Gay marriage : who cares?

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
(Natural law has got to be the worst tool that anyone has ever come up with for moral discernment given that it was even once used to say how natural it is for some to be slaves and others to be masters.) *

Surely you jest. Nobody ever said it was natural for slaves to be mastered except those who profited by mastering them. Even Jefferson, who own slaves, felt guilty about violating this aspect of the natural law.

Is there an argument living in that article somewhere about why the rights of homosexuals to marry is not a civil rights issue?

Is marriage between sisters and brother, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons a civil rights issue? Is Polygamy a civil rights issue? Is sex with children a civil rights issue. To hear NAMBLA’s view, it certainly is. Why are gays entitled to civil rights to live a perverse life style? Are druggies entitled to civil rights when they are caught with drugs on their person? Are alcoholics entitled to civil rights to drive while intoxicated? Are children entitled to civil rights to have sex with other children?

For God’s sake, get some common sense!!!

There are no civil rights for insane, self destructive behavior!!! Insane, self-destructive behavior is against the natural law. The natural law is to live and prosper as well as we can with the gits God (Nature if you are an atheist) has endowed us.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

I don’t see the stats for AIDS on your chart. How does it compare now with before the 60s?

I notice you avoid the issue. It too is an STD.

 

[Seeker2010]

I don’t see the stats for AIDS on your chart. How does it compare now with before the 60s?

I didn’t avoid it on purpose, I haven’t found the data yet, though I am still looking.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

However, I’m fairly certain even the most conservative reading of Lawrence would conclude that any CRIMINAL statutes against adultery are, on their face, unconstitutional, therefore you can conclude from that adultery has been held as a civil right.

It’s not a civil right if you can be sued in court for divorce on the grounds of adultery. Adultery breaks a marriage contract. I don’t think the Constitution holds it as a civil right that you can break contracts. At least not without paying through the nose and the wallet.

 

[edwest2]

No problem. Here, let me make this easy for you.

http://nykevin.smugmug.com/Other/Random/Syph-Rates/1024696988_kCpKo-M.jpg

This is a chart that I just created using data from the site you linked showing historical syphilis infection rates in the US. As you can see, we are currently sitting at the lowest level that we have data for. This goes back to 1941, whether or not data exists before then I know not. But your ‘good old days’ of the 40’s and 50’s, where everyone was chaste and nobody got diseases because they weren’t immoral like today’s ‘hyper-sexualized society’ is a farce. THESE are the good old days, when it comes to STD transmission. Not to mention that back in the day, many diseases that today are curable with a couple of pills would kill you.

Yes, you can point to chlamydia and say it’s on the increase, and that’s factually accurate, but we just started tracking it in 1984, so my guess is it’s not that the disease itself is increasing, but that our tracking and treating of it is catching up with reality. The fact that it causes only minor symptoms and is completely curable by a dose of antibiotics tells me that it’s no big deal.

I don’t feel like doing the work to make another chart, but I can tell you that the stats for gonorrhea are similar, and 2008 the rate per 100,000 people was 111.6, the lowest ever recorded. Compare that to rates near 300 in the 40’s and near 500 in the 70’s and you’ll see your ‘good old days’ argument gets obliterated.

My argument is not just my argument:

catholic.org/featured/reality.php?ID=1493

In 1960, there were only two sexually transmitted diseases. Today, about 24.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

OK, I found a chart on AIDS infections. It appears they peaked in the mid 80’s, fell to a plateau in 86, and declined to another plateau in about 1991, and has remained more or less steady since then. It is the red dotted line on the following chart. Please take note that while the absolute number of infections remains steady, our increasing population means the rates of infection are actually dropping.

I did not find the data on which this chart is based, but this is a CDC chart. I can only assume that the blue line starting an upward trend in 1996 means fewer people are dieing from AIDS than before, as the number of new infections from 96 onward have remained relatively steady.

While 1.1 million people infected with AIDS sounds like a dreadfully high number, you should temper that with the knowledge that’s only 1 in 300 people. Only 31% of new infections are from heterosexual conduct, the rest are male on male sex and infections from contaminated needles. I would opine, but cannot back up in any way, that a good deal of the heterosexual infections are from unprotected anal sex.

cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/images/infections-lg.jpg

 

[Seeker2010]

Adultery breaks a marriage contract.

Indeed it does. But it’s breaking a CONTRACT, not a LAW, and the Supremes made clear that a LAW banning adultery is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates a fundamental civil right.

You may, with mutual consent, enter into a marriage that does not include a prohibition on adultery, but I personally consider consensual non-monogamy and adultery as two different things.

 

[Seeker2010]

My argument is not just my argument:

Your argument is factually invalid, as shown in graphic detail in my chart. STD infection rates were not lower back in the day because people were more moral than today. Rather, they were HIGHER because people had just as much sex as they’re having now, but they didn’t have (or didn’t use) condoms and other tools to prevent the spread of disease.

The article you linked was not even on point, and the pharmacist who denied emergency contraception to that woman should have his license yanked. He gets to decide morality for himself, not for his customers.

catholic.org/featured/reality.php?ID=1493

In 1960, there were only two sexually transmitted diseases. Today, about 24.

That says more about advances in our medical technology than our behavior. Rest assured, there were 24 in 1960, too, we just didn’t know about it. And in 1960 a lot more people got STD’s than today, of any kind.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

Supremes made clear that a LAW banning adultery is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates a fundamental civil right.

I believe you are misrepresenting this decision. Do you have the exact phrasing that says adultery is a civil right? If it is a civil right, how can a wife sue her husband for it in a court of law? Can you sue someone for acting out a civil right? Can you sue a black person for sitting in the front of a bus? Can you sue a peaceful protester at a civil rights march?

 

[ERose]

To me, the basics of this issue that you are missing is the distinction between the Catholic view of marriage and the secular understanding of marriage in civil law. No one is trying to say that Catholic’s are wrong about what marriage ought to mean to them in a religious context. You can have whatever religious views on marriage that you want to have. but in return, no religious view of marriage can be imposed on society at large through the government. In this way you are protected from having the religious views of Baptists and Mormons and Muslims imposed upon you.

You get to eat pork, dance, and drink wine even though some religions forbid them to their members because there is no nonreligious reason to forbid you to do that. Likewise, there is no secular reason to discriminate against homosexuals in marriage, so it will be allowed by law. You are welcome to believe that such marriages as not valid as Catholic marriages, but they are valid as legal marriages. You are also welcome to try to convince other people to be Catholic. But you don’t get to impose your moral restrictions on others without being able to provide secular reasons for doing so. “God doesn’t like it” and “it is immoral and unnatural” are simply insufficient reasons and completely irrelevent to the law. (Saying it is immoral because it is unnatural is just to say it is immoral because it is immoral. It isn’t a reason since the natural law is just another name for the moral law.)

You know Leela let us turn your view around why won’t we. You have not right either to impose your beliefs of the majority of people in this country either. You nor anyone else has the right to come in and fundamentally change the beliefs of the rest of the country. In this country a minority 20% of the population wants to come in and unilaterally change the fundamental instituation of society. I say you have no right to do that. If you want to call for civil unions by all means go ahead. That is a different argument altogether. But until two males or two females can have a biological child that carries both their genes, gay-marriage remains an oxymoron. Sorry but that is the facts.

You call this a civil rights issue but no body’s rights are being violated. That is the funny thing I see. In California there exist civil unions. Civil unions possess in CA all the same secular benefits as marriage but is not called marriage. Yet the liberals say that isn’t good enough. They want the right to call their partner their husband or wife. That was the whole purpose of the gay-marriage ruling in CA recently. So you tell me what is the big deal about using a title?

You talk about valid arguments for or against. Yet tell me one argument you have proposed that can be classified as valid and has the potential to convence a open-minded rational human being. For I haven’t seen one from you as of yet. You want to chide someone else that doesn’t have an argument yet you have as yet produced any argument of your own. Comeon now that is being hypocritical of you don’t you think?

I have been keeping up with this thread waiting. Waiting for someone on the left to show me why I should accept gay marriage. Yet the only argument that has been proposed is why not? So let us take a deep breath and establish some valid arguments for your side. I really want to see them, but you and the others on your side on this thread have failed missibily. This is the reason why the left have to use leftist judges to get their agenda through. Because they have no arguments. Prove me wrong Leela or anyone else. I am waiting. Given that we are in the philosophy section there should be solid arguments for. There has been plenty against proposed that your side has shown that you do not have the ability to refute. Give me some meat instead of just gravy.

 

[Seeker2010]

Do you have the exact phrasing that says adultery is a civil right?

Lawrence found that private, consensual, adult sexual behavior is not something the state has a compelling interest in, ergo it is a fundamental right. The case was about homosexual sex (it was literally a crime at the time). This had the affect of aboloshing all laws that criminalize private, consensual, adult sexual behavior, including sodomy statutes, bans on sex toys, as well as laws against adultery. In some states, there are still laws technically on the books, but they are unenforced, and unenforceable, as any attempt to do so would be smacked down on Lawrence grounds.

If it is a civil right, how can a wife sue her husband for it in a court of law?

As a free citizen, you can voluntarily agree to restrict your own behavior, even if the behavior in question is a fundamental civil right. I can agree to my employers terms that I not carry a weapon at work, and can suffer consequences should I fail to live up to that, that does not change the fact that it is a fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms (notwithstanding the argument that some dispute that).

Can you sue a black person for sitting in the front of a bus?

If, for some strange reason you had a contract with them that said they would not, yes you can. I can’t imagine under what circumstances you’d have such a contract, but I know we’re in hypothetical-land so it’s cool.

 

[Seeker2010]

So you tell me what is the big deal about using a title?

You tell me, you’re the one arguing against it so vehemently. What’s the big deal about a title?

Yet the only argument that has been proposed is why not?

Why not is a very valid argument. We live in what is ostensibly a free country. That means many things, but one of those things, to me, is that that which isn’t specifically prohibited is permitted, and that in order to specifically prohibit something you have to have a darn good reason. Though I don’t necessarily agree with our drug policies, the argument that drugs are dangerous is a reason to ban them. Fuzzy bunny slippers, on the other hand, cannot be categorized as dangerous or likely to cause harm (outside of embarrassment), ergo any attempt to ban them would likely be found unconstitutional.

Since ‘God said so’ is not sufficient to create a compelling state interest, there must be some other reason to prohibit gay marriage. Does it harm you if Bill and Ted down the street get hitched? No. Does it harm them? No. Does it harm society? While you may disagree with me on this, I say no.

Ergo, society has no right to prevent them from doing so.

 

[davidv]

You tell me, you’re the one arguing against it so vehemently. What’s the big deal about a title?

Why not is a very valid argument. We live in what is ostensibly a free country. That means many things, but one of those things, to me, is that that which isn’t specifically prohibited is permitted, and that in order to specifically prohibit something you have to have a darn good reason. Though I don’t necessarily agree with our drug policies, the argument that drugs are dangerous is a reason to ban them. Fuzzy bunny slippers, on the other hand, cannot be categorized as dangerous or likely to cause harm (outside of embarrassment), ergo any attempt to ban them would likely be found unconstitutional.

Since ‘God said so’ is not sufficient to create a compelling state interest, there must be some other reason to prohibit gay marriage. Does it harm you if Bill and Ted down the street get hitched? No. Does it harm them? No. Does it harm society? While you may disagree with me on this, I say no.

Ergo, society has no right to prevent them from doing so.

“Why not?” is a slogan, not an argument. Calling a slogan an argument is illogical (irrational).

 

[StTommyMore]

You tell me, you’re the one arguing against it so vehemently. What’s the big deal about a title?

Why not is a very valid argument. We live in what is ostensibly a free country. That means many things, but one of those things, to me, is that that which isn’t specifically prohibited is permitted, and that in order to specifically prohibit something you have to have a darn good reason. Though I don’t necessarily agree with our drug policies, the argument that drugs are dangerous is a reason to ban them. Fuzzy bunny slippers, on the other hand, cannot be categorized as dangerous or likely to cause harm (outside of embarrassment), ergo any attempt to ban them would likely be found unconstitutional.

Since ‘God said so’ is not sufficient to create a compelling state interest, there must be some other reason to prohibit gay marriage. Does it harm you if Bill and Ted down the street get hitched? No. Does it harm them? No. Does it harm society? While you may disagree with me on this, I say no.

Ergo, society has no right to prevent them from doing so.

Except you forget that marriage isn’t a right. Everything has limitations. You must be 21 to drink alcohol. You must be 18 to join the military. Both of these are largely arbitrary. It has already been detailed that the homosexual lifestyle is intrinsically detrimental. “Why not” is an argument used by those who realize that what they want is merely in persuit of an agenda, and not for anything truly meaningful.

 

[CradleCath]

Given that you believe this, and also must realize it will change NOTHING in YOUR life, why do you argue so vehemently against it??

Because gay sex is against my beliefs, has cost millions of dollars in HIV & AIDS reseach…yet the results & directions given to avoid these diseases are being largely ignored, & because I’ve already had to TRY to explain to a grandchild…why a man is kissing another man in public, why we can’t go to “such & such” park, etc. I value my grandchildren’s future & do not want them indoctrinated into believing that homosexual practices are healthy, “different but equal” to heterosexual marriages that build the families in our nation. They are NOT healthy, they are not “different but equal”. Homosexual practices, sodomy, fisting & bizarre insertions, etc. are not different but equal. They are the results of disordered sexuality.

Some married heterosexuals do that, too. I know because my wife and I are among them. Would you have our marriage invalidated??

 

[ERose]

You tell me, you’re the one arguing against it so vehemently. What’s the big deal about a title?

Ok so you agree with me then that these people are wrong in pushing for this. I am glad we were able to come to at least this agreement. So please give your leftist friends a call and let them know.

Why not is a very valid argument. We live in what is ostensibly a free country. That means many things, but one of those things, to me, is that that which isn’t specifically prohibited is permitted, and that in order to specifically prohibit something you have to have a darn good reason. Though I don’t necessarily agree with our drug policies, the argument that drugs are dangerous is a reason to ban them. Fuzzy bunny slippers, on the other hand, cannot be categorized as dangerous or likely to cause harm (outside of embarrassment), ergo any attempt to ban them would likely be found unconstitutional.

But no one’s rights are being infringed as I see it. All I see is a small group of individuals wanting greater rights than the rest of the country.

Since ‘God said so’ is not sufficient to create a compelling state interest, there must be some other reason to prohibit gay marriage. Does it harm you if Bill and Ted down the street get hitched? No. Does it harm them? No. Does it harm society? While you may disagree with me on this, I say no.

Ergo, society has no right to prevent them from doing so.

You have been away for too long and evidently you haven’t gone back and read the flow of this thread. There has been produced at least 10 solid arguments against SSM that have not been address yet by your side. Until your side effectively refutes them then you are on the loosing side at this point.

We are up on the debate and you guys have a lot of catching up to do. So you better get at it.

 

[kenofken]

You know Leela let us turn your view around why won’t we. You have not right either to impose your beliefs of the majority of people in this country either. You nor anyone else has the right to come in and fundamentally change the beliefs of the rest of the country. In this country a minority 20% of the population wants to come in and unilaterally change the fundamental instituation of society. I say you have no right to do that. If you want to call for civil unions by all means go ahead. That is a different argument altogether. But until two males or two females can have a biological child that carries both their genes, gay-marriage remains an oxymoron. Sorry but that is the facts.

You call this a civil rights issue but no body’s rights are being violated. That is the funny thing I see. In California there exist civil unions. Civil unions possess in CA all the same secular benefits as marriage but is not called marriage. Yet the liberals say that isn’t good enough. They want the right to call their partner their husband or wife. That was the whole purpose of the gay-marriage ruling in CA recently. So you tell me what is the big deal about using a title?

You talk about valid arguments for or against. Yet tell me one argument you have proposed that can be classified as valid and has the potential to convence a open-minded rational human being. For I haven’t seen one from you as of yet. You want to chide someone else that doesn’t have an argument yet you have as yet produced any argument of your own. Comeon now that is being hypocritical of you don’t you think?

I have been keeping up with this thread waiting. Waiting for someone on the left to show me why I should accept gay marriage. Yet the only argument that has been proposed is why not? So let us take a deep breath and establish some valid arguments for your side. I really want to see them, but you and the others on your side on this thread have failed missibily. This is the reason why the left have to use leftist judges to get their agenda through. Because they have no arguments. Prove me wrong Leela or anyone else. I am waiting. Given that we are in the philosophy section there should be solid arguments for. There has been plenty against proposed that your side has shown that you do not have the ability to refute. Give me some meat instead of just gravy.

Why not just call them civil unions? Three reasons. Civil unions are not recognized as universally as marriage and never will be and do not convey the same rights as marriage. Two, the same people who fight gay marriage, by and large also fight civil unions with the same bitter determination (they’ll argue its all a slippery slope, you see). Third, civil marriage in this country is not a sacrament. A judge or clerk is not a priest, nor a representative of the Catholic Church or any other sectarian religions. They don’t take their marching order from Rome. If you don’t think there ought to be any line between church and state, than we ought to give you your wish: we could have state-appointed bishops and priests like they do in China. I don’t think you or the state really want that.

Countless arguments have been put forth on this and other threads as to why gay marriage should not be outlawed. Many of them are logically very persuasive, but because neither side will acknowledge the assumptions underlying the other side’s arugment, it is sort of a waste of time to pretend than any conceivable arugment would convince you. You have determined, in advance, that any argument contradicting your own belief on this matter is invalid on its face. If God himself rolled up to your door in a white BMW and handed you a hand-writted note saying gay marriage is OK, you’d ascribe it all to some liberal trickery and dismiss it out of hand. Unless you’re willing to specify EXACTLY what standard would have to be met before you’d reconsider your position, let’s not play games and pretend that your opponents argumentation skills are the problem.

No doubt many think I’m intransigent as well, but I’ve alreay laid out the conditions that would cause me to at least rethink my position. One would be conclusive evidence or at least a strong consensus among mainstream authorities that the harms of gay marriage would outweigh good. By this I mean a research-based consensus formed among mainstream, non-religious, secular authorities in the fields of psychology, child welfare etc. Not an unreasonable standard nor an unattainable one, I think. None has been produced.

I have also stated that I would accept the Prop 8 position as being logically and morally constent if I saw a substantial movement to ban civil marriage of previously divorced people and those of reproductive age who have rendered themselves sterile - sins of equal magnitude to homosexual activity. So far, I have heard not a peep from anyone willing to undertake what their own moral codes tell them they should be doing.

 

[ERose]

The fact that you are doing things which deny the TWO puposes of the sexual organs, if you are, & feel no shame can only mean that you have hardened your conscience. The sexual organs have, as I said, two purposes. The** primary purpose of these gifts of God is procreation. The secondary **is to bring unity & oneness to a married couple who are open to having children. Whether or not they are capable of building a family, as long as they are open to the possiblity, their marriage will be one that is blessed.

Actually he is full of it for there is some shame involved since he and his wife have not let their child in on their behavior as of yet. There is shame there, he just doesn’t want to accept that shame. You know denial, the most favorite virtue of those living a life of guilt.

 

[ERose]

Why not just call them civil unions? Three reasons. Civil unions are not recognized as universally as marriage and never will be and do not convey the same rights as marriage…

Neither is gay marriage. Gay marriage is only recognized in Mass and the District of Columbia. That is it. So this argument fall through. The only way this will happen is an amendment to the Constitution or Supreme Court decision. I don’t think you are going to get either in the near future.

Two, the same people who fight gay marriage, by and large also fight civil unions with the same bitter determination (they’ll argue its all a slippery slope, you see). .

Yes I know it is a left vs right thing. But the funny thing is that civil unions are allowed in CA and a minority of gays are still pushing for marriage rights so maybe the slippery slope argument is valid after all.

Third, civil marriage in this country is not a sacrament. A judge or clerk is not a priest, nor a representative of the Catholic Church or any other sectarian religions. They don’t take their marching order from Rome. If you don’t think there ought to be any line between church and state, than we ought to give you your wish: we could have state-appointed bishops and priests like they do in China. I don’t think you or the state really want that.

No it isn’t a sacrament and if you go back and do a little bit of research on my posts it will show you that I am debating only with secular arguments. So display a little bit of knowledge on who you are countering.

Countless arguments have been put forth on this and other threads as to why gay marriage should not be outlawed. Many of them are logically very persuasive, but because neither side will acknowledge the assumptions underlying the other side’s arugment, it is sort of a waste of time to pretend than any conceivable arugment would convince you. You have determined, in advance, that any argument contradicting your own belief on this matter is invalid on its face.

How do you know that. Give me a valid argument on your side. I haven’t seen one as of yet. If I missed it, repost please. I am begging you to show me a valid argument. At least from there we can start a valid debate. But there has been many valid arguments proposed against SSM yet you or anyone else has not even tried to debate these arguments. That show me that you are actually talking about yourself.

If God himself rolled up to your door in a white BMW and handed you a hand-writted note saying gay marriage is OK, you’d ascribe it all to some liberal trickery and dismiss it out of hand. Unless you’re willing to specify EXACTLY what standard would have to be met before you’d reconsider your position, let’s not play games and pretend that your opponents argumentation skills are the problem.

Actually the good thing for me is that God is on this side of the argument. But you keep talking about games. I have challenged you and others over and over to supply an decent argument, yet you have shown that you can’t. Let me give you some advice. Go over to the social science thread and look for Black Rose and ask her for advice. In fact ask her for help. Because she is the only liberal poster I have seen so far that actually tries to support her arguments. Maybe she can help you and Leela start turning the tide on the thread. From where I sit you are behind on the debate and I would really like to see this turn into a real debate and I am just not getting it.

No doubt many think I’m intransigent as well, but I’ve alreay laid out the conditions that would cause me to at least rethink my position. One would be conclusive evidence or at least a strong consensus among mainstream authorities that the harms of gay marriage would outweigh good. By this I mean a research-based consensus formed among mainstream, non-religious, secular authorities in the fields of psychology, child welfare etc. Not an unreasonable standard nor an unattainable one, I think. None has been produced.

I have propose mainstream secular data for my arguments. Evidently you don’t read them, which I don’t blame you for because then you would have to start eating crow. I wouldn’t use psychology though it is way too subjective. I would keep it with statistical data supplied by sociologist. Sociologist at least attempt to use the scientific method. Psychologist on the other hand don’t and should not be trusted. Go back to my posts that are around 142-144 or something like that and go to the links. You will find more than your fair share of data to support my claims. It is a whole lot more than you have supplied.

I have also stated that I would accept the Prop 8 position as being logically and morally constent if I saw a substantial movement to ban civil marriage of previously divorced people and those of reproductive age who have rendered themselves sterile - sins of equal magnitude to homosexual activity. So far, I have heard not a peep from anyone willing to undertake what their own moral codes tell them they should be doing.

I am not for any one of these and neither is the Catholic church. The Catholic church does not allow marriages between divorced people and sterilizing yourself for no other reason than to make yourself infertile is a mortal sin in its eyes as well. As you have stated above. The Catholic church is not the state and as such it can only recommend and advise. But the Catholic church is on the front of the debate concerning contraception, sterility, abortion, divorce, etc. So you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[kenofken]

Neither is gay marriage. Gay marriage is only recognized in Mass and the District of Columbia. That is it. So this argument fall through. The only way this will happen is an amendment to the Constitution or Supreme Court decision. I don’t think you are going to get either in the near future.

Yes I know it is a left vs right thing. But the funny thing is that civil unions are allowed in CA and a minority of gays are still pushing for marriage rights so maybe the slippery slope argument is valid after all.

No it isn’t a sacrament and if you go back and do a little bit of research on my posts it will show you that I am debating only with secular arguments. So display a little bit of knowledge on who you are countering.

How do you know that. Give me a valid argument on your side. I haven’t seen one as of yet. If I missed it, repost please. I am begging you to show me a valid argument. At least from there we can start a valid debate. But there has been many valid arguments proposed against SSM yet you or anyone else has not even tried to debate these arguments. That show me that you are actually talking about yourself.

Actually the good thing for me is that God is on this side of the argument. But you keep talking about games. I have challenged you and others over and over to supply an decent argument, yet you have shown that you can’t. Let me give you some advice. Go over to the social science thread and look for Black Rose and ask her for advice. In fact ask her for help. Because she is the only liberal poster I have seen so far that actually tries to support her arguments. Maybe she can help you and Leela start turning the tide on the thread. From where I sit you are behind on the debate and I would really like to see this turn into a real debate and I am just not getting it.

I have propose mainstream secular data for my arguments. Evidently you don’t read them, which I don’t blame you for because then you would have to start eating crow. I wouldn’t use psychology though it is way too subjective. I would keep it with statistical data supplied by sociologist. Sociologist at least attempt to use the scientific method. Psychologist on the other hand don’t and should not be trusted. Go back to my posts that are around 142-144 or something like that and go to the links. You will find more than your fair share of data to support my claims. It is a whole lot more than you have supplied.

I am not for any one of these and neither is the Catholic church. The Catholic church does not allow marriages between divorced people and sterilizing yourself for no other reason than to make yourself infertile is a mortal sin in its eyes as well. As you have stated above. The Catholic church is not the state and as such it can only recommend and advise. But the Catholic church is on the front of the debate concerning contraception, sterility, abortion, divorce, etc. So you are barking up the wrong tree.

To your last point, how is it that the church has the power to funnel millions of dollars and tirelessly push for a ban on gay marriage, but when it comes to the substantially equal sin of adultery, it can only meekly “advise and consent” ? Is there some magical barrier or force field that prevents them from demanding protection in civil law for the sanctity of marriage when it is being violated by straight people? If there is not, than it is simple political expedience or a moral double standard, and a glaring surrender to the relativism and utilitarianism that the Church so loves to despise…