such a situation? Don’t answer if it is too personal, but I am very curious.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[Alexia2000]

Hello Des

I am not going to ‘get out of it’ by suggesting that mine is not a romantic relationship with my partner. However, I have spoken with my parish priest in great detail, first via email and then by meeting with him and spending an hour discussing my circumstances with him. I am not going to go into every little detail here which I did with him. His opinion was that I had not committed a sin and as long as I maintain status quo, I, and my partner, are both welcome in the Church. That is where I have been this evening and did ask for forgiveness for the many sins I am guilty off; but I am not guilty of what you are thinking and I am not about to throw away a 15 year relationship simply because you cannot understand and/or accept

But what I can do and have done, is to remove ‘Catholic’ from my profile. Not because in my heart I am not Catholic; but because my declaring so hurts you. And I do not wish to hurt you, or my friends or gay or lesbian people or Atheists or other Christians; infact nobody

I am not going to ‘take the side’ of the Church; the Church doesn’t need to be defended for nobody has attacked it, yet. When someone starts to demand gay weddings in Church, that is when I will stand up to defend, and not before

-------

Hello Frank

The physical contact which I have with my partner is no different from the physical contact I have with any other woman; primarily, holding hands or sometimes, a hug in private. I do not believe that this physical contact becomes sinful when with my partner simply because I love her

I have already explained this to someone on this forum in a private message. I do not feel sexually attracted to anyone; believe you me, I have tried; but I am not prepared to undergo ‘treatments’ which some other asexuals have had to endure. Getting hit on the head with broken beer bottle for a fortnight doesn’t mean that after a fortnight one begins to enjoy the experience

This does not mean that I cannot have romantic feelings for someone or that I do not feel physical attraction. However, once sexual attraction is not in the picture, gender somehow becomes slightly irrelevant. This does not mean that either myself or my partner feel that we are some kind of ‘third gender’; just that, gender is less important; the plus side is that we have a shared wardrobe

My life with or without her will be ‘celibate’ anyway; although, I would not call it celibacy since that is a choice and I am not making a choice; this is just the way I am. The one who is making a choice is my partner; she is not really asexual; I know that. She is non-sexual which is to say that she has made a conscious decision to remain with me and the only way to remain with me is if we continue with a physically non-intimate relationship. So far, it has worked well for both of us.

I so not want to be alone; I enjoy her company; we have a life together; we look forward to the many things we share and do together. In this respect, asexuals are not dissimilar from others. There are asexuals who behave in a similar way to heterosexuals, apart from, the you know what Others experience same gender attraction

Frank, asexual people have existed throughout history; but we did not know that there were others like us. During my childhood I thought that I was the only one; I knew that there was nothing wrong with me; but I also knew that I must not ever tell anyone for the simple fact that bullies can be very cruel in a playground; much like over here, sometimes

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Alexia

*Frank, asexual people have existed throughout history; but we did not know that there were others like us. *

Yes, and they never, to my knowledge, demanded state sanction in the form of a certificate to validate their relationship.

I know pairs of nuns who have lived together in private homes for several years. How could they do that without some kind of deep friendship? You call yours romantic. But I don’t see why. It sounds more deeply platonic the way you describe it. That shouldn’t stop you from giving each other Valentine’s Day cards!

 

[Des]

Hello Alexia. Though I’m still having a tough time comprehending everything you said with the terms relationship, partner and romance being included I’ll gladly drop it. I just think when those phrases get thrown around alot together in a thread such as this, that it can be missleading to others as perhaps I have been mislead, especially since I don’t know the entire situation.

God Bless, and sorry if I was too intruding on your personal life.

I also wanted to say that you have been very gracious talking this out with me too.

I’m also sure a mod will most likely come by and purge all of this off topic talk created by yours truly anyways or give me a stern warning.

 

[Ashley42]

I don’t recall any such post and it’s not polite of you to expect that I will search through all your posts to find an answer that doesn’t even exist.

There has NEVER been a time in history before our time when homosexuals demanded and got a marriage certificate.

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

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.

Seems to me this should have ended the debate. Very hilariously and well put. Sadly the tactic of the opposition is to merely keep saying “na’uh na’uh” to everything we say until we decide to give up.

But it didn’t end the debate, because we are discussing civil marriage and not lasagne-stuffing. If you choose to close your ears and your mind to the logical arguments I have put forward, you are simply a fool.

You obviously didn’t get his logic… sadly

No S**t! Perhaps because it makes no sense!

We have many other defenses for the legitimacy of our beliefs besides the one that you gave.

I’ve never seen one that doesn’t rely on blind faith or circular logic.

Pascal’s wager look it up

There are many flaws with Pascals wager. One being that if God did exist, surely he’d know that you don’t actually believe, you’re just hedging your bets. Secondly, it is based on the idea that one has “nothing to loose” by believing in God. However, if I wanted to subscribe to that faith and be true to it then it would mean loosing my girlfriend, which I am simply not prepared to do for a shadey bet.

You have just offered metaphysical proof for God’s existence. for your hate of Him is self evident

Oh I have no doubt that God exists - as a figment of your imagination. In the same way that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists - as a figment of my imagination.
“And on the first day, Man created God”.

he is not implying that at all, he was pointing out that in ancient history, and more recent history, others besides Catholics and Christians have views similar to ours on homosexuality

But still failed to explain why they should be listened to. Just because some Catholics and some non-Catholics share a dellusion, doesn’t make it right.

 

[Ashley42]

This thread has made abundantly clear the link between homosexuality and atheism.

If a link exists, it is genrally because homosexuals are shanned by churches. Do your research, there are very many religious homosexuals.

They repeat over and over, “There is no God, so I can do whatever I want to.”

“There is no God, I can live under a set of rules based on logic and ethics instead of some aincent book of unknown origins whose translation is widely disputed” would be more accurate.

what it’s really doing is pushing Christians off into the corner

Only the hate-filled ones. Christians are free to hate and discriminate agiainst whoevery they want - just keep it to the Churches. The state on the other hand, should not discriminate.

Common sense is not what the majority see but are, rather, self-evident truths that shouldn’t have to be argued for.

Sometimes you do have to argue for them. They may be self-evident to some, but not others. They may not be truths at all, but assumptions that one believes so blindly that it’s true, that they believe it should be common sense.

Would that the Government go back to not supporting this Sin

The Government should never submit to the whims of any particular religion - that’s just asking for trouble. You’re free to call homosexuality a sin, but don’t try to get the governemnt to base its laws on that teaching. We are all free (or should be) to believe what we want. The law should be based on ethics free from faith, rather than religious ‘morals’

She continuously compares apples to oranges and misquotes. Perhaps ignoring the posts are in order.

A classic sign of someone who won’t even admit to themselves that they have lost the debate and instead try to shun the opposition. I pity you, fo you have been brainwashed by your faith.

How do you know that God does not exist?

The same way you know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. Because as yet there has been no reliable irrefutable evidence of his existance. The burden of proof is on you to show that he DOES exist.

Even if you don’t hate God, you seem to hate the idea of God, at least the Christian idea of God. You are certainly willing to fight it, or why would you be mocking God in this forum?

Very true. I hate the idea that some supernatural being “designed” me and is now telling me to go against every emotional feeling in my body, leave the girlfriend that I love and have built a family with (we don’t have kids but our moggie is considered part of the family!), and go and marry a male who I am not attracted to in the slightest, sexually or otherwise, and who I am utterly incapable of forming any sort of emotional bond with.
And to drop another bombshell… I am transexual. Why would God design me in a male body but give me the thought processes and emotional aspects of a female? Not to mention the yearning to just have a physical body that matches how I feel inside. Yes, I hate the idea that God would ‘design’ me that way and then not want me to change my body.
Thankfully, medical science has fixed a great deal for me and I am no longer feeling trapped, unhappy and depressed. Not the case had I followed the teachings of the Church!

There are so many occurrences that are clearly supernatural that have occurred.

All of them widely disputed. None of them are solid evidence.

 

[Alexia2000]

Hello Des

Thank you for making an attempt to understand even if this is something which I cannot explain well; for I am constrained by language

If you have the time and want to know more, then please have a look at the AVEN site; in particular, there is a wonderful article written by a sexual about his understanding of asexuals. You will find it under ‘Asexual Perspectives’. Maybe reading things from your perspective will explain things better than I can

I can’t see anything which you have written which I haven’t been ‘interrogated’ about in the past So, please forget it

-------

Hi Charlemagne

Asexuals have always had the right to get married just like the sexuals do. Trouble starts when they are in a same gender relationship; all of a sudden, we did not have a valid relationship and all that goes with it; that changed with the Civil Partnership Act (I think, in 2005)

The question is about Same-Gender Marriages in a Civil context. And I can see that it is the word ‘marriage’ which is causing an issue here. Nobody batted an eyelid when the Civil Partnership Bill was passed and became an Act; an extraordinarily low number of objections were raised in Parliament. I think that the word ‘marriage’ carries a special significance to Catholics. I can understand that and I am not in the least proposing same-gender marriages or even Civil Partnerships to be performed or even recognised by the Church; I am dead against that; seriously; for that would mean altering the faith

However, I have to ask myself about the harm a same-gender civil marriage conducted in a registrar’s office will do to the Catholic faith and me; the answer for me is: none

Now if I take the stance that as a Catholic, I must eradicate any mention of a same-gender marriage anywhere and everywhere, then I will have a problem; is that your position? For if so, then I can understand your objection. But, you can do so by voting against it and making your objection known. However let me ask you this; how will gay and lesbian people getting married at a registrar’s office pose a risk to the Catholic faith?

PS. We do give each other Valentine Cards, but only at home. This year, I sent her a rose, loads and loads and loads of chocolates (yum, yum) and a card (anonymously, ofcourse, just in case her secretary opened her mail) to her business premises. The result is that they now all want to know from her, who ‘HE’ is; I can’t win, can I

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ashley42

*Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

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. *

You are obliged to identify your source for the above quote.

Nowhere in that quote does it say that marriages were sanctioned by the State. The practice of individuals has nothing to do with the sanctions of the State. No doubt many bizarre relationships existed in the pagan period that were never sanctioned by the State, just as there are many bizarre and offensive practices in the world today that are (at least not yet) recognized and sanctioned by the State.

I would remind you that Plato believed homosexuality must be outlawed and severely punished, and that Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill in the Virginia Assembly that provided castration for male homosexuals and nose-cutting for lesbians. Neither Plato nor Jefferson were Catholic. These penalties simply reflect the extent of revulsion for such crimes against nature.

 

[Ashley42]

You are obliged to identify your source for the above quote.

Le sigh…

As for my sources:
“Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.” - John Boswell
penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/…s_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?”

Nowhere in that quote does it say that marriages were sanctioned by the State. The practice of individuals has nothing to do with the sanctions of the State.

In that case you should argue that historically, religious marraiges were not sanctioned by the state. So why should they be now? Marriage has changed a great deal over time. As I have said many times before, the base definition of marriage is simply the recignition of a union between individuals. It has had a vast measure of varing definitions throughout history. Unions recognised by society, religion, the state, unions between men and women, unions between gay men, gay women, children, multiple women, goats, the list goes on. You simply can’t use historical definitions to justify discrimination in todays society.

These penalties simply reflect the extent of revulsion for such crimes against nature.

No, these penalties reflect a widespread lack of understanding and education about homosexuality and a deep seated fear and ignorance campaign against gays and lesbians.

 

[Ashley42]

Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill in the Virginia Assembly that provided castration for male homosexuals and nose-cutting for lesbians.

Now this is an interesting one - do you think he would sponsor a bill that provides the removal of ones ear if they stuff lasagne into it?

 

[spn82756]

Now this is an interesting one - do you think he would sponsor a bill that provides the removal of ones ear if they stuff lasagne into it?

 

[surritter]

Now this is an interesting one - do you think he would sponsor a bill that provides the removal of ones ear if they stuff lasagne into it?

Ashley, your logic here is backwards. The push for homosexual unions is one that is attempting to create a “bill” that certifies something that is unnatural.

So your question really should be, “Would Jefferson sponsor a bill that provides a certificate of sanity to a person who stuffs lasagna into his ear?”

You see, your original question has Jefferson supporting a negative action (remove an ear to make lasagna-stuffing impossible). But the stance against homosexual “marriage” is to stop a positive action from being enacted.

I’m not trying to pick apart your verbal skills. I’m trying to show you how the logic does not translate; thus Charlemagne’s post about Jefferson has merit…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ashley

As for my sources:
“Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.” - John Boswell

Yes, I thought it would be Boswell. Boswell died of complications from AIDS in the Yale infirmary in New Haven, Connecticut on December 24, 1994, at age 47. And he died a Catholic. Requiescat in pace.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ashley

*No, these penalties reflect a widespread lack of understanding and education about homosexuality and a deep seated fear and ignorance campaign against gays and lesbians. *

Not really. They reflect horror and revulsion and fear of violating nature’s intent, but certainly not ignorance.