Gay marriage : who cares?

[TEPO]

A little bit more on Natural Law, as some here seem to be ignorant of it:

As discussed last week, ]the Constitution is based upon the “Laws of Nature.” If the counsels of the natural law are not valid, the Constitution is not valid. In spite of the fact that the natural law teaching is essential to interpreting the Constitution,

its premises are often misunderstood, and even more rarely employed, by most judges and legislators.

Natural law commentators have traditionally opposed homosexuality because it violates the first precept of the natural law, the law of self-preservation. The basis of this law is that life is good and is the necessary condition for the enjoyment of every other good.

Nature provides for the self-preservation of the human species by endowing men and women with an **instinctual attraction for one another. **Homosexual relations are “unnatural” because such acts frustrate Nature’s intention that the human species perpetuate itself.1 Obviously, if most people chose to exclusively engage in homosexual relations humans would become extinct. **Nature also discourages homosexuality in that homosexual practices generally cause or are associated with a variety of physical and mental disorders. The fact that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 years of age also indicates the human body was not made to engage in sodomy.2 Similarly, the mind and soul suffer from such acts as suggested by abnormally high suicide rates among homosexuals.3 **

The public benefits of the natural law are attained via a natural order of loves interior to each person. Accordingly, most people never formally take into account the first natural law as a motive for doing anything, much less making love. As the court’s recent emphasis on the “right to privacy” reminds us, decisions regarding sexuality and procreation are very personal. Analogously, people do not marry and have children because they recognize a state interest in “furthering the link between procreation and childrearing.” In modern America, we marry for love, and love is understood to be an intensely private affair.

Love, however, also has a public benefit: children. Nature, it seems, loves children.** For this reason, Nature uses the most powerful of human loves – the passions that unite husbands and wives and parents and children – to ensure that human beings remain in existence.** Left to their own devices, lovers inevitably seek to consummate their relationship by giving their entire selves, including their bodies, to one another. The children that result, unlike the offspring of other animals, require a great deal of care and education. So much attention, in fact, that the public welfare, not to mention the children themselves, suffer greatly when lovers do not take responsibility for their offspring. Reason, supported by just law, discerns that parental responsibility should be clearly established by confining sexual relations to an exclusive relationship between husband and wife. The basis of this rule is that every sexual act between a
fertile man and woman has the potential to conceive a child. **

Fortunately, Nature also provides parents, especially mothers, with an innate and lasting love for their children.** In addition, erotic love has a unitive aspect that strengthens the bond between husband and wife during the trials that arise while raising children.

lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_14unhappyunion.html

The following is my opinion. As one sees here Natural Law provides for an INNATE love of parents for their children. That is, of course, is one of the primary reasons that the Church fights so hard for the unborn. The Moral Law (Natural Law) tells us that killing another creature who is exactly like us…or has the potential to become exactly like us…is wrong…unless we do so in self-defense or in the defense of another innocent. Abortion is absolutely unthinkable to me & I can’t understand ANY defense of it, nor can I relate to ANY reason given in this argument so far that two men (two women) should be allowed to be “married”.

The fact that many here have lost sight of the **reality **of Natural Law, tells us just how corrupt our society has become.

But if some people like to be gay, we should just let them get married and forget about what we think… And if people want to walk around town naked, we should just let them, because they’re not doing anything to us. Public sex is no big deal either. After all, just because some people are doing it, doesn’t necessarily mean our children will. Just as long as there is no violence -who cares?

(all the above is complete sarcasm)

 

[TEPO]

Do you think they will listen if our witness is: “we’re going to craft legislation so you have to live by our moral code”

They have been listening for about 2000 years now… Seems like Christianity has set the moral tone for Western civilization for quite some time, and overall seems to have done a pretty good job enforcing Gods laws… So far…

 

[ERose]

It should, given that the claim against gay marriage rests very heavily, almost entirely, on the presumption that it should be denied on the basis of “disordered” and “un-natural” sexual behaivior. These behaiviors, which you assert are contrary to natural law, are not at all unique to homosexual men and women, yet you propose punitive legal measures that would fall only on this one tiny class of offenders. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense from a moral or policy standpoint.

Wrong again K. We have gone over this time and time again. The reason is not unnatural sexual behavior it is because 100% of all homosexual couples cannot bear children on their own. To have children, it ALWAYS requires a third party. No matter how you shake it gay marriage is an oxymoron. Until you prove otherwise you will NEVER win this argument. You cannot use the perversion of the masses to justify your perversion.

 

[ERose]

Change the subject? This is what the subject has always been. From the OP onward, the discussion has been about why the Catholic conception of marriage needs to be imposed upon everyone else and why the Catholic Church appears inconsistent in imposing its view on homosexuality but not its view on divorce. Given that you didn’t understand that, you claim that K and I have lost a debate falls flat since you haven’t even recognized what the debate has been about.

It is not the Catholic conception of marriage we have been discussing. We have been discussing the difinition of marriage as it is understood by every culture and every traditional religion that exists in this world. We are discussing whether or not the difintion of marriage should be changed to make marriage something it never has been. This isn’t just Catholic versus the world. It is 2-4% of the population wanting their abnormal sexual activity normalized and another 10-15% of the population that we call progressives that are working on re-engineering society in such a way to advance their agenda. This ISN’T a religious versus secular it is right vs wrong.

It seems to me that from the Catholic point of view a divorcee remarrying is just as “illicit and invalid” and as much an “oxymoron” as gay marriage. How can someone who is already married get married? If the Church is really concerned about defending marriage rather than oppressing homosexuals, such remarrying divorcees ought to be made to understand that they are adulterers and fornicators living in sin. No fault divorce ought to be made illegal. Where is the Catholic political campaign against legal divorce to notch its campaign against homosexual marriage? Where is the Vatican statement that says that Catholics must oppose not only divorce in their own marriages but the right for nonCatholics to divorce? Can I take it as a matter of political expedience?

It seems to me that you are completely clueless on what the Church teaches and you really do not want to trully know because it has been explained to you and K time and time again on this thread and you just absolutely refuse to see what the Church teaches. I am not saying accept but rather see. You want to constantly misrepresent the teachings of the Church over and over again. That is the only way you can justify your beliefs about our Church. The facts are this. If one lives in adulterous or in a homosexual relationship unrepentent then you end up in the same place when you die. Adultery, homosexuality or any other sex outside a legitimate marriage are mortal sins and mortal sins lead to death.

 

[ERose]

There is an answer that would satisfy me: all it would take is for the Prop 8 campaign and similar organized efforts to add provisions to their official platforms stating that they demand changes in civil law to ban at-will divorce and civil marriage of previously divorced people. All I’m suggesting is that you apply YOUR OWN moral teachings reasonably consistently, OR give some rational reason in Canon Law or theology why that need not be done.

Is what I’m suggesting really that ludicrous or unattainable? All you would have to do is walk the walk that your own moral law says you should. Raise and spend some funds to that end. Lobby some lawmakers. Hold a press conference. You don’t have to WIN the battle against divorce and remmarriage. All of us would agree that’s a long shot, at best. But making the effort would show that you’re not moral relativists who pick and choose provisions in theology to suit your own personal or political tastes. You guys are always busting the humps of liberal Catholics for doing that, you would think it wouldn’t take an apostate like me to show you that you have to lead by example if you’re calling people to live by the full truth of the Gospel. Nor is it evident to me why you would fight that call to walk the walk like a caged badger.

There is no answer that has “pleased” me so far because no one has made any attempt to offer a cogent answer. I’ve gotten lots of personal flak and name calling for having the temerity to hold up a mirror to YOUR church’s law revealing a disparity in it’s application. I’ve seen lots of answers to arguments I haven’t made, accusations about how the liberals and gays are ruining everything etc. Apparently the simple act of holding you up to your own standards and theology makes me “Anti-Catholic.”

Debate threads are a lot like poker games, in a sense. There comes a point where the bluffs and strategies have all played out, the stakes have been defined, and it’s time to call and lay down what you’ve really got. I think we’re well past due for that on this particular thread. My cards have been laid out on the table for all to see for about a week now. All I’m seeing from the rest of you is more bluffing, dissembling and cigar smoke, so to speak. I’m still willing to concede that you may have a hand that beats or at least matches mine. If you do, it’s high time you lay it out…

Pleased you so far? Get your blinders off. There has been significant amount of PROOF offered that has refuted your claims. But you put blinders on because if you recognized to truth of our PROOF then you have in your mind lost the argument. Granted you already have lost but you need this lack of proof to justify your beliefs. I know none of this proof has pleased you because it has shown that your standing is completely on nothing with substance. Just recognize it and move on.

 

[kenofken]

Wrong again K. We have gone over this time and time again. The reason is not unnatural sexual behavior it is because 100% of all homosexual couples cannot bear children on their own. To have children, it ALWAYS requires a third party. No matter how you shake it gay marriage is an oxymoron. Until you prove otherwise you will NEVER win this argument. You cannot use the perversion of the masses to justify your perversion.

Well I don’t know about that. Most posters of late have been much more concerned by the “unnatural sex” aspect of the issue. In fact they are positively fascinated by it. I could almost accept the reproduction argument except that gays are the ONLY people who we are willing to hold responsible for reproduction (or lack therof). Having the ability or even will to bear children is in no way a condition of marriage for straight people, at least in civil marriage, which is really the crux of all this.

Many, many young healthy hetero couples who have NO intention to bear children are allowed to marry every day. Many of them employ long term artificial birth control methods. A number of them are in fact permanently sterilized. They could advertise their recent sterilization in a full-page ad in the New York Times and get a marriage license the day after. Nobody on this forum appears willing to lift a finger to change the law in that aspect. Not even a nominal effort. That being the case, why should anyone take the the reproductive argument the least bit seriously? Offering practical arguments that it’s just too hard to police the issue with hetero folks doesn’t quite cut it if we’re saying this is really a natural law issue. That’s basically saying that God’s law only really need be upheld against those who are easily “caught.”

 

[ERose]

kenofken, I don’t know why we have had so much trouble getting this point across. People keep responding as though we arguing that homosexual marriage is moral. We are not. We are accepting for the sake of argument that it is immoral. It violates natural law or whatever. Now the question remains, should homosexual marriage be illegal?

Certainly just because Catholics consider something immoral does not mean that Catholics are required to fight to make it illegal. Right, Catholics?

It is immoral to be selfish, but no one thinks selfishness ought to be made a punishable crime. It is immoral to be disrepectful to one’s parents. It even violates one of the Big Ten to do so. But no one argues that disrespecting one’s parents ought to be made illegal. Catholics believe that use of condoms violate natural law, but no one argues that the production, sale, and use of condoms ought to be made illegal. Couples who have no intention of having children ought not be married in the Church, but no one argues that the *government *ought not recognize marriages of such couples. It is argued that homosexual marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage itself, but it can not be more of a threat to the Catholic notion of marriage than is no-fault divorce. Yet, though the Vatican calls all Catholics to oppose gay marriage, it does not seem to be calling for all Catholics to fight to make divorce illegal.

Clearly, certain issues of morality need to be enacted into law and some do not. These other issues that are *not *thought to be a matter of civil law by Catholics makes us wonder why the morality of gay marriage is thought to be an important legal concern for Catholics. If the issue is not bigotry toward homosexuals and is rather a concern for a theat against the Catholic understanding of marriage, then why is there no call to make adultry a criminal offense, to make artifical methods of birth control such as condoms and voluntary sterilization procedures such as vasectomies illegal, to make divorce illegal? The number of homosexual marriages will pale in comparison to the number of insidences of heterosexual marital infidelity, heterosexual divorce, and heterosexual use of artificial birth control methods. If the concern is really the integrity of the institution of marriage as understood in the Catholic conception of marriage, then these other issues ought to be at least as important to Catholics and we ought to expect Catholics to be as vocal as making laws against such things as they are about making homosexual marriage illegal.

What kenofken and I are wonderring is not why you think gay marriage is immoral. What we wonder is what possible reason you could have for wanting to make gay marriage illegal if you don’t want to make laws about these other moral concerns related to mariage?

What I think you are not getting is that gay marriage is already not lawful and that to allow gay marriage to exist is to completely change the legal, moral, and natural difinition of marriage. Marriage exists for one primary purpose the bearing and rearing of children in a stable environment. Take this purpose out of marriage and marriage ceases to be a necessary fundamental institution. It has nothing to do with religion in my opinion, but has everything to do with our secular society. If you change the fundamental institution that all of society is built upon what happens to society? This isn’t whether or not gay marriage has a direct negative impact on society which I don’t think it will, but it will have an indirect negative impact because if you allow this definition change then you open up the Pandora’s box. Now you will have to allow any and every form of marriage that any person can come up with. In fact, if they allow gay marriage I would be for just getting it all out of the way and just allow any form of marriage. It would ultimately save us taxpayers billions of dollars in the long run. Because if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow polygamy, marriage between men/animals, marriage between couples, and whatever else you people can concieve up in their deviant little minds.

 

[kenofken]

Pleased you so far? Get your blinders off. There has been significant amount of PROOF offered that has refuted your claims. But you put blinders on because if you recognized to truth of our PROOF then you have in your mind lost the argument. Granted you already have lost but you need this lack of proof to justify your beliefs. I know none of this proof has pleased you because it has shown that your standing is completely on nothing with substance. Just recognize it and move on.

There is NO proof that any of you are willing to uphold your own moral law consistently. No one has even committed to spend the 40 cents to send a letter to a legsilstor seeking action on laws against hetero abuses of natural law. In fact most posters have openly ridiculed the very notion that natural law should be enforced against anyone beyond homosexuals. If you can show me any evidence to the contrary, I’ll shut up about it. In fact if you tell me on your honor as a gentleman that you sent (or will send) such a letter, or made any similar effort to consistently see natural law enforced, that would satisfy me on this point.

What is it about the suggestion that you live by your own law that is so infuriating? I’m offering you all a golden chance, right here, to prove to the world that your basis of moral argument against gay marriage is sincere. Not only is no one taking me up on it, I somehow have you fighting against respect for natural law harder than your own enemies could ever hope to do.

 

[kenofken]

What I think you are not getting is that gay marriage is already not lawful and that to allow gay marriage to exist is to completely change the legal, moral, and natural difinition of marriage. Marriage exists for one primary purpose the bearing and rearing of children in a stable environment. Take this purpose out of marriage and marriage ceases to be a necessary fundamental institution. It has nothing to do with religion in my opinion, but has everything to do with our secular society. If you change the fundamental institution that all of society is built upon what happens to society? This isn’t whether or not gay marriage has a direct negative impact on society which I don’t think it will, but it will have an indirect negative impact because if you allow this definition change then you open up the Pandora’s box. Now you will have to allow any and every form of marriage that any person can come up with. In fact, if they allow gay marriage I would be for just getting it all out of the way and just allow any form of marriage. It would ultimately save us taxpayers billions of dollars in the long run. Because if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow polygamy, marriage between men/animals, marriage between couples, and whatever else you people can concieve up in their deviant little minds.

If the issue really has nothing to do with your religious preference and everything to do with child-bearing, you ought to be lobbying hard to allow polygamists marriages. NOBODY has more kids than those folks, and they invariably raise them in a a very traditional family setting - at home moms, strong hetero father figures, the whole nine. Polygamy and your stated sole purpose of marriage are a match made in heaven!

 

[ERose]

Well I don’t know about that. Most posters of late have been much more concerned by the “unnatural sex” aspect of the issue. In fact they are positively fascinated by it. I could almost accept the reproduction argument except that gays are the ONLY people who we are willing to hold responsible for reproduction (or lack therof). Having the ability or even will to bear children is in no way a condition of marriage for straight people, at least in civil marriage, which is really the crux of all this.

Then in your mind why does marriage even exist? The ruling of “Loving vs Virginia” which the pro-gay marriage uses so often to justify to themselves they have to right to get married like everyone else claims that “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Of course you don’t ever see this sentence quoted by the pro-gay marriage groups. The Supreme court has outlined that marriage is a fundamental right because of it’s procreation and effective rearing of children. No where does the judgement say we can get married so we can have sex.

Many, many young healthy hetero couples who have NO intention to bear children are allowed to marry every day. Many of them employ long term artificial birth control methods. A number of them are in fact permanently sterilized. They could advertise their recent sterilization in a full-page ad in the New York Times and get a marriage license the day after.

If the state did what you would suggest you liberals would be up in arms that the state is violating your privacy. The state has determined that the best method of regulating marriage is to insure a man and woman is involved. What their immediate intentions are or are not is not something the state can ask or demand from the couple and you know that. I do know that there are alot of couples who get married with no intention of having children but latter in their life or by accident they have child(ren).

Nobody on this forum appears willing to lift a finger to change the law in that aspect. Not even a nominal effort.

You know you are completely ignorant on this aren’t you. I have provided you links showing that the Church even today is battling freeing up the divorce laws whereever they can. You either didn’t read the links or just put on a blindfold. I am against no fault divorce and I am for strengthening the laws on divorce. Even though about 24% of this country identifies itself as Catholic this country is still a Protestant country. Only the Catholic church is against divorce among Christians. If the Church could change the laws on no fault divorce it would. It lobbies for it but it is almost impossible to overturn long standing laws in this country unless you can prove that you have “legal standing” to take it to court. Look up that term why don’t you.

philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=615442&publicationSubCategoryId=63
insidecatholic.com/myblog/the-fight-against-divorce-just-got-a-little-harder.html

That being the case, why should anyone take the the reproductive argument the least bit seriously? Offering practical arguments that it’s just too hard to police the issue with hetero folks doesn’t quite cut it if we’re saying this is really a natural law issue. That’s basically saying that God’s law only really need be upheld against those who are easily “caught.”

Because it is a serious argument that you cannot get past. A very high percentage heterosexual marriages end up with biological children (somewhere more than 90%). Let us compare that with homosexual couples ending up with children that possess the genetics from both parents (somewhere less than .000000000000000000000000001%)

 

[ERose]

There is NO proof that any of you are willing to uphold your own moral law consistently. No one has even committed to spend the 40 cents to send a letter to a legsilstor seeking action on laws against hetero abuses of natural law.

I have been very consistent on this point but you have refused to see it. Heck I have even agreed with a gay rights leader (can’t remember his name at this time) that proposed to the gay rights groups to start pushing to eliminate divorce and illegalize adultery to get back at the heteros. I am with him on this. Heck if anyone can make it happen it will be them. I would thank them and praise them for this because this is one of the few things that you and I have agreed upon on this thread. I do think no fault divorce and liberalizing adultery laws have been a much greater evil to this society than anything that gay marriage would do directly. Of course there are serious questions of how it will indirectly impact society.

I have also specifically argued against gay marriage on this thread and others through non-religious arguments. Which I haven’t seen you, Leela, or Seeker even attempt to refute because you cannot.

In fact most posters have openly ridiculed the very notion that natural law should be enforced against anyone beyond homosexuals.

Look the facts are this in this society. The privacy laws and their interpretation do not allow the state to invade the privacy of its citizens unless they have a court order. I am for this and agree with this and I think nearly every American (except for liberals) would agree with this. If you want to have sex with whoever and however you want as long as the person, if it is a person, is above the age of consent have at it. But marriage is not a private act. It is a public one and this is where the state does have the right and responsibility to protect it and its core function.

If you can show me any evidence to the contrary, I’ll shut up about it. In fact if you tell me on your honor as a gentleman that you sent (or will send) such a letter, or made any similar effort to consistently see natural law enforced, that would satisfy me on this point.

Again, I have been very consistent with my thought on divorce and adultery. Not just on this thread but also with anyone that will listen. The Church itself has been very consistent to the point of much ridicule from seculars such as yourself, other religions, and even other Christians. It’s standing on this subject has not changed nor will it. I find it funny that now liberals on this thread are trying to call the Church hypocritical on something that they have in the past ridiculed the church because they won’t get with the times like everyone else.

What is it about the suggestion that you live by your own law that is so infuriating? I’m offering you all a golden chance, right here, to prove to the world that your basis of moral argument against gay marriage is sincere. Not only is no one taking me up on it, I somehow have you fighting against respect for natural law harder than your own enemies could ever hope to do.

Then you need to start reading the posts on this thread then. I have shown that my moral argument against gay marriage is not a religious one, but a philosophical one and I have provided at least 7 or 8 philosophical and legal arguments against the existence of gay marriage that had nothing to do with religion. I know who I am arguing against and I have effectively argued this point on this thread and on other threads and no one on your side has even come close to establishing effective arguments against any of my arguments. In fact you or no one else has even tried because you cannot.

I have asked over and over that one of you provide me an effective argument that would at least be considered a valid argument by a reasonable person and you have failed to do so. You guys have made assertions on this thread that you cannot support with data or proof of any kind where I and others have supplied proof and data to support our claims. You have lost K. That is the truth of the matter and you know it. So why don’t we move on to another philosopical battle shall we? Maybe no fault divorces or something. You start the thread and I will participate.

 

[ERose]

If the issue really has nothing to do with your religious preference and everything to do with child-bearing, you ought to be lobbying hard to allow polygamists marriages. NOBODY has more kids than those folks, and they invariably raise them in a a very traditional family setting - at home moms, strong hetero father figures, the whole nine. Polygamy and your stated sole purpose of marriage are a match made in heaven!

As I have stated in past threads, polygamist by far have a better argument for legalizing their marriages than gays ever will. I am not saying they should be legalized and that is primarily due to the general treatment of women in these types of marriages, but if the states and/or country are going to start liberalizing marriage then polygamist should be first in line not gays. Again as I keep stating the term “gay marriage” is an oxymoron.

 

[TEPO]

There is NO proof that any of you are willing to uphold your own moral law consistently. No one has even committed to spend the 40 cents to send a letter to a legsilstor seeking action on laws against hetero abuses of natural law. ** In fact most posters have openly ridiculed the very notion that natural law should be enforced against anyone beyond homosexuals. If you can show me any evidence to the contrary, I’ll shut up about it.** In fact if you tell me on your honor as a gentleman that you sent (or will send) such a letter, or made any similar effort to consistently see natural law enforced, that would satisfy me on this point.

You are sadly confusing the Catholic Church with Christianity as a whole… Many Christian denominations remain silent on issues of abortion and contraception while Catholic Church members dedicate rosaries DAILY to end abortion and contraception… We are very, very much against hetero abuses of natural law as well.

It just so happens that when it comes to gay marriage, the other Christians stand firm with us for some reason. Go figure…

Do you need proof that rosaries are dedicated to these things…?

 

[TEPO]

websites for the end of abortion:
www.rosaryoftheunborn.com/
www.childrenoftherosary.org/
www.priestsforlife.org/prayers/
www.catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=26522

websites for the end of contraception:
www.catholicity.com/links/143/
www.perpetualadoration.org/sf1999.htm
acatholiclife.blogspot.com/.../miracles-of-rosary.html

 

[ManOnFire]

Research has shown that homosexuality is practically non-existent in the poorest populations of the world. What does that say? Have some of us become “too particular” with our expectations for the opposite sex’s behavior?

Some boys masturbate so much in adolescence that they get bored with it, so they look for an opportunity for someone else to do the job for them. Well, he’s not likely to find a 13-14 year old girl to do it for him. Out of boredom and desperation, he goes into a bathroom and you know what happens next. Well, the brains crave pleasure. Now, fast forward 20 years of the habit. Now, try reasoning with his brain. Try tellling it to “tolerate” trying to understand women and wait for the occasion. Good luck. Of course he’ll tell you he’s not attracted to working hard for it when brain pleasurism can be easy and frequent.

“Attraction” could simply be the desire for frequent gasms at any cost.

If we take the lust and drugs out of the media, or avoid watching it, more hetero relationships will stay together. We need to open our minds and realize that we have the power to say no.

If gay marriage is legalized, it will be “open season” on young men. Criticism of it will be labeled as “invalid” IF it becomes law. This will be a radical change that will just blow people away.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofkin

Many, many young healthy hetero couples who have NO intention to bear children are allowed to marry every day. Many of them employ long term artificial birth control methods. A number of them are in fact permanently sterilized. They could advertise their recent sterilization in a full-page ad in the New York Times and get a marriage license the day after. Nobody on this forum appears willing to lift a finger to change the law in that aspect.

The sexual organs of sodomites simply don’t fit. That is the principle argument against sodomy and sodomite marriages. Marriage is for heterosexuals who at least can have children of their own. Sodomites cannot have children of their own. The secondary disaster produced by legalizing sodomite marriages will be the adoption of heterosexual boys by two adult homosexual men, for what purpose (?) and heterosexual girls by two adult homosexual women, for what purpose? The state has a vested right to protect the sexual orientation of heterosexual children from being perverted by poor role models for the heterosexual family life.

 

[PassingThru]

Research has shown that homosexuality is practically non-existent in the poorest populations of the world. What does that say? Have some of us become “too particular” with our expectations for the opposite sex’s behavior?

Some boys masturbate so much in adolescence that they get bored with it, so they look for an opportunity for someone else to do the job for them. Well, he’s not likely to find a 13-14 year old girl to do it for him. Out of boredom and desperation, he goes into a bathroom and you know what happens next. Well, the brains crave pleasure. Now, fast forward 20 years of the habit. Now, try reasoning with his brain. Try tellling it to “tolerate” trying to understand women and wait for the occasion. Good luck. Of course he’ll tell you he’s not attracted to working hard for it when brain pleasurism can be easy and frequent.

“Attraction” could simply be the desire for frequent gasms at any cost.

If we take the lust and drugs out of the media, or avoid watching it, more hetero relationships will stay together. We need to open our minds and realize that we have the power to say no.

If gay marriage is legalized, it will be “open season” on young men. Criticism of it will be labeled as “invalid” IF it becomes law. This will be a radical change that will just blow people away.

Wow.

This post here is absolute gold.

It turns out guys are gay because they like to masturbate, then they learn that other guys are happy to give them a hand job, which leads to a dislike of women with all their complexities in order to get sex from women?

Please do not edit this post so everyone can read it. Just too good to explain, have to send out links for this one…

 

[kenofken]

Then in your mind why does marriage even exist? The ruling of “Loving vs Virginia” which the pro-gay marriage uses so often to justify to themselves they have to right to get married like everyone else claims that “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Of course you don’t ever see this sentence quoted by the pro-gay marriage groups. The Supreme court has outlined that marriage is a fundamental right because of it’s procreation and effective rearing of children. No where does the judgement say we can get married so we can have sex.

If the state did what you would suggest you liberals would be up in arms that the state is violating your privacy. The state has determined that the best method of regulating marriage is to insure a man and woman is involved. What their immediate intentions are or are not is not something the state can ask or demand from the couple and you know that. I do know that there are alot of couples who get married with no intention of having children but latter in their life or by accident they have child(ren).

You know you are completely ignorant on this aren’t you. I have provided you links showing that the Church even today is battling freeing up the divorce laws whereever they can. You either didn’t read the links or just put on a blindfold. I am against no fault divorce and I am for strengthening the laws on divorce. Even though about 24% of this country identifies itself as Catholic this country is still a Protestant country. Only the Catholic church is against divorce among Christians. If the Church could change the laws on no fault divorce it would. It lobbies for it but it is almost impossible to overturn long standing laws in this country unless you can prove that you have “legal standing” to take it to court. Look up that term why don’t you.

philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=615442&publicationSubCategoryId=63
insidecatholic.com/myblog/the-fight-against-divorce-just-got-a-little-harder.html

Because it is a serious argument that you cannot get past. A very high percentage heterosexual marriages end up with biological children (somewhere more than 90%). Let us compare that with homosexual couples ending up with children that possess the genetics from both parents (somewhere less than .000000000000000000000000001%)

If you had the courage of your convictions, and consistency, you would take on the fight because it was the right thing to do. Whether it would “get the liberals up in arms” would have no bearing on it, and nor would the prospects of success. I did give these links a read, and to the extent these people are putting their money where their mouth is on their beliefs, my hat is off to them. They could tell me they’re against gay marriage and I would respect where they’re coming from. But this ain’t the Phillippines, and I don’t see anyone here walking the walk on the issue. I see lots of excuses why it can’t be done and suggestions that making a good faith effort on this belief, whether rooted in Church law or natural law, just somehow isn’t germane to anything.

Yes. you all say you’re “against” easy divorce and remmariage and the various crimes agaisnt nature perpetrated by even straight people, but thoughts don’t mean much if they’re not translated into action, do they? Saying a Rosary is an action, to be sure, but it’s nowhere near equivalent to the actions you undertake, and insist must be undertaken regarding gays. Yes, of course more straight couples will have children, even unintentional ones, than will same sex couples. But at the end of the day we have one class of people who can and often does flip the bird to nature’s intentions and gets a marriage license, with YOUR tacit approval (nonexistent opposition is tacit approval), and another class of people who would be denied the same civil standing for the same thing.

 

[kenofken]

Wow.

This post here is absolute gold.

It turns out guys are gay because they like to masturbate, then they learn that other guys are happy to give them a hand job, which leads to a dislike of women with all their complexities in order to get sex from women?

Please do not edit this post so everyone can read it. Just too good to explain, have to send out links for this one…

That post is better than gold. It’s like the train of thought I had the other night when my nightly Ambien pill got the best of me and my leather jacket started talking to me If masturbation made guys gay, I’d be King of the Castro! I’d be queerer than Freddie Mercury at his peak! Alas, my application to join Gay America was torn up before my eyes when the admissions committee saw how I dress! My voracious appetite for women also cost me some votes.

The fact that this guy thinks gay sex is easier to get then hetero sex tells me he doesn’t know much about either. Gay men, on average, are MUCH higher maintenance creatures than most women. And getting sex from women is easier than falling off a log these days, if you know how to treat them…

 

[Portrait]

Bestiality may indeed be immoral, but why is it immoral? To say that it is immoral because it violates natural law is to offer no reason whatsoever. Since natural law is the same thing as the Moral Law, to say that it is unnatural is just to repeat that you think it is immoral. You still haven’t said why it is immoral.

In my view, bestiality is immoral because it simply cannot be consenual. See? I’ve given a reason for my moral view rather than just saying that it is immoral because it is immoral.

Now, why is homosexuality immoral?

Dear Leela,

Cordial greetings.

The whole consensual issue is a red herring and distracts from the fundamental point that bestiality is regarded as *a priori *unnatural and morally wrong in the first place by the consistent and general consent of mankind.

The weakness of your “moral view” is that not only is it totally irrelevant as a criterion of right and wrong behaviour, but it is also a highly subjectivist position. For example, some avant-garde types might argue that because an animal is not a rational being the issue of consent is unimportant and as long as the animal is deeply loved then it is quite permissible. Now from the point of view of moral relativism there is no legitimate reason why such an opinion should be dismissed as absurd or morally depraved, unconventional maybe, but not intrinsically immoral. This warped thinking ultimately leads to a pernicious pluralism where every man does that which is right in his own eyes because there is no moral absolutism and everything becomes negotiable or arbitrary - the everybody is right and nobody is wrong mindset where the only thing people are intolerant of is, well intolerance!

In contradistinction to this moral free-for-all, the Judeo-Christian ethic teaches that bestiality transgresses the God-given boundaries between man and the animal kingdom. Thus holiness in the Pentateuch is a matter of purity, of keeping apart what the Creator designed to be separate. Interestingly, the O.T. book of Leviticus places the prohibition of homosexual deviant acts side by side with bestial deviant acts, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion” (Lev. 18: 22,23). The reason why the unnatural lusts of sodomy and bestiality are so vile is because they are detestable to God and so very contrary to His norm for human sexuality. That there should even be such laws, and the fact that they would not have been mandated had they not been first broken (cf. Genesis 19), is surely a witness to the perpetual reproach and scandal of man’s fallen nature. By the way these sins are so wicked and vile that they ought not to mentioned or thought of without the utmost abhorrence imaginable.

Therefore so called “same sex unions” and carnal relations with animals are a violation of the moral law of God because in both cases our Creator is keeping apart what He intended to be kept separate; in point of fact they are on an equal footing as regards culpability. Indeed, this is the point underlined by St. Paul in the letter to the Romans (1: 26, 27) when he speaks of departing from what is natural or what is according to the Maker’s design. Men are intended to have carnal relations only with women, for to depart from this creation model leads to confusion and eventually to a moral climate where anything is possible and any perversion, including bestiality, can be defended and even applauded. Indeed, that is the ultimate moral nadir anticipated by St. Paul when he says, “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1: 32). Sobering words, but very timely ones nonetheless.

The Church says no to homosexual genital acts and “marriages”, even if it is in the context of a commited relationship, because it is informed by the biblical understanding of marriage. Marriage is indeed based upon a loving and commited relationship, however the context of such a loving commitment is the “one flesh” bond that exists only between one man and one woman. The definition of marriage in Sacred Scripture firmly excludes homosexual liasons and all exra-marital sexual conduct fro that matter.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax