Gay marriage OK because homosexuals born that way and deserve to have romantic relationships too?

[court14]

Science shows there is no gay gene yet homosexual activists are trying to push the idea there is one.
Science shows that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful, yet you are here trying to defend it.

You mean “homosexual lifestyle is OK”? That’s ancient Roman and Greek thinking. Long disproven by science.

So, evidence and facts versus pagan teachings is the question we should be asking you.

Geocentric - Obviously you don’t now who Copernicus is. The Catholic Church funded the sciences because secular governments wouldn’t.

Copernicus was imprisoned by the church for his ideas.

Did you read the article I posted a few pages back which discusses the genome and sexual orientation? I have yet to mention greco-roman ideas because they aren’t relevant. I am referring to evidence based information from the 21st century not ancient myth.

 

[court14]

Father Groeshel (sp) has written on his ministry of counseling
those with same sex attraction. At one time, he recommended reading a paper on this, dealing with disease and mental issues.
I read it (quite lengthy). I will try to located it, but it’s been a few
years and I gave my copy to someone.
I’m afraid I can’t think of a non-graphic way to explain some of what refutes your comments, so I’ll try to find the link. It might
take a few days since I am in all day business meetings all day
tomorrow and appointments on Friday.

I am in the medical field so what you might consider graphic I would not. I am quite famliar with how pathogens are spread. Are you assuming all gay males participate in anal sex? Are you aware that many hetero couples engage in anal sex?

 

[court14]

Going to work out. Catch you guys in a bit. C

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

Right. Under current law they don’t have the capacity to consent. But the law could be changed to give them the capacity to consent.

Yes, they can. The law can specificy what constitutes a valid signature, and it could be changed to accomodate that.

You didn’t bother answering my objection.

The reason why your proposal would not work because it would allow anyone of ANY SEXUAL ORIENTATION to get one.

This means pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, etc. can get civil unions.

This is what happens when sexual orientation becomes a reason for granting civil unions. All sexual orientations must therefore be accomodated, and there are lots of them!

Okay, newsflash, the law can be changed to let animals and children have capacity to consent, REGARDLESS of whether we are giving out marriage licenses and civil unions.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Fine, you’re right, but marriage is still sacred, and originates from the bible. Marriage is religious, and our entire nation was founded on the church not influencing the government.

This statement is wrong. Our entire nation was founded on the GOVERNMENT not influencing the CHURCH…not the other way around.

 

[cmom]

But you have yet to give any reasons why it is not healthy and 10% of the population would be considered normal and fairly common place within the science and math (stats) community.

Problem is that stat is a myth:
“The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.”

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

The dark ages began after the Roman empire fell.

Obviously you don’t have the facts.

You’re confusing protestantism with Catholicism. Protestants burned witches. Catholic Church didn’t.

It is better than going to the ego as the 1960’s secular dogma teaches. We’ve seen how badly the secular society has disintegrated in the past 40+ years.

HOORAH !!! HOORAH!!!

:clapping:
:extrahappy:

 

[Cara_Serrano]

This our main difference. It is an argument of evidence and facts vs bronze age thinking. Do you use the all church’s ideas about science (flat earth, geocentric universe) or only a select few?

The functions of the parts of the body predate the Catholic Church and are based on the natural law which has not changed.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Actually sex between two women is the safest sex and disease is much less common among lesbians than among straight couples.

That’s because it isn’t real intercourse.

If disease is directly related to sexual immorality the lesbians would be considered the most moral group.

No, the sexual immorality of lesbians is no less immoral than that of any other immoral sexual act. Sex outside of the sanctity of marriage is a grave sin…and mortal if the offenders are aware of it being grave.

Any non monogamous sex may lead to disease.

And it sinfully unhealthy.

As far as “mental issues” the major groups in the know (APA, AMA, ASWA,…) disagree with just about every thing you’ve asserted.

GOD Almighty is bigger and smarter and more truthful than anything or anyone else…or everything else combined. Had the world listened to the Roman Catholic Church during the 60’s and 70’s, we wouldn’t be in this social mess that the world is in with AIDS, broken marriages, children without fathers, out of marriage pregnancies and, worst of all ABORTION!!! Just because something is desirable doesn’t, and shouldn’t, make it legal or acceptable.

Do you have stats from any mainstream medical/mental health organization to support these claims?

Does history of the world count as stats? We should learn from history…the real history, not something that passes as the truth written by anti Catholic destroyers of the Truth.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Science shows there is no gay gene yet homosexual activists are trying to push the idea there is one.
Science shows that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful, yet you are here trying to defend it.

You mean “homosexual lifestyle is OK”? That’s ancient Roman and Greek thinking. Long disproven by science.

So, evidence and facts versus pagan teachings is the question we should be asking you.

Geocentric - Obviously you don’t now who Copernicus is. The Catholic Church funded the sciences because secular governments wouldn’t.

This is ABSOLUTELY true!!! Who funded and supported Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan? The royal families of Spain…for the cause of Christ!!! But everyone else was busy saying it couldn’t be done. In the case of Magellan, the gainsayers even used mutiny a number of times to keep him from succeeding. And that is just history…doesn’t even mention science.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Court14,
This is a long article and touchs on the mental, physical problems
of ss couples. The other article had pages of references (to medical studies, for example) this one has fewer. You’ll find them
about half way or more into the article.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/spriggSameSexMarry.php

 

[mystagogia]

I fear that everybody is arguing on the wrong terms throughout this debate. The premise is called “the conservative case” for gay marriage, and it is based on the nostrum that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual relationships only the genders are the same. Therefore, any opposition to gay marriage is just a display of arbitrary bias. Principles of equality mandate acceptance of gay marriage as identical in kind to heterosexual marriage, merely different in physical presentation.

This is a powerful argument because it is couched in classical terms of equity and seems to logically follow the august history of civil rights progress in our country.

However it is wrong. Gay marriage is an attack on the traditional conception of marriage; it is an expansion of holy matrimony that completely destroys it in the process. I refer you to the invaluable work of Stanley Kurtz, published in brief on the web at the NationalReviewOnline. Mr. Kurtz has taken the trouble to analyze the effect of gay marriage in Europe, measuring its social impact on marriage patterns and people’s attitudes towards family. Additionally, Mr. Kurtz presents the current thinking of gay activists in these countries. What emerges in this thought is an open attempt at social engineering to advance the cause of secular humanism via the elimination of traditional familial boundaries altogether. Such is the natural next step after the acceptance of gay marriage.

And it is coming here. Incrementally the forces of humanism will win out in this debate, barring another Great Awakening of some kind that transforms the social landscape of this country. I fully expect an eventual loss on the public debate for the defenders of traditional marriage. A period of acceptance of gay marriage, and more, will happen.

I hope that I will be successful in instilling within my children the true values we cherish and the tools that keep them armed to their defense. My hope is to carve out a private sphere among friends, family, and bretheren in the Church where Holy Matrimony is still honored and unassailed.

 

[court14]

This is ABSOLUTELY true!!! Who funded and supported Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan? The royal families of Spain…for the cause of Christ!!! But everyone else was busy saying it couldn’t be done. In the case of Magellan, the gainsayers even used mutiny a number of times to keep him from succeeding. And that is just history…doesn’t even mention science.

A broken clock is right twice a day. The Catholic Church has done far more to suppress science than it ever did to support it. In 1991 the Vatican released a statement (an apology more or less)admitting that they had been wrong about the universe being geocentric. Quite interesting because we had space travel over two decades before this statement was released.

The Renaissance which fostered enlightenment is what brought humanity out of the dark ages. Interestingly enough Islam was a one of the primary catalysts for the Renaissance. Islam preserved many of the writings of the ancient Greeks (the church burned their copies). These texts fostered a renewal of interest in science… hence modern medicine.

Spain endorsed exploration of the what would become the Americas in pursuit of trade routes. It was an investment. Of course it would not be odd for the church to be thrown into the bargain because Europe was still somewhat of a theocracy at the time.

Really. How can anyone who examines the church’s role middle ages assert that it was beneficial,? Martin Luther who was extremely intolerant (and mad as a hatter by some accounts) looked meek in comparison to some of the popes.

Does anyone want to go back to be a serf spending all his down time building notre dame? That’s what most people did was work for nothing then spend free time literally working themselves (or a deceased love one) out of eternal flames.

 

[mystagogia]

A broken clock is right twice a day. The Catholic Church has done far more to suppress science than it ever did to support it. In 1991 the Vatican released a statement (an apology more or less)admitting that they had been wrong about the universe being geocentric. Quite interesting because we had space travel over two decades before this statement was released.

The Renaissance which fostered enlightenment is what brought humanity out of the dark ages. Interestingly enough Islam was a one of the primary catalysts for the Renaissance. Islam preserved many of the writings of the ancient Greeks (the church burned their copies). These texts fostered a renewal of interest in science… hence modern medicine.

Spain endorsed exploration of the what would become the Americas in pursuit of trade routes. It was an investment. Of course it would not be odd for the church to be thrown into the bargain because Europe was still somewhat of a theocracy at the time.

Really. How can anyone who examines the church’s role middle ages assert that it was beneficial,? Martin Luther who was extremely intolerant (and mad as a hatter by some accounts) looked meek in comparison to some of the popes.

Does anyone want to go back to be a serf spending all his down time building notre dame? That’s what most people did was work for nothing then spend free time literally working themselves (or a deceased love one) out of eternal flames.

court14, I contest almost every single point you made here. This is the wrong thread to discuss the history of the Church in relation to scientific progress, so start another if you want to continue down this road.

 

[court14]

I fear that everybody is arguing on the wrong terms throughout this debate. The premise is called “the conservative case” for gay marriage, and it is based on the nostrum that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual relationships only the genders are the same. Therefore, any opposition to gay marriage is just a display of arbitrary bias. Principles of equality mandate acceptance of gay marriage as identical in kind to heterosexual marriage, merely different in physical presentation.

This is a powerful argument because it is couched in classical terms of equity and seems to logically follow the august history of civil rights progress in our country.

However it is wrong. Gay marriage is an attack on the traditional conception of marriage; it is an expansion of holy matrimony that completely destroys it in the process. I refer you to the invaluable work of Stanley Kurtz, published in brief on the web at the NationalReviewOnline. Mr. Kurtz has taken the trouble to analyze the effect of gay marriage in Europe, measuring its social impact on marriage patterns and people’s attitudes towards family. Additionally, Mr. Kurtz presents the current thinking of gay activists in these countries. What emerges in this thought is an open attempt at social engineering to advance the cause of secular humanism via the elimination of traditional familial boundaries altogether. Such is the natural next step after the acceptance of gay marriage.

And it is coming here. Incrementally the forces of humanism will win out in this debate, barring another Great Awakening of some kind that transforms the social landscape of this country. I fully expect an eventual loss on the public debate for the defenders of traditional marriage. A period of acceptance of gay marriage, and more, will happen.

I hope that I will be successful in instilling within my children the true values we cherish and the tools that keep them armed to their defense. My hope is to carve out a private sphere among friends, family, and bretheren in the Church where Holy Matrimony is still honored and unassailed.

Traditional marriage? Polygamy has been the historical standard for marriage not monogamy and from its onset Judaism was just guilty as any other pagan cult. Women were treated as property who belonged first to their father until ownership was transferred to their husband. Adultery was considered a form of theft…Are these the traditional values people want to instill in their children?

The idea that someone Else’s marriage might be detrimental to another couples marriage is completely illogical. If a couple wants to strenghten their marriage then logically they work on strengthening their marriage. (This is besides the point because marriages have been falling apart way before same sex marriage was even an issue)

The same logic was used a century ago to oppose women’s rights and more recently the rights of racial minorities. Will our children look back in disbelief at this debate like we look back at slavery and mixed marriages? The arguments are quite similar.

 

[RobbyS]

Why change a whole body of long settled law to accommodate the political demands of a few self- interested parties? Works the same for abortion? Why make SUCH a big hassle about some dumb law? Because it’s WRONG. The same goes for Proposition 8. If the states just RENAME what they hand out to two people, you would be fine, would you not? Wasn’t the whole thing about how gays are “redefining marriage”? If you change the name to something other than marriage, you don’t have anything else to complain about.

If it is" wrong" then let it be changed the way it developed in the first place, through the legislative process, where matters are decided by representatives of the people. Here the voters, who can be taken as more broadly represetive of the people than the legislature, have spoken directly and the minority demand their judgemwnt be set aside by decided by a
court which has already given its opinion on th matter.

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

Traditional marriage? Polygamy has been the historical standard for marriage not monogamy and from its onset Judaism was just guilty as any other pagan cult. Women were treated as property who belonged first to their father until ownership was transferred to their husband. Adultery was considered a form of theft…Are these the traditional values people want to instill in their children?

The idea that someone Else’s marriage might be detrimental to another couples marriage is completely illogical. If a couple wants to strenghten their marriage then logically they work on strengthening their marriage. (This is besides the point because marriages have been falling apart way before same sex marriage was even an issue)

The same logic was used a century ago to oppose women’s rights and more recently the rights of racial minorities. Will our children look back in disbelief at this debate like we look back at slavery and mixed marriages? The arguments are quite similar.

I concur! Right on!

 

[court14]

court14, I contest almost every single point you made here. This is the wrong thread to discuss the history of the Church in relation to scientific progress, so start another if you want to continue down this road.

Actually scientific progress and understanding fact is crucial when we discuss laws and civil liberties. The fact that Christianity has served to supress scientific fact needs to be discussed because it is still occurring.

 

[court14]

If it is" wrong" then let it be changed the way it developed in the first place, through the legislative process, where matters are decided by representatives of the people. Here the voters, who can be taken as more broadly represetive of the people than the legislature, have spoken directly and the minority demand their judgemwnt be set aside by decided by a
court which has already given its opinion on th matter.

Our system of government is set up to protect the fundamental rights of all its citizens. One of the primary purposes of the judicial system protect minorities basic rights. Brown vs. Board of Education is a primary example of the judicial branch stepping in against the majority to protect the minority’s basic freedoms/liberties.

.Actually the system is pretty amazing if you enjoy history and philosophy. The fact that it is still so effective 200+ years after its inception is fascinating.

 

[pathia]

Well, there *is *something intrinsically wrong with homosexuality. NARTH may be on the fringe but not because of the nature of homosexuality, rather because of the nature of homosexual activism. Homeopathy is on the fringe of medical science, but it works for many people. The same can be said for reparative therapy.

The indesputable fact is that there are many people who were formerly homosexual who are now living normal, happy lives. Not all, of course but enough. Just because there is not a perfect understand of how their orientation was resolved does not mean that research should not continue.

If you think NARTH is a ‘proper’ organization, then please read the following links, which discuss my experience with them.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4698103#post4698103

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4698198#post4698198