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

[Mulepadre]

jean8…
mulepadre, So why does the whole slippery slope have to begin with gay marriage? People said the same thing when interracial marriage came into play. The thing is, those other types of marriages don’t have to do with equal rights…gay men and women are pushing to marry regardless of sexual orientation…polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

I did not use that description, “slippery slope”. That was Walrus.

I am simply trying to ‘shape’ the problem before morally qualifying answers, and acknowledging the need and responsibility of the state to adequately protect her constituents from the confusion that ensues when we break from conventional norms and titles regarding what was a traditional notion of marriage as between a single man and woman.

By the way, I believe our culture, in contiunous flux, requires us to do just that at this point!

Can you refrase your question again on a different thead which I just started called:
"Should the state marry gay lovers?" We already have too many other important subjects on this thread.

Thanks and good night.

 

[pathia]

Let me start with just a few (the list could be endless and all signs seem to show that it will be) such as marriage between a single man and a single woman as verses marriage between a man and several women or between two women, or between a woman and a dog (don’t laugh) or between a man and a boy, etc… Thus we seem to have a possible chaos only revealing the failure of the state to adequately protect and insure the temporal life and happiness of her constituents (and I mean here particularly children who are either the natural product of such unions or the ‘artificial’ product of gay marriage.)

Fr. Mike

How could a child or a pet consent to a legal contract?

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I think you have a very poor misunderstanding of anthropology. A person cannot simply decide to desexualize themselves.

Has anyone here ever asked WHY would God create someone to be a homosexual and then ask them to be celibate? You guys seem to be way too much into the sadistic image of the divine.

I don’t think it’s sadistic when God creates someone to be heterosexual and then asks them to be celibate. He does this all the time! Why should it be any different for homosexuals?

 

[Mulepadre]

How could a child or a pet consent to a legal contract?

That is kind of the point Pathia.

Good night…

 

[thewalrus]

You first, Exactly what is the merit of granting extensive legal rights to a couple whose main interest is a romantic relationship? What do we gave permanetly from “gay marriage?” Furthermore the “our society” you are talking about is, really, the society of the Boomer generation, which is the United States has dominated largely because of its size and by dint of this has been able to infect the law wth shibboleths, such as the right of privacy.

Why don’t you give them some humanity? How do you know that with every same-sex couple their “main interest” is romance? And who cares if it is? Do heterosexual couples have to declare their reasons for marriage? Of course not, because that’s silly. Allowing same-sex marriage is allowing them to be just as human as heterosexuals. Geez man, nobody is inventing anything. And why do you speak of things “infecting” the law? You reify the law into something it is not.

Tag.

 

[thewalrus]

I don’t think it’s sadistic when God creates someone to be heterosexual and then asks them to be celibate. He does this all the time! Why should it be any different for homosexuals?

Um, because you’re saying God does that for ALL homosexuals. Apparently, they don’t even get the opportunity to hear God’s call for them because it’s already decided by the Church. Why do hetero’s get the pass?

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Um, because you’re saying God does that for ALL homosexuals. Apparently, they don’t even get the opportunity to hear God’s call for them because it’s already decided by the Church. Why do hetero’s get the pass?

Actually, unmarried heterosexuals don’t get a “pass” either. Everyone who is single is called to practice chastity. The only sexual activity allowed by God and the church is between a man and a woman who are married to each other. This excludes all single, divorced, and widowed people as well as homosexuals. Considering how late people marry these days and how short marriages last, I think there is a large number of heterosexuals who are called to the celibate life along with homosexuals. I don’t think God has singled out the homosexual person for some special sadistic punishment as you seem to imply. Celibacy is everyone’s calling unless and until they get married.

 

[RobbyS]

Why don’t you give them some humanity? How do you know that with every same-sex couple their “main interest” is romance? And who cares if it is? Do heterosexual couples have to declare their reasons for marriage? Of course not, because that’s silly. Allowing same-sex marriage is allowing them to be just as human as heterosexuals. Geez man, nobody is inventing anything. And why do you speak of things “infecting” the law? You reify the law into something it is not.

Tag.

No one is denying their humanity. Their humanity is well-defined, and their individuality is defined to a large degree by their sex. Masculinity and femininity are two sides of the same coin of humanity, but anatomically we are distinguished by our role in reproduction. Two men or two woman can and do have affectionate relationships. This is called friendship. My question is: How does legal copulation between two men, or quasi-sexual relations between two men or two women add to society in the way that reproduction does? The separation of
the sex act from reproduction during the past forty years has, I think, led many “straight” people to accept homosexuality as
just a variation on what they do themselves, since so many never intend to have children and may even think that children are a burden rather than a benefit to society. It has also led them to form alliances with homosexuals against Christian-inspired laws, based on the notion that as anything ought to be allwed, then restraints on homsexuals are, by implication, restraints on them.

 

[thewalrus]

Actually, unmarried heterosexuals don’t get a “pass” either. Everyone who is single is called to practice chastity. The only sexual activity allowed by God and the church is between a man and a woman who are married to each other. This excludes all single, divorced, and widowed people as well as homosexuals. Considering how late people marry these days and how short marriages last, I think there is a large number of heterosexuals who are called to the celibate life along with homosexuals. I don’t think God has singled out the homosexual person for some special sadistic punishment as you seem to imply. Celibacy is everyone’s calling unless and until they get married.

What you meant to say is “celibacy is everyone’s calling unless you are not a man and a woman married to each other.” Well, that’s precisely my point. Some heterosexuals get the pass but NO homosexuals do. That’s why it doesn’t make sense.

 

[onmyknees]

Actually, I said that your beliefs serve them violence, not you. I think that is outstanding that you love them and spend time with them. I am only saying that the belief of mandatory chastity does violence to their bodies. It keeps them from living a wholistic life in Christ in their own way. It would be absurd if I thought God didn’t “allow suffering.” Clearly, God does. But homosexuality need not be a “cross” bestowed by God upon people. Chastity that is chosen is different than chastity that is mandatory.

Chastity is not chosen when people become sick or when they do not choose to be single all their life. So you do not believe this? 1Cor Chapter 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the greedy nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” I believe that our loving Father in heaven does allow this suffering cross so that they might go to Him for his help in enduring until the end. We cannot do it alone but only with Him helping us. He wants us to pray and ask for His help because then we grow closer to Him and He wants to have a loving relationship with His children. He wants us to be with Him for eternity! Anything is possible with God.

 

[Bennie_P]

Heh, well glad you answered the question but I’m not going through them. It is clear to me you do not have the research. The only data from the CDC that I found concerned Hep A statistics, which again, is preventable. Here’s what I got from your article. There is a 30 year old study that found gays to be more promiscuous. My response? First, it’s outdated. Second, upon further research, the sample on that study was severely flawed. He also goes into the ill effects of certain sexual behavior more common among homosexuals. First, these are also found among heterosexuals. Second, good hygiene and care can prevent much of what he speaks. He also goes into the poor mental health of homosexuals. Well gee, I wonder why there is more depression among homosexuals? lol And guess what he bases his “reckless sexual behavior” section on? Mental depression. It’s crack-pot science. Find me a legitimate article and we can talk further. Until then, I’ll rest safe with the rest of the scientific community.

The burden of proof is on you, you are using arguments which can be found on any pro-gay rights blog or web page. the article itself claims that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is dangerous and doesn’t condone it as being any more justifiable then same-sex sex. But if you look at the truth with an open mind you may see it.

If you rest with the rest of the scientific community then where are that community’s studies so I may read them? And the sources of information you lay claim to justifying homosexuality as being just as safe as sex within traditional marriage, may I ask?

Just remember before you go to sleep tonight, it is not I nor any other that disagrees with your views that went to a forum which promotes your ideas on gay marriage or homosexuality to preach to or demonize those with those views.

Glad you are here, for hear you will hear the truth and despite the reason in which you thought you came here for, God is in control of the situation and is reaching out to you. God is good, may he bless you with His grace…

 

[Cara_Serrano]

What you meant to say is “celibacy is everyone’s calling unless you are not a man and a woman married to each other.” Well, that’s precisely my point. Some heterosexuals get the pass but NO homosexuals do. That’s why it doesn’t make sense.

You are free to choose your lifestyle, but you are not free to choose what God’s requirements are for that lifestyle any more than heterosexuals are.

 

[thewalrus]

No one is denying their humanity. Their humanity is well-defined, and their individuality is defined to a large degree by their sex. Masculinity and femininity are two sides of the same coin of humanity, but anatomically we are distinguished by our role in reproduction. Two men or two woman can and do have affectionate relationships. This is called friendship. My question is: How does legal copulation between two men, or quasi-sexual relations between two men or two women add to society in the way that reproduction does? The separation of
the sex act from reproduction during the past forty years has, I think, led many “straight” people to accept homosexuality as
just a variation on what they do themselves, since so many never intend to have children and may even think that children are a burden rather than a benefit to society. It has also led them to form alliances with homosexuals against Christian-inspired laws, based on the notion that as anything ought to be allwed, then restraints on homsexuals are, by implication, restraints on them.

Why does sex have to be productive for you? Are you that much of a utilitarian? Sex has intrinsic value for one thing - pleasure. Second, it strengthens the bond between two people. Reproduction is helpful, sure, but it is not as valuable as it was long ago. Our planet is fully populated. We’re not gonna die out anytime soon. That’s not to say that children should be seen as a “burden,” only that a decline in reproduction rates would certainly not be harmful. There is simply no reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

 

[thewalrus]

Chastity is not chosen when people become sick or when they do not choose to be single all their life. So you do not believe this? 1Cor Chapter 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the greedy nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” I believe that our loving Father in heaven does allow this suffering cross so that they might go to Him for his help in enduring until the end. We cannot do it alone but only with Him helping us. He wants us to pray and ask for His help because then we grow closer to Him and He wants to have a loving relationship with His children. He wants us to be with Him for eternity! Anything is possible with God.

The Church has constructed a doctrine that mandates chastity on all homosexual persons. That is not the same as not being able to have sex because you’re sick.

 

[thewalrus]

You are free to choose your lifestyle, but you are not free to choose what God’s requirements are for that lifestyle any more than heterosexuals are.

Actually, I could have written that same sentence.

 

[thewalrus]

The burden of proof is on you, you are using arguments which can be found on any pro-gay rights blog or web page. the article itself claims that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is dangerous and doesn’t condone it as being any more justifiable then same-sex sex. But if you look at the truth with an open mind you may see it.

If you rest with the rest of the scientific community then where are that community’s studies so I may read them? And the sources of information you lay claim to justifying homosexuality as being just as safe as sex within traditional marriage, may I ask?

Just remember before you go to sleep tonight, it is not I nor any other that disagrees with your views that went to a forum which promotes your ideas on gay marriage or homosexuality to preach to or demonize those with those views.

Glad you are here, for hear you will hear the truth and despite the reason in which you thought you came here for, God is in control of the situation and is reaching out to you. God is good, may he bless you with His grace…

Oh Bennie, you hurt me. You’re asking me to leave so soon? What would you do without me?

I’m not here to demonize anyone. I was under the impression this was an open forum for people to debate and discuss viewpoints. I never read anywhere that everyone had to agree. (What fun is there in that?..not to mention, what truth? I digress). If God is in control, then good, I’m glad he sent me here to debate with you. Perhaps it’s been too long since you’ve been exposed to alternate opinions. Anyways, I hate to tell you this but the burden of proof lies on you because you made the assertion. Here’s an example. Let’s take two twins. You say that one of them gets sick more often than the other. I say, “well prove it.” You say, “No! You prove it!” What do I have to prove? That your assertion should have never existed in the first place? You say, “well, someone else said this one gets sicker more.” I say, “yeah, but that doesn’t make it true does it, Bennie?” See how this works?

If two people practice safe sex, there is no difference between whether you like the same sex or opposite. I would even challenge you to present a common-sense reason since you’re being so stubborn with your non-existent sources. Now, I did assert that I am on the side of the scientific community. I’m not even sure how I could prove that other than the fact that there is no predominant opinion in the scientific literature that agrees with your original assertion.

I will go to sleep tonight, resting quite easy in the grace of God, thanks.

 

[RobbyS]

Why does sex have to be productive for you? Are you that much of a utilitarian? Sex has intrinsic value for one thing - pleasure. Second, it strengthens the bond between two people. Reproduction is helpful, sure, but it is not as valuable as it was long ago. Our planet is fully populated. We’re not gonna die out anytime soon. That’s not to say that children should be seen as a “burden,” only that a decline in reproduction rates would certainly not be harmful. There is simply no reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

Sex – not the act but the person–is an essential part of any individual. Do you really think it can be reduced to an orgasm when that is incidental to the act itself, a desire for which impels
a person to couple with another, and one which is so much more satisfying than the solitary sex act. But nature never intends it to result in a dead end. To put it another way, the whole process logically ends in reproduction. The fact that it produces pleasure is a motive for doing it. When two men do it it is literally a mockery of the real thing. A dog may hump anything. just to get release. Two human beings do it knowing what the result will be. Heck, a lion will do it, knowing that if he gets a lioness pregnamt, that gives him control over the pride. Men do it with something of the same thing in mind. It is an act of power and because it is, feminist would rather it not happen. But man or woman, everyone knows what the name of the game is, and it is not just a simple act of pleasure.

 

[thewalrus]

Sex – not the act but the person–is an essential part of any individual. Do you really think it can be reduced to an orgasm when that is incidental to the act itself, a desire for which impels
a person to couple with another, and one which is so much more satisfying than the solitary sex act. But nature never intends it to result in a dead end. To put it another way, the whole process logically ends in reproduction. The fact that it produces pleasure is a motive for doing it. When two men do it it is literally a mockery of the real thing. A dog may hump anything. just to get release. Two human beings do it knowing what the result will be. Heck, a lion will do it, knowing that if he gets a lioness pregnamt, that gives him control over the pride. Men do it with something of the same thing in mind. It is an act of power and because it is, feminist would rather it not happen. But man or woman, everyone knows what the name of the game is, and it is not just a simple act of pleasure.

And how do you know what “nature” intends? And why does sex have to be “logical”? Of course, sex is power but that works both ways. I never said sex was a “simple act of pleasure.” I simply said it can’t be reduced to utilitarian ends which is what you are doing. You said “two human beings do it knowing what the result will be.” You might see homosexual as mockery of “the real thing” but that’s your problem, not theirs. I’m pretty confident it’s the real thing for them too.

 

[pathia]

. But man or woman, everyone knows what the name of the game is, and it is not just a simple act of pleasure.

It is for those of us that are 100% irreversibly sterile. We can experience pleasure, but nothing at all will ever make it procreative, no matter what gender we sleep with.

 

[onmyknees]

The Church has constructed a doctrine that mandates chastity on all homosexual persons. That is not the same as not being able to have sex because you’re sick.

The Church got this doctrine from Jesus Christ who is the founder of the Church and He gave Peter, the first pope, the keys and told him to build His Church. He also told the first bishops, the apostles this,“What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”
QUOTE=thewalrus
Why does sex have to be productive for you? Are you that much of a utilitarian? Sex has intrinsic value for one thing - pleasure. Second, it strengthens the bond between two people. Reproduction is helpful, sure, but it is not as valuable as it was long ago. Our planet is fully populated. We’re not gonna die out anytime soon. That’s not to say that children should be seen as a “burden,” only that a decline in reproduction rates would certainly not be harmful. There is simply no reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

thewalrus,
Overpopulation is a myth. The whole world could fit into houses side by side in the state of Texas. With our technology today we could feed the poor in the whole world over and over again and again! There is zero population growth in parts of western Europe. They are calling for women to have babies now because they need more people to care for the aging population. Japan has 90% deaths compared to practically no births now. China is allowing only one male child per couple. Sex is for procreation and the unitive self giving of the husband and wife. This is a beautiful representation of Christ’s self-giving love to His Church. It is holy.