Gay marriage : who cares?

[Seeker2010]

We are awash in moral perversions and you want to celebrate them as civil rights?

While I see having a healthier relationship with our collective and individual sexuality as a good thing, the fact is that the Court that is empowered to adjudicate such matters has declared them as civil rights. In the USA in 2010, pretty much any ‘moral perversion’ you can rattle off the top of your head is protected conduct, provided it involves consenting adults behind closed doors.

Then why isn’t polygamy and incest also a civil right?

Polyamory (defined as romantic relationships involving 3 or more people of any gender mix) is absolutely a civil right, and is practiced by millions of people. There is no governmental ‘marriage’ available for such unions, but I suspect that will change eventually. I don’t know that Incest, defined as sexual relations between close relatives is per se a crime, either.

And why isn’t pedophilia a civil right?

Children lack the ability to give meaningful consent, therefore pedophilia is by definition non-consensual. CONSENSUAL sexual activities have been found to be civil rights, NON-consensual are almost always a crime.

 

[Seeker2010]

Freedom without limits is not freedom.

No, it’s not, freedom without limits is anarchy, and sadly that won’t work.

But limits must be reasonable, and telling grown adults what they can and cannot do with their own genitals, as a matter of law, when in private settings and with other consenting adults is not a reasonable limit.

 

[Seeker2010]

Considering the desire of some to return to Roman Orgies circa 2010

It would probably blow your mind were you to know how many orgies occur in this country every day of the week.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In Canada, SSM have been legalized, yet the gay activists in Canada issued a human rights complaint against their government because they are claiming that due to their lifestyle they have a greater need for healthcare than the average person. And these needs are not being met.

There was recently (maybe about 4-6 months ago?) a piece on NPR with the same line of reasoning. It was citing the high HIV/AIDS rate among those who practice unsanitary intravenous drug use, and among those who practice unprotected anal homosexual sex. But of course the guest and host neglected to mention these key aspects as risk factors for AIDS, and chose instead to spin it artificially as a political issue. It was the same conclusion as above: these groups (who also happen to be largely black in one case and 100% practicing homosexual in the other) were categorized as 'being discriminated against" because they weren’t getting more of the public health care dollar than other “groups.”

Let’s see: alcoholics, chain smokers, people who don’t exercise – they don’t get more of the health care dollar vs. those who practice healthy habits. Hmmm. Must be “discrimination.”

 

[edwest2]

No, it’s not, freedom without limits is anarchy, and sadly that won’t work.

But limits must be reasonable, and telling grown adults what they can and cannot do with their own genitals, as a matter of law, when in private settings and with other consenting adults is not a reasonable limit.

Then keep your private lifestyle choice out of the voting booth. First, it was leave us alone, respect our privacy. Fine. Now it’s: “If you don’t give us what we want we’ll accuse you of hate.” Did every single person who voted against same sex marriage do it out of hate? Please.

I view this as an attempt by anarchists to forcibly impose their lifestyle choice on others.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

Then keep your private lifestyle choice out of the voting booth.

I would say the same to you, sir. Live your life as you see fit, and please allow others the same courtesy.

I have never seen you personally say so, but you Church and other religious organizations have advocated discrimination against homosexuals, the criminalization of certain sexual practices, advocated censorship, protested the existence of strip bars and swing clubs, going so far as to document and publicize the identity of people patronizing them, and in some cases, have been successful in shutting them down.

In other words, they’re attempting to hoist their lifestyle choices upon other people without their consent.

Anarchists? Gimme a break.

BTW, you never did respond to my chart that clearly showed an inverse association between social depravity and STD infection rates. What say you about that?

 

[edwest2]

It would probably blow your mind were you to know how many orgies occur in this country every day of the week.

Interesting assumption. I work in the media. I’m aware of the sick, twisted agenda and I know where it comes from. 40 years of dripping poison into the veins of Christians. 40 years of yelling. Shut up! Mind your own business!

I watched as porn and strip clubs were established in our neighborhoods. I knew about the protests. And the owners of such business yelling: First Amendment! Censorship! We’ve got lawyers to fight people like you!

Blow my mind? You’ve got to be kidding. All those Swinger magazines in the 1970s? National Lampoon with cartoons by Robert Crumb? Here’s the text from one: “Be animalistic. Go all the way!”

Oh yeah. Just because I promote Church teaching, it doesn’t mean I live in a cave.

I realized in the 1970s where all this was going. The Sexual Revolution was about sex, not love. Sex, sex and more sex. The goal: We’re going to make this country safe for sexual perverts like ourselves, and the “mission” is still ongoing. First, gay marriage, and then, in Canada, polyamory. Yeah, I’ve been watching the ongoing attempts to turn Western society into the image and likeness of a small group of social anarchists. Now that this group perceives it has access to a few key people in power, it’s now time to push as much of the agenda through as possible.

And the internet, the latest battlefield for the agenda. I know.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I would say the same to you, sir. Live your life as you see fit, and please allow others the same courtesy.

I have never seen you personally say so, but you Church and other religious organizations have advocated discrimination against homosexuals, the criminalization of certain sexual practices, advocated censorship, protested the existence of strip bars and swing clubs, going so far as to document and publicize the identity of people patronizing them, and in some cases, have been successful in shutting them down.

In other words, they’re attempting to hoist their lifestyle choices upon other people without their consent.

Anarchists? Gimme a break.

BTW, you never did respond to my chart that clearly showed an inverse association between social depravity and STD infection rates. What say you about that?

Well, the point of all this is simply a clash of orthodoxies. You have your own belief system and we have ours. If this was simply about what people do in the privacy of wherever they live then fine. You can do what you want. No one will be looking through the windows. But the moment this appears on the ballot, what are you saying?

Is degrading women, and men, normal? In the late 1970s, I heard the shrill voice of the National Organization for Women demanding that male chauvenist pigs quit treating women like sex objects. A worthy goal. What happened? Now some women are allowed to be treated like sex objects?

You mention “social depravity”? Your words. Yeah, some sex acts are depraved. Like the time I opened up a woman’s magazine and saw these words in the Classifieds section: “Bi-curious?”

Certain adult businesses cannot exist within a certain distance from a school. Is that reasonable or not?

Yes, there are treatments for STDs. So what? A friend of mine got gential herpes from someone who didn’t bother to tell him she was infected. Pretty cool, huh? And that’s how you get STDs, from engaging in acts, often with strangers, in socially depraved environments.

Stability is required in a functional society. The more society, and the media, goes in a dysfunctional direction, the more dysfunctional things become in general. Yeah, I know, the goal was to have all the sex you wanted, in whatever form you wanted, and the doctors would just give you whatever cure they had on the shelf. I was reading the LGBT press in the 1990s encouraging gays in particular to avoid anonymous, multiple sexual encounters, hoping for that “cure” so that the bathhouse scene could go back to the way it was in pre-AIDS days. So, as soon as a treatment showed up, the same LGBT press lamented that too many gays now thought everything was OK and too many people were going back to “risky” behaviors.

Self control is a virtue.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

Then keep your private lifestyle choice out of the voting booth. First, it was leave us alone, respect our privacy. Fine. Now it’s: “If you don’t give us what we want we’ll accuse you of hate.” Did every single person who voted against same sex marriage do it out of hate? Please.

Did every single person with a lifestyle choice different than yours say “If you don’t give us what we want we’ll accuse you of hate”? Please.

Don’t you see how simplistic your views are? No reasonable person would believe that “every single person who voted against same sex marriage [did] it out of hate.” Yet you turn around and constantly accuse those whose beliefs differ from yours as all making the same statements.

It works both ways. Not every person voted out of hate; not every person said “we’ll accuse you of hate.”

I view this as an attempt by anarchists to forcibly impose their lifestyle choice on others.

You equate people who want to overthrow the government with those who want to force you to become involved in their lifestyle? You can’t be serious. You can’t. You must mean they want you to accept their right to their lifestyle. But by overthrowing the government? That’s what anarchists do, you know. That’s why they are so dangerous. But how dangerous are two women who love each other and want to be married for the same reasons I wanted to be married to my husband - because I loved him and wanted the world to know, because I wanted the rights given to married couples, because I wanted to say “I love you and will always love you” in the sight of God and many witnesses?

I believe that homosexual activity is wrong. But I’m not going to judge people as that is not my place. Calling these human beings “anarchists” smacks of inappropriate judgment; not of actions but of actual, living human beings with souls precious to God. That is not our call. That is not our right.

What I see coming from you is fear (or perhaps anger but the major part of anger is fear) and hate. What’s the word for that? Oh yeah, “homophobia.” Maybe homosexuals would be more inclined to listen to you if you didn’t call them names such as “anarchists” but instead loved them as you are supposed to love them, as Christians and Catholics. When I see a person who has as much hate and fear as I suspect you do, I see that person has built up walls around himself. His posture and stance, his arm placement, his body language tells those he hates and fears to stay away.

We should be welcoming homosexuals, not forbidding their entry into our lives. And I can guarantee you one thing - there will always be homosexuals. And what we do to them we do to Jesus.

 

[Seeker2010]

Well, the point of all this is simply a clash of orthodoxies. You have your own belief system and we have ours. If this was simply about what people do in the privacy of wherever they live then fine.

Except it’s not. Or did you not read the part about people, who claim to represent your God, protesting and shutting down venues? And the fact that gay marriage isn’t a slam dunk is more or less the result of you belief system being shoved down the throat of everyone else.

But the moment this appears on the ballot, what are you saying?

What does that even mean?

Is degrading women, and men, normal?

Your question assumes sex is inherently degrading. It’s not.

You mention “social depravity”? Your words. Yeah, some sex acts are depraved. Like the time I opened up a woman’s magazine and saw these words in the Classifieds section: “Bi-curious?”

I should have used quotes around those words, for while I don’t mean them sincerely (insofar as I don’t believe that’s true), I was trying to use language you could relate with, as I am quite sure that you do. That said, I know many, many bisexual women, including my very own beautiful bride, and have yet to meet one who I would describe as depraved.

Certain adult businesses cannot exist within a certain distance from a school. Is that reasonable or not?

I would say no, that is not reasonable. Standards of decorum apply, of course, and it’s reasonable to limit what can and cannot be seen from the street, but if a sexually oriented business is next door to a school, but unless you know what goes on inside you wouldn’t know it, I cannot fathom how that could be a problem.

Yes, there are treatments for STDs. So what?

So what? A disease to which there exists an easy cure is nothing more than an annoyance, that’s so what. And my point was that as our society has become more and more ‘depraved’ (a word I think you would use to describe it), the relative amount of people becoming infected with STD’s has been declining. Rather than the ‘STD’s are rampant’ that you and others preach, it turns out the opposite is pretty much true.

A friend of mine got gential herpes from someone who didn’t bother to tell him she was infected. Pretty cool, huh?

Genital herpes is a pain, but medically speaking it’s a nothingburger. And it’s entirely possible that your friends friend did not know she was infected herself, as the overwhelming majority of people who are infected don’t know it, and have never exhibited symptoms. As far as I know I do not have it, and since I have HSV-1 (aka oral herpes, aka cold sores) I have a lower risk of catching genital herpes as it offers some measure of protection.

That said, unless you have had one and only one sex partner in your entire life, and that person also had one and only one, you cannot say with any certainty that you have it or not, for most who get it are completely asymptomatic.

The only people who can say for certain whether or not they have HSV-2 are those who have had breakouts. Even medical tests can give both false positives, as well as false negatives.

Did your friend use a condom during this encounter? Perhaps he should have.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

I have never seen you personally say so, but you Church and other religious organizations have advocated discrimination against homosexuals, the criminalization of certain sexual practices, advocated censorship, protested the existence of strip bars and swing clubs, going so far as to document and publicize the identity of people patronizing them, and in some cases, have been successful in shutting them down.

Well now, you’ve turned into quite a champion of smut and sleaze, haven’t you? The purveyors of same have a civil right to purvey, but the Christians don’t have a civil right to keep them out of their communities?

How convenient. How constitutional. How utterly pathetic our courts have become.

In the early 20th century there was a Supreme Court decision in favor of communities outlawing pornography on the grounds that pornography (depicting actions, not thoughts) was not covered by the 1st Amendment.

Later the Court reversed itself. Another nail in the coffin of public decency. But we should not have been surprised. The same Court authorized the killing of millions of babies.

The same Court will authorize gay marriage, thereby allowing two gay men to adopt a heterosexual child. For what purpose, you ask?

That said, unless you have had one and only one sex partner in your entire life, and that person also had one and only one, you cannot say with any certainty that you have it or not, for most who get it are completely asymptomatic.

You have just made the case for faithful monogamy … unless you really don’t mind getting sexually transmitted diseases.

By the way, when are you going to start defending gay marriage? Have you given up defending it?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well, the point of all this is simply a clash of orthodoxies. You have your own belief system and we have ours. If this was simply about what people do in the privacy of wherever they live then fine. You can do what you want. No one will be looking through the windows. But the moment this appears on the ballot, what are you saying?

Is degrading women, and men, normal? In the late 1970s, I heard the shrill voice of the National Organization for Women demanding that male chauvenist pigs quit treating women like sex objects. A worthy goal. What happened? Now some women are allowed to be treated like sex objects?

Shrill voice? This paragraph makes no sense at all. Either you are against “immoral” sexual activities such as sex toys, sodomy, etc. or you’re not. Who is “we”? Is this the royal “we”? Are you referring to Catholics? To Christians?

You mention “social depravity”? Your words. Yeah, some sex acts are depraved. Like the time I opened up a woman’s magazine and saw these words in the Classifieds section: “Bi-curious?”

It sounds like you did a lot more than “open up a women’s magazine.” You had to look in the Classified section. I would find it very hard to believe that the magazine just happened to open up in the Classified section. I’ve suspected this for awhile. You’re looking for this stuff, aren’t you? You looked in the Classified section on purpose. You went to the beach to see the women immodestly dressed on purpose, didn’t you? All your info on adult bookstores, adult theatres, etc. show that you went looking for this. Why are you looking for it?

It shows that you have a somewhat morbid interest in it, IMHO. If you don’t want to see what is in those magazines, just don’t look in those magazines. If you don’t want to see strippers, then just don’t see them. If you don’t want to read about the LGBTs, why were you reading the LGBT press in the 90’s?

Certain adult businesses cannot exist within a certain distance from a school. Is that reasonable or not?

Of course it’s reasonable. These businesses are not for children; they are for adults only. I wish they would all disappear but they aren’t going to (although we have none where I live and people under the age of 21 cannot enter a liquor store at all). But just because certain businesses must be a certain distance from a school does not necessarily mean the businesses are immoral, even if you and I agree they are.

Yes, there are treatments for STDs. So what? A friend of mine got gential herpes from someone who didn’t bother to tell him she was infected. Pretty cool, huh? And that’s how you get STDs, from engaging in acts, often with strangers, in socially depraved environments.

I wonder what Seeker’s grandmother did to him to give him herpes? I wonder what my Dad did to get herpes. I wonder what my cat did to get herpes. Oh wait, I know how my cat got herpes. She was born to a herpes-inflicted cat. Oh, bad, immoral cat!! You deserved to have your teeth rot and your sinuses literally become packed with mucopurulent material. Bad, bad cat!!

Stability is required in a functional society. The more society, and the media, goes in a dysfunctional direction, the more dysfunctional things become in general. Yeah, I know, the goal was to have all the sex you wanted, in whatever form you wanted, and the doctors would just give you whatever cure they had on the shelf. I was reading the LGBT press in the 1990s encouraging gays in particular to avoid anonymous, multiple sexual encounters, hoping for that “cure” so that the bathhouse scene could go back to the way it was in pre-AIDS days. So, as soon as a treatment showed up, the same LGBT press lamented that too many gays now thought everything was OK and too many people were going back to “risky” behaviors.

The problem here is who defines what is dysfunctional. It seems that you have taken that role upon yourself. And the “goal” you defined was certainly not the same for every person.
Being sick is not a sin, even if the disease is caused by immoral behavior. And anyone who is sick deserves to have his illness treated. I’m sure you’re aware that not every person who was infected with HIV was gay. My son may have received tainted blood in the early 80’s, as an infant. That certainly was not his fault, nor was it the fault of people who developed nosocomial infections because of lack of HIV screening.

Self control is a virtue.

So are love and forgiveness.

Every person in the U.S., beginning at a certain age, has the right to vote. And it makes no difference whether a person is gay, lesbian, transsexual, or bisexual. Voting is the best way to make one’s voice heard. Also, joining organizations which have an agenda one agrees with is another way to get the info out to the general public. For instance, I belong to a group which builds houses for the needy (Habitat for Humanity).

But using anger and hate ain’t gonna work.

But showing hatred or anger or looking down on people who do not share one’s views is not the way to go. Few people will accept a message given in hate.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Seeker

I have never seen you personally say so, but you Church and other religious organizations have advocated discrimination against homosexuals, the criminalization of certain sexual practices, advocated censorship, protested the existence of strip bars and swing clubs, going so far as to document and publicize the identity of people patronizing them, and in some cases, have been successful in shutting them down.

Well now, you’ve turned into quite a champion of smut and sleaze, haven’t you? The purveyors of same have a civil right to purvey, but the Christians don’t have a civil right to keep them out of their communities?

How convenient. How constitutional. How utterly pathetic our courts have become.

In the early 20th century there was a Supreme Court decision in favor of communities outlawing pornography on the grounds that pornography (depicting actions, not thoughts) was not covered by the 1st Amendment.

Later the Court reversed itself. Another nail in the coffin of public decency. But we should not have been surprised. The same Court authorized the killing of millions of babies.

The same Court will authorize gay marriage, thereby allowing two gay men to adopt a heterosexual child. For what purpose, you ask?

That said, unless you have had one and only one sex partner in your entire life, and that person also had one and only one, you cannot say with any certainty that you have it or not, for most who get it are completely asymptomatic.

You have just made the case for faithful monogamy … unless you really don’t mind getting sexually transmitted diseases.

By the way, when are you going to start defending gay marriage? Have you given up defending it?

Gay men and lesbians are already adopting heterosexual (or what appear to be heterosexual) children. I know a couple who have had a long-term relationship and own a house together. In fact, they were allowed to adopt their boy because they were lesbians. Obviously it was a private adoption. I don’t know all the particulars and I can’t say I approve but the child appears to be healthy physically, mentally, and emotionally. I haven’t seen one sign of maladjustment in the child. They adopted him when he was a baby and he is now about five.

 

[Seeker2010]

Well now, you’ve turned into quite a champion of smut and sleaze, haven’t you?

I’m a champion of freedom and liberty, which naturally includes smut and slease. My copy of the Constitution does not have an exception listed for porn under the freedom of press, perhaps I have a faulty copy?

The purveyors of same have a civil right to purvey, but the Christians don’t have a civil right to keep them out of their communities?

That’s just it. They’re NOT YOUR COMMUNITIES!!! You share communities with the rest of us, and the rest of us have the God given, constitutionally protected right to smut and sleaze. Don’t want it in your house, fine, your house, your rules. But keep your nose out of mine.

Later the Court reversed itself. Another nail in the coffin of public decency.

As they should have, as the previous Court got it wrong. As I previously pointed out, there is not a porn exception in the Constitution. It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law except for smut and sleaze.” It says “Congress shall make no law”, a restriction later extended to states and localities by the 14th Amendment.

You have just made the case for faithful monogamy … unless you really don’t mind getting sexually transmitted diseases.

The only STD that I spend any time whatsoever worrying about is AIDS, and since I’m not in the habit of having unprotected anal sex with high risk individuals, I don’t really spend any time on that either. Except for herpes, the rest are curable, and while I’d rather not get herpes, neither does it scare me that much. Just as I’d rather not get a cold, but when I do I don’t rush off to the emergency room for life saving treatment.

By the way, when are you going to start defending gay marriage? Have you given up defending it?

I’ll defend it until it’s the law of the land in all 50 states. If SCOTUS upholds the Prop-8 decision, it’s game over for your side. Regardless, within the next 10-20 years it will be.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the Vatican’s position on this issue:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Finally, God does not force anyone to Love Him, just as we cannot force anyone to love us. A priest will not be pounding on your door Monday if you miss Mass on Sunday. As Pope John Paul II stated, forcing anyone to believe is forbidden.

Choose Jesus,
Ed

 

[ERose]

There was recently (maybe about 4-6 months ago?) a piece on NPR with the same line of reasoning. It was citing the high HIV/AIDS rate among those who practice unsanitary intravenous drug use, and among those who practice unprotected anal homosexual sex. But of course the guest and host neglected to mention these key aspects as risk factors for AIDS, and chose instead to spin it artificially as a political issue. It was the same conclusion as above: these groups (who also happen to be largely black in one case and 100% practicing homosexual in the other) were categorized as 'being discriminated against" because they weren’t getting more of the public health care dollar than other “groups.”

Let’s see: alcoholics, chain smokers, people who don’t exercise – they don’t get more of the health care dollar vs. those who practice healthy habits. Hmmm. Must be “discrimination.”

Hey Seeker you are slipping. You didn’t respond to my post. Rather you guessed about the thread and went your own way. Go back reread the thread and read the link then come back and respond. You most probably would discover that the gay rights group admits that there is high drug use among gays in Canada which also adds to the AIDs count up there. It really is good reading and I recommend it to you.

 

[Seeker2010]

I wonder what Seeker’s grandmother did to him to give him herpes?

Just for the record, she kissed me, in an appropriate, very normal grandmothery way. I’ve gotten cold sores my entire life as far back as I can remember, and for some reason my mother thought I got it from my grandmother.

What her reason was, and whether or not she is correct, I’ll probably never know.

 

[ERose]

Then that is a good reason for homosexuals to want to be married - to protect their rights. Of course this is assuming that marriage is accepted in all 50 states as simply marriage and not marriage between one man and one woman.

You haven’t been following this thread have you. There is no rights being violated because two men or two women coming together does not meet the fundamental definition of marriage, which is bearing and raising children. Until two men or two women gain the ability to procreate a child together that possesses both sets of genes, gay marriage is an oxymoron.

 

[Seeker2010]

Hey Seeker you are slipping. You didn’t respond to my post.

I didn’t respond because I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this point. To the extent that modifiable behaviors can lower risk factors they should be, and I would preach to the homosexual community and drug users to always use condoms and clean needles. In the lifestyle, condom use is nearly ubiquitous, which may explain why people who, on paper anyway, should be at a higher risk for spreading diseases, in the real world don’t seem to be doing so.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

I’m a champion of freedom and liberty, which naturally includes smut and slease. My copy of the Constitution does not have an exception listed for porn under the freedom of press, perhaps I have a faulty copy?

Your copy of the Constitution also doesn’t have an exception for pedophilia. So does that mean we should have the freedom to molest children?