Gay marriage : who cares?

[Seeker2010]

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.

That’s bunk. Our sex life is none of his business. We also don’t have sex when he’s awake (at least not in our room) on the off chance he might hear us, whether we’re alone or with friends.

We are not hypocrites, we have not led him to believe that monogamy is the only way, neither have we influenced him to live like us. He knows we’re not ‘normal’ because ‘normal’ people don’t go out partying every weekend in their late 30’s. Whether or not he’s figured out what happens at these parties I don’t know.

As I have previously said, were he to ask we will not lie. I haven’t decided to tell the truth, or simply explain it’s none of his business, and I probably won’t decide until the moment he asks. Not that there’s much likelihood he’d ask me, even were he to desire an answer he’d go to his mom.

And just for the record, he’s my wifes son, not mine, which makes details about my sex life doubly not his business.

Will he eventually know? Almost certainly, as we’re pretty out there, and make virtually no effort to hide it except from a select few individuals who would be very upset and judgmental about it.

 

[Seeker2010]

Except you forget that marriage isn’t a right.

Whoops. The Supreme Court ruled explicitly that it is.

To wit: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Direct quote from the decision. You can read all about it here if you’re so inclined: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

It has already been detailed that the homosexual lifestyle is intrinsically detrimental.

Really? By whom? I’ll concede that male-male sex (specifically, unprotected anal sex) is the riskiest form of sex humans can partake in, but it is just as risky as male on female unprotected anal sex, and the simple fact is that female-female sex is the LEAST risky form of sex humans can partake it. If you’re making judgments based purely on relative level of risk, homosexuality is not at the top of the list.

 

[ERose]

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…

How do you want them to do it? They can’t take it to court because a judge would through it out because of the personal damage clause or whatever it is called. So what do they do. They fight were they can. If there is a vote being case as in the case of prop8 or whatever they can fight for that. Concerning adultery they fight it where they can in the pulpit. In supporting the victims of adultery. By pushing for teaching in schools abstainance programs that place sex into it proper roll. And to be honest I think it is working. The statistics are starting to tilt our way on this. Fewer and fewer people are cheating on their spouses. Current rates are about 25% for men and 17% for women which is much better than the 70% that was being thrown around 15-20 years ago. Divorce rates have been dropping the last 20 years from about 23000 to 19000.

So you have no case here. None. So you need to find something else to try and slander our church.

 

[ERose]

That’s bunk. Our sex life is none of his business. We also don’t have sex when he’s awake (at least not in our room) on the off chance he might hear us, whether we’re alone or with friends.

We are not hypocrites, we have not led him to believe that monogamy is the only way, neither have we influenced him to live like us. He knows we’re not ‘normal’ because ‘normal’ people don’t go out partying every weekend in their late 30’s. Whether or not he’s figured out what happens at these parties I don’t know.

As I have previously said, were he to ask we will not lie. I haven’t decided to tell the truth, or simply explain it’s none of his business, and I probably won’t decide until the moment he asks. Not that there’s much likelihood he’d ask me, even were he to desire an answer he’d go to his mom.

And just for the record, he’s my wifes son, not mine, which makes details about my sex life doubly not his business.

Will he eventually know? Almost certainly, as we’re pretty out there, and make virtually no effort to hide it except from a select few individuals who would be very upset and judgmental about it.

So if the life you are leading is so great and so edifying to you and your wife then why leave him out of it? Heck if you have the great key to pure happiness then why hide it from him. You are lying to yourself somewhere in this pretty picture you are proposing. I don’t know you well enough to determine where but if I were you, find out where the lie is and deal with it.

 

[StTommyMore]

Whoops. The Supreme Court ruled explicitly that it is.

To wit: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Direct quote from the decision. You can read all about it here if you’re so inclined: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Really? By whom? I’ll concede that male-male sex (specifically, unprotected anal sex) is the riskiest form of sex humans can partake in, but it is just as risky as male on female unprotected anal sex, and the simple fact is that female-female sex is the LEAST risky form of sex humans can partake it. If you’re making judgments based purely on relative level of risk, homosexuality is not at the top of the list.

Nice try. That decision was SPECIFICALLY in relation to mixed race marriages. It does not allow for the complete redefinition of marriage. Be interpreting s broadly as you erroneously do, this will pave the way for incestuous unions as well as removing age restrictions. Try again.

 

[Seeker2010]

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.

Well, I’m sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but that horse has left the barn. Within a generation or two from today, being gay will be seen as no more abnormal than being left handed. It’s just a matter of time. When my grandfather was my age, homosexuals kept in the closet or faced discrimination. When my father was my age, they were more out, but the idea of gay marriage was so ridiculous that it wasn’t even up for discussion. Today, it’s controversial. By the time someone born today is my age, they won’t even realize it was once that, it will be normal.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, from what I know about ‘fisting’, which I’ll concede isn’t much, it’s more of a heterosexual practice. A vagina can handle an entire fist (which you’ll note is smaller than a baby), though I can’t see it being pleasant. I’m not even sure it would be physically possible to insert an entire fist into a rectum. But, if that’s what someone’s into, who am I to object.

A good analogy, illustrating this reality is the experience of hunger. While the desire for food is natural and the consumption of food is inherently good since it prevents starvation, an obsession with food and habitually eating whatever one wants whenever the desire is aroused demonstrates what Augustine would call a disordered desire.

ANYTHING done obsessively can be a problem. Eating, sex, heck even work. Moderation in all things.

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.

No, it means I questioned the status quo, and determined there was no actual reason for the restrictions we’re taught about right and wrong when it comes to sex. So long as everyone involved is a consenting adult human, go for it.

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.

My marriage is quite blessed, despite the fact that we’ve gone out of our way to ensure we do not create any additional children. YMMV.

Our government is EXPECTED to “discriminate” against evil. Therefore it discriminates against murder, theft, violence, etc. It also discriminates against polygamy, incest, etc., etc.

Homosexual acts cannot reasonably be categorized as ‘evil’. Evil requires that someone be harmed. The rest of your examples, with the exception of polygamy, cause harm to someone. While I am not actively campaigning to legalize polyamory (which is different from polygamy), neither do I oppose it, for the same reason I don’t oppose gay marriage. Nobody gets hurt, ergo there’s no compelling reason to ban it.

 

[ERose]

Whoops. The Supreme Court ruled explicitly that it is.

To wit: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Direct quote from the decision. You can read all about it here if you’re so inclined: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Really? By whom? I’ll concede that male-male sex (specifically, unprotected anal sex) is the riskiest form of sex humans can partake in, but it is just as risky as male on female unprotected anal sex, and the simple fact is that female-female sex is the LEAST risky form of sex humans can partake it. If you’re making judgments based purely on relative level of risk, homosexuality is not at the top of the list.

Thank you Seeker. You have given me hope for your side that there is someone that can argue from data and reason instead of the heart. I haven’t fully researched the whole case which I will have to now to debate this. But this is what i have been looking for. Now we have a debate!!!

 

[Seeker2010]

Heck if you have the great key to pure happiness then why hide it from him.

Because it’s not the right way for everyone, he must find his own. When he is an ADULT, were he to ask our opinion he’d get it. As a child, what we do and with whom is simply none of his business.

 

[Seeker2010]

That decision was SPECIFICALLY in relation to mixed race marriages.

You are, of course, correct in this statement. That is, however, irrelevant. For your original contention was that marriage itself was not considered a right, and I have shown you where the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of what is and is not a right in this country has previously declared that, in fact, it is.

 

[Seeker2010]

But no one’s rights are being infringed as I see it.

But they are. If Bill and Ted want to get married, society owes them a good explanation of why they’re prohibited from doing so. If their marriage causes no harm, I see no explanation possible that rises to the level of ‘good’.

 

[Windfish]

Homosexual acts cannot reasonably be categorized as ‘evil’. Evil requires that someone be harmed. The rest of your examples, with the exception of polygamy, cause harm to someone. While I am not actively campaigning to legalize polyamory (which is different from polygamy), neither do I oppose it, for the same reason I don’t oppose gay marriage. Nobody gets hurt, ergo there’s no compelling reason to ban it.

So, basically, “if nobody gets hurt” is the measure of your morality. Hmm. It troubles me that you do not see the ocean-sized holes in this.

 

[Windfish]

Btw, I read earlier in this thread that studies have “located” a “gay gene.” Can anyone confirm/deny? You’d think it would be on the news.

 

[CradleCath]

I would say Lawrence v. Texas establishes the ‘civil right’ of committing adultery, insofar as SCOTUS ruled that private sexual behavior of any kind is none of the states business. That doesn’t mean I like or endorse adultery, but you nonetheless have the right to do so without fear of arrest or imprisonment.

Lawrence v. Texas also decriminalized gay sex. I somehow don’t believe that either that or adultery nor sodomy help keep society healthy. You do realize that sometimes we have to govern ourselves, right?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

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.

I see you can’t find the passage that defends adultery as a civil right. I’m not surprised.

Does it harm you if Bill and Ted down the street get hitched? No.

Yes. It sullies the nobility of an institution created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals. You cannot make a family, which defies the fundamental purpose for marriage.

Does it harm them? No.

Yes. They are defying nature. It’s not nice to fool mother nature. :tsktsk:

Does it harm society? While you may disagree with me on this, I say no.

I say yes. A sacred social institution that is dedicated to creating families should not be mocked by gay marriage. It would be as if you allowed government to be run by lunatics. The institution was not created for lunatics. Since there are lunatics in the government today, we can see what a mockery they make of government. Instead of building a society, they are tearing it apart every chance they get, lunatic judges on the Left in the vanguard.

 

[edwest2]

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.

“sins of equal magnitude”? I hope that’s not a legal argument.

If this is simply “This is what we want.” Just be honest and say so. The only argument that works is that what is being proposed is an arbitrary change to a foundational institution.

“moral codes”? The Catholic Church, like Jesus Christ, does not force itself on people. One thing you seem to not know is that God will not force anyone to love Him. Just like you can’t force another human being to love you. No priest will be pounding on your door Monday for missing Mass on Sunday. A priest is not a policeman.

And what about those here who are telling us, Catholics, what we should be doing?

Arguments are not like math equations where you plug in certain numbers to get a certain result. Those who post here who do not regard Church as having any authority over them have little to gain posting here, except an understanding of Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

I see you can’t find the passage that defends adultery as a civil right. I’m not surprised.

Well, I haven’t read the decision, but I doubt it was directly addressed. However, the court found that consensual, adult, private sexual behavior IS a fundamental civil right. Adultery, for the ones actually having sex, is consensual, presumably adult, and let’s assume for the sake of discussion is private sexual behavior. The betrayed spouse did not consent, of course, but the betrayed spouse has no legal standing, except insofar as their marriage contract allows for damages.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am no fan of adultery, but it does seem it should be a right, and in fact it’s reasonable to conclude that the court agrees. Yes you could argue, I suppose, that adultery wasn’t on point in Lawrence, and you’d be right of course, but were someone to be arrested for adultery, I’m pretty sure they’d get it kicked arguing the Lawrence precedent.

It also depends on how you’re defining ‘fundamental civil right’, the way I’m using it is to mean anything which government is prohibited from prohibiting is a civil right. Not all rights result in good things. The Klan has the fundamental civil right to spew their hatred. That doesn’t mean their hatred is good.

 

[Seeker2010]

Yes. It sullies the nobility of an institution created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals. You cannot make a family, which defies the fundamental purpose for marriage.

Codswallop.

Such a noble institution, half of them end in divorce. And a childless married couple is a family, despite the lack of children.

Yes. They are defying nature. It’s not nice to fool mother nature. :tsktsk:

That’s not a point, it’s a slogan. And even if I concede your assertion, and I most certainly do not, the fact is Bill and Ted are gonna do what Bill and Ted are gonna do regardless of if they’re married or not, so it is not a valid argument for preventing them from doing so.

A sacred social institution that is dedicated to creating families should not be mocked by gay marriage.

Substitute the word ‘infertile’ for ‘gay’ in your response. You see how silly you sound?

It would be as if you allowed government to be run by lunatics.

Have you looked around recently? We’re there, dude. (Or dudette, as the case may be.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

If this is simply “This is what we want.” Just be honest and say so.

That has always been what it’s about. The equation of wants with “rights.” It’s not about anything else, because as we’ve seen in many quarters, the granting of the privileges of marriage without the title, “marriage,” is insufficient for them.

This about forcing their sexual code on the rest of society. It’s also about the artificial creation of a “protected class” so that they can claim special status, requiring representation in government, educational institutions, and even religions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kenofken
*
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… *

The Church does not approve adultery. However, it is in the class of a broken contract rather than a crime against nature. The Church has had to fight many battles. The Church has already lost the battle against lax divorce laws. The battle against insane laws protecting gay marriage and sodomy as a civil right is still ongoing. You choose your battles where and when you can. Today’s battle is the subject of this forum, not adultery. But I can see why you want to change the subject when you are losing the debate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Elizabeth

*This about forcing their sexual code on the rest of society. It’s also about the artificial creation of a “protected class” so that they can claim special status, requiring representation in government, educational institutions, and even religions. *

Not to mention adoption rights. Married gay men can adopt a little boy. Married gay women can adopt a little girl. I wonder what for.