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

[truagape]

I’d be careful about using this as an arguement, as it someday may be proven to be an inborn trait. We also have to consider that it’s possible to be a developmental “condition”, which isn’t necessarily a mental disorder or learned behavior.

Either way, learned or inborn, the attraction in itself isn’t justification for allowing gay marriage, just as the attraction of a pedophile isn’t sufficient justification to allow marriage of an adult and a child, nor allowing polygamy; the pedophile certainly has undeniable attraction to the child, the polygamist an attraction to multiple partners.

It’s interesting to see how you stick to your ideology concerning “homosexuality”, especially when all of the biblical facts, many of which “Christians” conviently choose to overlook, are stacked against it. I also think that for you in particular, as witnessed within our private discussions, you have more proof then you are obviously comfortable with for you to still be clinging to the faulty traditions found outside the bounds of scripture. You are not doing TRUTH any favors by doing this. But somehow, I think that you already know this.

 

[nablaise]

It may not be genetic, but that doesn’t mean it is a treatable condition.

I’ve gone through 10years of therapy to ‘cure’ myself and all it did was likely push on my multiple suicide attempts. When I was in graduate school, we had a therapy group that had TWENTY college students that had all gone through the same sort of ‘cure’ sessions that I had. Every single one had multiple suicide attempts, many had physical scars from damaging themselves.

When compared to our other gay peers, our lives were complete shambles. It is true gay youth are on average have more suicidal thoughts than straight, but we were a group that tried to not be, and our rate was even higher still. It didn’t help anything, it just made it worse and worse. At least one student went back into the therapy partway through my time at school, and then he hung himself in his dorm room several months into the sessions with an ex-gay therapist.

Ohh, this is a sad situation.

My thought is that prayer and education is more important. Therapy presupose that a person has a mental problem. But it may not be exactly the case. I said education because we need to educate our conscience and understand why things are good or bad. Our hearts may not understand it by our minds can.
From my experience, I can say that there is nothing that will not have a satisfying explanation in the Catholic Church if you really searches.
Read the Catechism, the Church Fathers,Theology of the Body, and others as the Holy Spirit guides you in what is really needed for you. You will see that as more light is put on the situation you will be more peaceful.

This is not just an issue of Sexuality. Because once we understand the relevant sexual issues, we still need to understand God and how he can deal with it, how he can help us specifically… They are many things to gain. God may go from this issue and reveal to you other things in all kinds of domain and which you didn’t even think of asking. As Jesus said “Pray unceasingly…”

One thing is always true. God never allow evil unless he can get a greater good out of it. So trust more. God is always faithful and he is almight. Whenever I am in an impossible or despairing situation. I repeat to myself the first words of the Creed:
“I believe in God, the Father almight…” and meditate on each of those words trying to remember what I read in the CCC. It always helps.
Despair is the worst thing for us human to experience. We should never allow it to get hold on us.

God bless

 

[Nickkname]

Hi everyone. A friend of mine has come up with an argument for homosexual marriage that I can’t seem to defeat. He says that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because of the fact that they were born that way and also because they deserve to have romantic relationships too. He says it would be unjust to deprive them of equal rights just because they are attracted to the same sex. How do I counter this?

1. Marriage has two ends: Pleasure of the couple and procreation.
2. Sex is a marital act, and hence, has two ends: Pleasure of the couple and procreation.
3. Homosexuals cannot procreate. So they can’t get married.

Straight, simple, and to the point. By the way, I’m using the traditional view on marriage. Not the modernist view on marriage.

For more information on homosexual marriage and arguments against it, check out this Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Controversy

 

[truagape]

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

Thanks for the link. It highlights how the “anti-gay” ideology, has slowly shifted from the backdrop of scripture and morality, from which there was never support to begin with, to the more accurate setting of prejudice and the quest for ownership of empty rehtoric.
Do you honestly think that God didn’t hear the cries of the millions of people throughout history who have been victimized by the religious lies concerning gays; lies that are finally rising to the surface? The Church is beyond guilty with it’s false, discriminatory, anti-scriptural teachings regarding gays. And you have a front row seat at being able to watch her as well as other false teachings, finally being called out on it. And I don’t think you’re even aware of the fact that the link you provided does more to work against you and the faulty position you support than any of my responses to your posts.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

First of all, there are many factors that can determine a person’s sexual orientation: environment, influence, up-bringing, and genetics. Some homosexuals are born that way and (more rarely) it can be a choice… only to a small extent.

Second of all, there shouldn’t really be an argument on whether homosexual acts are valid or not. Opinions differ and as you constantly argue and argue on the topic, it becomes redundant and never-ending to the point where the heterosexual arguer wants to cry. Trust me, I’ve seen it before and it is the most pitiful thing I’ve ever seen in a debate.

Finally, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve [or whatever]”-- Understand that that’s the stupidest quote ever. I’ve always saw that quote as a reference to more than one God-something I don’t believe. There had to be an “Adam and Steve” somewhere along the lines of humanity, so it makes you wonder, “Who created Steve?”

As a Catholic, I see the logic that homosexuals can be born that way. Therefore, I don’t see a valid argument on your side.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[buffalo]

First of all, there are many factors that can determine a person’s sexual orientation: environment, influence, up-bringing, and genetics. Some homosexuals are born that way and (more rarely) it can be a choice… only to a small extent.

Second of all, there shouldn’t really be an argument on whether homosexual acts are valid or not. Opinions differ and as you constantly argue and argue on the topic, it becomes redundant and never-ending to the point where the heterosexual arguer wants to cry. Trust me, I’ve seen it before and it is the most pitiful thing I’ve ever seen in a debate.

Finally, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve [or whatever]”-- Understand that that’s the stupidest quote ever. I’ve always saw that quote as a reference to more than one God-something I don’t believe. There had to be an “Adam and Steve” somewhere along the lines of humanity, so it makes you wonder, “Who created Steve?”

As a Catholic, I see the logic that homosexuals can be born that way. Therefore, I don’t see a valid argument on your side.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

There is no gay gene.

 

[truagape]

There is no gay gene.

Perhaps the verdict is still out on that one. Nevertheless, there is gay prejudice. And the scriptural facts, when compared to the history of the “traditions of men”, confirm this.

 

[Holly3278]

Hmmm, thanks everyone for this information. It is very valuable information.

 

[Nickkname]

It’s on the gay activist’s shoulders to show the burden of proof that homosexuals are born homosexual, using scientific evidence.

The only problem: There is none.

By the way, if you want a good picture of gay activist propaganda disguised as art, check out this picture: farm1.static.flickr.com/76/200163594_26e7dd0c04.jpg?v=0

 

[Gamera]

Hi everyone. A friend of mine has come up with an argument for homosexual marriage that I can’t seem to defeat. He says that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because of the fact that they were born that way and also because they deserve to have romantic relationships too. He says it would be unjust to deprive them of equal rights just because they are attracted to the same sex. How do I counter this?

The ‘argument’ is simply a play on words, using the word ‘right’ in two different senses.

There are legal rights and there are moral rights. Of course gays are entitled to equal legal rights. Everyone, gay or straight, has a legal right to marry. A union between two members of the same gender simply isn’t a marriage. Nobody, gay or straight, has a legal right to invent new meanings to the word ‘marriage’ and receive legal recognition for them.

And of course gays and straights are entitled to equal moral rights. Nobody, gay or straight, has a moral right to sin.

 

[pathia]

And of course gays and straights are entitled to equal moral rights. Nobody, gay or straight, has a moral right to sin.

So we live in a theocracy now?

 

[LRThunder]

So we live in a theocracy now?

No, we don’t. But note what Gamera said: “Nobody has a **moral **right to sin.” Obviously, one can legally have sex outside of marriage, whether that is straight or gay sex, but that doesn’t make it moral.

 

[pathia]

No, we don’t. But note what Gamera said: “Nobody has a **moral **right to sin.” Obviously, one can legally have sex outside of marriage, whether that is straight or gay sex, but that doesn’t make it moral.

True, but there is a huge growing alternate religion and atheist population in our country, they have morality, but from a different source.

 

[KingAlfred]

Hi everyone. A friend of mine has come up with an argument for homosexual marriage that I can’t seem to defeat. He says that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because of the fact that they were born that way and also because they deserve to have romantic relationships too. He says it would be unjust to deprive them of equal rights just because they are attracted to the same sex. How do I counter this?

Homosexuality is disordered. Homosexual acts are sinful and dangerous. While we shouldn’t practice discrimination, we can’t condone homosexual marriage for the above reasons, and also because it would undermine the moral principles upon which Western society is founded. Gays should be satisfied with legal union, and forget about the prospect of marriage and parenthood.

 

[Nickkname]

It’s interesting that gays use “discrimination” in the same sense that racists use it.

It’s also interesting that the gay movement brainwashes people to think gays are somehow “special” and need “extra attention”, as if the gay individual was never even noticed or taken care of or given his rights before they came along.

 

[Gamera]

So we live in a theocracy now?

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? I distinguished between a legal right and a moral right, and I said nobody has a moral right to sin. What does that have to do with legal rights?

I find it extremely offensive that you accuse me of condoning a “theocracy.” Go back and read my post again. I would rather die than live in a theocracy and I don’t appreciate your slur.

In fact, here, let’s make it easy for you:

The ‘argument’ is simply a play on words, using the word ‘right’ in two different senses.

There are legal rights and there are moral rights. Of course gays are entitled to equal legal rights. Everyone, gay or straight, has a legal right to marry. A union between two members of the same gender simply isn’t a marriage. Nobody, gay or straight, has a legal right to invent new meanings to the word ‘marriage’ and receive legal recognition for them.

And of course gays and straights are entitled to equal moral rights. Nobody, gay or straight, has a moral right to sin.

See now? I plainly stated that legal rights differ from moral rights. Where do you see “theocracy” suggested here?

 

[pathia]

It’s interesting that gays use “discrimination” in the same sense that racists use it.

Lets see, I’ve been fired four times for it, and I’ve been assaulted to the point of hospitalization twice, also someone tried to ‘rape me straight’ once. That all sounds like rather discriminatory violence to me. Especially when you take account of the fact the cops refused to charge anyone in any of the cases, and in fact threatened to arrest me for prostitution after the assault/rape attempt.

 

[Gamera]

Lets see, I’ve been fired four times for it, and I’ve been assaulted to the point of hospitalization twice, also someone tried to ‘rape me straight’ once. That all sounds like rather discriminatory violence to me. Especially when you take account of the fact the cops refused to charge anyone in any of the cases, and in fact threatened to arrest me for prostitution after the assault/rape attempt.

Nobody has a right to mistreat you. I’m sorry that those things happened to you.

Here we are discussing whether a law is “discriminatory.” And no, laws forbidding gay marriage are not “discriminatory.” A discriminatory law would be one forbidding gays from voting. A law that says everyone, gay or straight, must follow the same definition of marriage is not discriminatory.

 

[mlchance]

As has been pointed out several times, the jury is still out on whether homosexual persons are “born that way”. Based on current evidence, one cannot demonstrate the existence of anything like a “gay gene”, but this doesn’t definitively rule out the possibility of other non-genetic factors.

Talk about a right to marriage and the unfairness of discrimination is also misleading. The “right” to marriage is not absolute, and discrimination is not always unjust. There are more categories of persons not permitted to marry than just homosexual persons. Discrimination, while it can be unjust, is also a necessary tool in any society. For example, consider adoption laws and regulations that discriminate against would-be adoptive parents with clear warning signs that they would be abusive.

The canard about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is also irrelevant to the question of marriage. Marriage is not a private act; it is a public act with social and legal implications. Issues of privacy are, at best, only tangetially related to marriage.

Finally, standing against homosexual “marriage” is not solely a religious issue and has nothing to do with a desire to live in a theocracy. There is a secular case against homosexual “marriage”.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

As has been pointed out several times, the jury is still out on whether homosexual persons are “born that way”. Based on current evidence, one cannot demonstrate the existence of anything like a “gay gene”, but this doesn’t definitively rule out the possibility of other non-genetic factors.

Talk about a right to marriage and the unfairness of discrimination is also misleading. The “right” to marriage is not absolute, and discrimination is not always unjust. There are more categories of persons not permitted to marry than just homosexual persons. Discrimination, while it can be unjust, is also a necessary tool in any society. For example, consider adoption laws and regulations that discriminate against would-be adoptive parents with clear warning signs that they would be abusive.

The canard about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is also irrelevant to the question of marriage. Marriage is not a private act; it is a public act with social and legal implications. Issues of privacy are, at best, only tangetially related to marriage.

Finally, standing against homosexual “marriage” is not solely a religious issue and has nothing to do with a desire to live in a theocracy. There is a secular case against homosexual “marriage”.

– Mark L. Chance.

Phalates in plastics have been linked to boys developing small penises and effeminate features.