Gay marriage legalized in the UK

[fix]

Libero:

This is merely your opinion, nothing more. There is no significant proof of this.

Hardly my opinion. It is revealed to us by Christ. As for civil unions they are a mere ploy.

This is an established fact within the scientific community, there is proof. Whilst my teacher did not provide any at the time, he said that it is very possible for homosexuality to be genetic, which is why, very often gay men may look effeminete, or lesbians less lady like (although this is only in some cases), in such cases it can be due to irregularities in the gametes that formed that person. In other circumstances, it can be due to the hormonal development. This can be seen within nature, as the endocrine research facility found that 8% of sheep were homosexually orientated. Whilst you may dismiss this, I shall not, it effectively destroys cries that homosexualitry is a choice that could effectively be reversed. In recognising this, one has to consider the rights of the homosexual as a person, they deserve to have legally recognised unions, even though not marriages. Further more, nobody is arguing that a marriage within the eyes of God is not licit for homosexuals, as I have stated to ignore this, or to make up that Civil Unions are an imitation marriage is ignorant.

No, that is no fact and certainly there is no absolute proof, but as I said before even if there is some genetic predisposition that in no way makes your case. Many defects are genetic and we try to correct those defects, not celebrate them.

But yet it is true, pre marriage sex, casual use of drugs, pornography, increasing rates of crime, violence, war, killing, intolerance, misuse of alcohol are all just as damaging to our society, and yet so few campaign against these when we compare to the rate of those who are campaigning against anything to do with homosexuality, some times it does not even qualify as campagining and is in fact just complaining.

This is your opinion. You want to minimize the dangers of the gay agenda?

 

[Libero]

No, that is no fact and certainly there is no absolute proof, but as I said before even if there is some genetic predisposition that in no way makes your case. Many defects are genetic and we try to correct those defects, not celebrate them.

How do you ever expect people to take your point of view, and for that matter church teachings seriously if you deny the existence of scientific fact?

Further more “your mixing apples and oranges” something that has often been cited to me on these forums. You cannot compare the sexual orientation with other genetic diseases. You are implying that homosexuality is much like a cancer are you?

 

[Ziggy]

Libero:

How do you ever expect people to take your point of view, and for that matter church teachings seriously if you deny the existence of scientific fact?

Can you please show us these proven scientific facts ? Maybe a link or a report or a book… something other than

Libero:

Whilst my teacher did not provide any at the time, he said…

(emphasis mine)
because scientists are known to agree/disagree on many things… so please show us facts and not a man’s opinion.

Thank You

 

[soulspeak23]

Ziggy:

Can you please show us these proven scientific facts ? Maybe a link or a report or a book… something other than
(emphasis mine)
because scientists are known to agree/disagree on many things… so please show us facts and not a man’s opinion.

Thank You

While this is not directed at me, I’m going to answer it anyway. You ask for facts and not just “a man’s opinion.” I ask for the same thing, seeing as the teachings of Jesus are all merely just “a man’s opinion.” It was really just his opinion that marriage should be only one way, now isn’t it?

 

[Libero]

because scientists are known to agree/disagree on many things… so please show us facts and not a man’s opinion.

Sorry, he did not provide any paper based research, however I can enquire for you, however I know that links can be found to the endocrine research I reffered to, its all over the web.

While this is not directed at me, I’m going to answer it anyway. You ask for facts and not just “a man’s opinion.” I ask for the same thing, seeing as the teachings of Jesus are all merely just “a man’s opinion.” It was really just his opinion that marriage should be only one way, now isn’t it?

After all, this teaching did win the debate 2000 years ago, it may not do so nowadays.

 

[Ziggy]

soulspeak23:

While this is not directed at me, I’m going to answer it anyway. You ask for facts and not just “a man’s opinion.” I ask for the same thing, seeing as the teachings of Jesus are all merely just “a man’s opinion.” It was really just his opinion that marriage should be only one way, now isn’t it?

Apparently you took this personally… well first let me say calm down… breathe in… breathe out… better ? When someone says they have “scientific fact”… I would like to see it. You did not answer my question and you presume to know my position on the subject, which I have not given in this thread.

 

[soulspeak23]

Ziggy:

Apparently you took this personally… well first let me say calm down… breathe in… breathe out… better ? When someone says they have “scientific fact”… I would like to see it. You did not answer my question and you presume to know my position on the subject, which I have not given in this thread.

Ziggy,
I meant no disrespect and I appologize if any was taken. I was referring more to the contents of the thread than to your personal position. Many people dismiss scientific arguements just because they did not come from the mouth of god himself. I was just trying to turn the tables a bit. Again, no offense was meant.

 

[soulspeak23]

Ziggy:

Apparently you took this personally… well first let me say calm down… breathe in… breathe out… better ? When someone says they have “scientific fact”… I would like to see it. You did not answer my question and you presume to know my position on the subject, which I have not given in this thread.

on a side note, I wholeheartedly agree with wanting to see what someone is talking about when they say they have facts. Thats why I have such a hard time being spoon fed a lot of what is in the bible. After all, it is a story with a moral. There are no references to check. And yet we are expected to just take it.

 

[fix]

Libero:

How do you ever expect people to take your point of view, and for that matter church teachings seriously if you deny the existence of scientific fact?

Further more “your mixing apples and oranges” something that has often been cited to me on these forums. You cannot compare the sexual orientation with other genetic diseases. You are implying that homosexuality is much like a cancer are you?

What proof do you have it is a fact, aside from some teacher?

I am saying that same sex attraction is not normal. That it may have some genetic marker does not make it normal. As for comparing to other afflictions I can’t see how that is mixing anything?

 

[Ziggy]

soulspeak23:

on a side note, I wholeheartedly agree with wanting to see what someone is talking about when they say they have facts. Thats why I have such a hard time being spoon fed a lot of what is in the bible. After all, it is a story with a moral. There are no references to check. And yet we are expected to just take it.

Agreed

 

[soulspeak23]

fix:

What proof do you have it is a fact, aside from some teacher?

I am saying that same sex attraction is not normal. That it may have some genetic marker does not make it normal. As for comparing to other afflictions I can’t see how that is mixing anything?

So why aren’t you fighting so hard against, lets say, down syndrome? Thats a genetic marker, right? Should persons with down syndrome not be allowed to marry? Or should they be treated as lesser human beings because of their “genetic marker”?

Note: I have worked with down syndrome individuals and have absolutely no ill will toward them In fact, I wish a lot of “normal” people were more like them.

 

[Digger71]

fix:

WE ANSWER: This is an argument frequently used by
“Catholic” homosexual activists. There is no possible
comparison between the natural sterility of a married
couple and the unnatural sterility of a homosexual union.
In the first case, the conjugal act performed by husband
and wife has the possibility of engendering new life.

You cannot make a post menopausal woman pregnant. They are sterile and it is only the arrangement of gentials that differentiates the partners. The sterility is REAL, and anyone who marries a post menopausal woman is avoiding procreation and is sinning.

This is identical to two men or two women getting married.

But the fact is in all these cases sterility is incidental. I have yet to hear of a single person marrying a post menopausal woman, or dating their own gender to avoid having children.

John the baptist was born of a post menopausal woman and is said to be a miracle.

God could make a fertile homosexual marriage if he so wanted. Indeed, don’t some religion predict the next massiah will be born of a man?

 

[Gnosis]

Or what if a woman was born without a uterus? That wouldn’t be natural and it would be impossible to conceive. Sex in that case would have no hope of pro-creation. Sex in that case would be solely for the purpose of pleasure.

 

[Libero]

What proof do you have it is a fact, aside from some teacher?

I am saying that same sex attraction is not normal. That it may have some genetic marker does not make it normal. As for comparing to other afflictions I can’t see how that is mixing anything?

I can tell you know that teachers are not allowed to run around willy nilly lying to their students. The teacher in question runs two science departments, he is not imcompetent, and would no doubt take some pried in his knowledge of scientific fact. Teachers can not just make up claims as they wish.

How can we say that same sex orientation is not normal? Whilst it is a defect, and is not the usual, it has occured throughout our entire history, the bible states it was around over two millenia ago, further more, SSA occurs in other species, I don’t know how people can proclaim in all seriousness that it is a choice.

A person with a mental illness is “not normal” however would you wish for their human rights to be taken away? The fact that homosexuality is a genetic irregularity does not put that person on the same level as one who has a life threatening disease etc.

 

[mlchance]

Digger71:

You cannot make a post menopausal woman pregnant. They are sterile and it is only the arrangement of gentials that differentiates the partners. The sterility is REAL, and anyone who marries a post menopausal woman is avoiding procreation and is sinning.

This is identical to two men or two women getting married.

Unless, of course, one doesn’t ignore the fact that a post-menopausal woman marrying a man is quite a different thing than her “marrying” a woman.

Digger71:

God could make a fertile homosexual marriage if he so wanted. Indeed, don’t some religion predict the next massiah will be born of a man?

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Flopfoot]

Libero:

A person with a mental illness is “not normal” however would you wish for their human rights to be taken away? The fact that homosexuality is a genetic irregularity does not put that person on the same level as one who has a life threatening disease etc.

Are you referring to the euthanasia debate and the right to life? Of course I wouldn’t want that right taken away from a mentally ill person. But I don’t want to take that right from a homosexual person either.

But here, we’re talking about the right to marriage. I guess someone who was mentally ill and could not understand what the meaning of their marriage vows were, can’t marry. So it’s a different matter - Life is a universal right, so it is wrong to deny it to anyone. However, marriage is obviously not a universal right - eg, people who are unable to make marriage vows can’t marry, small children can’t marry, Catholic priests can’t marry… and guess what, homosexuals can’t marry someone of the same sex. We are not denying them a universal fundamental right, okay?

In fact, I don’t think we even deny them the right to marry, anyway. I think that they have the right to marry someone as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex (as long as there’s nothing else, eg age, preventing them from marrying). Because that’s what marriage is - a union between 2 people of the opposite sex. Always has been. Neither me nor any other hetrosexual has the right to marry someone of the same sex, and as far as I know none of us have ever asked for this right either. There is no such thing as the right to a same sex marriage. There is no rule anywhere saying that a person has a right to marry the gender they are attracted to. Homosexuals have the same rights as you or me.

To soulspeak23 - If I was fighting so hard against Down syndrome, what exactly would I be fighting against? What right have they asked for that I would want to deny them? The right to smile the way they do? Of course not, I have nothing against their smile. Their right to talk the way they do? No. The right to talk and smile however you like belongs to everyone, and always has. But homosexuals are asking for a right they shouldn’t get - the right to marry someone of the same sex. No-one has ever had that right because that’s not what marriage is.

Why the heck can’t people accept this? You know, you can’t always get what you want. I can accept the fact that I’ll probably never marry either, because girls are just plain not interested in me. I didn’t ask to be this ugly! I’m not sure if people choose to be homosexual or if they are just born like that. But even in the case where they are born like that and can’t change, they will still just have to accept the fact that they can’t ‘marry’.

 

[steve99]

Libero:

This has been stressed, but then completely ignored, there is a huge difference between Civil Unions, and marriages. Homosexuals themselves will agree with this. People are once again getting carried away making up scenarios that most probably wont happen (polygamous marrigae? civil unions) how on earth can people think up ideas so far fetched?

Marriage is not being threatened.

Oh No? Look at what has happened in Canada. Follow this link for an excellent article and warning from Rev John Malloy - see “From The Pastor’s Desk”
stspeterpaul.san-francisco.ca.us/church/bulletin.htm

 

[Gnosis]

mlchance:
Originally Posted by Digger71
*God could make a fertile homosexual marriage if he so wanted. Indeed, don’t some religion predict the next massiah will be born of a man? *


Well, not really that funny, seeing as your faith is based on someone who was supposedly born of a virgin. Perhaps lesbians do have a chance to get pregnant with their partners? After all, Christ’s birth is one of the most widely known defiances of natural law.

 

[steve99]

From latest copy of The Tablet (UK weekly Catholic publication) - Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, says Catholics must not enter into civil partnerships. “They are not an option for Catholics even if a same-sex couple have a non-sexual relationship. Both he and Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff said the new legislation was marraige in all but name”
It then goes on to quote Archbishop O’Brien “There is no point in messing about or passing the buck, claiming the ‘marriage’ would be chaste. Catholics know the law of the Church and they have their conciences to live with. The Civil Partneship Act is not an option for Catholics”
He goes on to say “The scottish people must be aware that by the end of the year we will see the reality of marriage change to the point that it is unrecognisable. We are indulging in an experiment which will have huge social consequences”.
The same issue of the Tablet also features a piece with three gay catholics declaring the reasons why they will be registering civil partnerships
We are sliding down not so much a slippery slope as off the edge of a precipice.

 

[fix]

soulspeak23:

So why aren’t you fighting so hard against, lets say, down syndrome? Thats a genetic marker, right? Should persons with down syndrome not be allowed to marry? Or should they be treated as lesser human beings because of their “genetic marker”?

Note: I have worked with down syndrome individuals and have absolutely no ill will toward them In fact, I wish a lot of “normal” people were more like them.

Other health issues have varying degrees of effort aimed at improving or eliminating them. Does anyone claim trisomy 21 should be seen as a normal variation and equal to health?

If that condition could be eliminated through licit medical therapy would anyone think it would be wrong to “cure” it?

As for marriage, those folks are not asking to marry one of the same sex. If they did then it would be wrong. Talk about mixing apples and oranges…