Gay Marriage

[estesbob]

If you don’t already know the answer to that question, then you don’t want to know the answer to that question.

In other words you cant answer the question. Its easy to throw out charges of hypocricy when you give no explaNATION of what the alleged hypocricy is.

 

[chessmane4e5]

In other words you cant answer the question. Its easy to throw out charges of hypocricy when you give no explaNATION of what the alleged hypocricy is.

I am sure it is not portarica’s fault, this is what happens when Christians are bullied by the LGBT movement. It is easy to blame the Church and say that we are hypocrites, because by criticizing us it makes their points look stronger (although we know this is the fallacy of ad hominem).

I too would like to know what sort of hypocrisy we are being charged with, so we can at least defend ourselves.

 

[surritter]

First the most logical refutation of your claim that marriage between two members of the same sex is not possible is that same sex marriages are now codified in various parts of the world. So on the face of it, your claim that it is impossible is false.

They are calling it marriage. But does that make it one?

Your thinking indicates that when something is NAMED as an item, it automatically BECOMES that item. Do you find this logical?

 

[portarica]

In other words you cant answer the question. Its easy to throw out charges of hypocricy when you give no explaNATION of what the alleged hypocricy is.

The catholic church hierarchy is the most gay leadership organisation outside of the actual gay organisations.

That’s why it is so ironic.

Its like the white elephant in the room, it is not allowed to be discussed .

But it is factual.

Why do you think all those good catholic Irish mothers thought their sons would be such good priests?

That doesn’t make them bad people , except in the eyes of the church.

So the church closes it eyes , blames gays for all types of problems and then wonders why catholic priests have higher than normal instances of alcoholism and other issues.

Then the church blamed the abuse thing on the gays, even though the levels of abuse by catholic priests mirrored very closely that of the normal population. It wasn’t a gay thing it was an administrative issue. It was about not being able to discuss what really happened.

So the same thing happens now with gay marriage. Its no real threat to a healthy marriage. But if you believed that bishops didn’t cover up and condone abuse you will believe that gays are a threat to your marriage. It worked in the past it will work again.

I think the church protesteth too much about gays.

Peace

 

[estesbob]

The catholic church hierarchy is the most gay leadership organisation outside of the actual gay organisations.

And you base this on? And has this been the case for the past 2,000 plus years?

That’s why it is so ironic.

Its like the white elephant in the room, it is not allowed to be discussed .

But it is factual.

Perhaps the reason its not discussed is its not true.

Why do you think all those good catholic Irish mothers thought their sons would be such good priests?

That doesn’t make them bad people , except in the eyes of the church.

The Church doesnt say people with SSA are bad people. You appear to have a lot of gaps in your knowledge of the Church you belong to teaches.

So the church closes it eyes , blames gays for all types of problems and then wonders why catholic priests have higher than normal instances of alcoholism and other issues.

They do?

Of even if true it is irlevant to the fact homosexual behavior is a grevious sin.

Then the church blamed the abuse thing on the gays, even though the levels of abuse by catholic priests mirrored very closely that of the normal population. It wasn’t a gay thing it was an administrative issue. It was about not being able to discuss what really happened.

On this we agree-the Church did a lousy job with confronting the homosexual Priest scandal. But this, of course, has no bearing on the teachikngs of the Church. We dont thrwo out 2,000 years of consistent teachings becuase Church l;eadership was inept on this.

So the same thing happens now with gay marriage. Its no real threat to a healthy marriage. But if you believed that bishops didn’t cover up and condone abuse you will believe that gays are a threat to your marriage. It worked in the past it will work again.

But there is a threat to those who enter into such an abomnination and to the people of a culture that intitionalizes a grevious sin as “OK”
I think the church protesteth too much about gays.

Peace

 

[surritter]

The catholic church hierarchy is the most gay leadership organisation outside of the actual gay organisations.

I believe in accordance with the Forum rules, this type of statement needs to be given with a reference.

 

[portarica]

I believe in accordance with the Forum rules, this type of statement needs to be given with a reference.

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2297

There are, as Father Cozzens noted in his book, a high number of homosexual priests and seminarians in the United States. How high is difficult to say. (Estimates in his book range from 23 percent to 58 percent, with even higher percentages for younger priests.) That a high number of priests share a similar characteristic means that the church needs to consider both the challenges and the gifts offered by this group. Not to do so would be to ignore a development that could have a significant impact on the life of the Catholic Church. What then are some of the problems faced by homosexual priests? And what challenges are faced by the church as a result of their presence?

Lets even use half of the low end and except for some theater groups you have it covered and if we use the median of about 40% we probably cover even the theater groups.

And how about your own observations of your catholic parish priests, how about the most ambitious of them , do you see any common themes?

If you want more you can Google for tons more info. You guys know it is there. We see it most times in church. Go to a big mass at a cathedral when the priests are gathered en mass and make some of your own observations.

Ask the teenagers that go to mass, they know the gay priests. They still respect them and the job they do for Christ, but there is no fooling them.

Peace

 

[portarica]

They are calling it marriage. But does that make it one?

Your thinking indicates that when something is NAMED as an item, it automatically BECOMES that item. Do you find this logical?

If the law in a state says it is a marriage then in that state it is a marriage.

So yes it is one. At least for discussion purposes.

It may not be a catholic marriage, but that wasn’t your point. You feel that a definition of a state can affect the strength of your marriage(rhetorical assumption).

I guess if the state allows abortion you will have to have one since you give such credence to what the state says is OK.( that is an example of taking your argumentative form to a different subject).

Peace

 

[surritter]

If the law in a state says it is a marriage then in that state it is a marriage.

So yes it is one. At least for discussion purposes.

It may not be a catholic marriage, but that wasn’t your point. You feel that a definition of a state can affect the strength of your marriage(rhetorical assumption).

Hmmmm – abortion might be a good analogy for us to use. But I’d like to show how you’re jumping over a huge part of the issue: it is the existence of something versus its legality.

I acknowledge that abortion exists outside of the state’s legalization of such. Therefore the discussion should be if it is permissible to legalize it.

But in the topic at hand, my argument is not with the legalization of gay “marriage.” It is outside of that – how can you prove that the concept of gay marriage even has a definition? It doesn’t; your definition consists solely of a relationship that is certified by a governmental entity. And once again, if that is the substance of your definition, you should have no problem with marriages of three people, right? Before you fire off a reply, please stop and think about that.

 

[portarica]

Since this appears as if it heading for a nasty discussion that nobody wants to be involved with, I will finish with a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt and an observation.

“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

The concept that someone else’s gay marriage can negatively affect our marriages without our permission is folly.

We know imperfect marriages within our parishes, within our families and among our friends.

We know marriages with abuse , both verbally and physical, we know marriages that are devoid of love . We know marriages that are farces because either or both parties are in adulterous relationships. We see these people every week at church.

And still we don’t let these imperfect marriages demean or threaten our marriages.

So why do we feel that a gay person who we may not even know will affect our Catholic marriage? Why would we feel our marriage would become inferior to what it is now , if some gay person gets married?

Only because we would allow ourselves to feel our marriage inferior to what it was.

Somebody else now has what I have, that devalues what I have. Its ironic that the catholic position about the value of marriage depends on how others view it.

That’s a courageous response.

That’s what was nice about how Jesus said to handle such things. Just shake the dust off our sandals .

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

If the law in a state says it is a marriage then in that state it is a marriage.

So yes it is one. At least for discussion purposes.

It may not be a catholic marriage, but that wasn’t your point. You feel that a definition of a state can affect the strength of your marriage(rhetorical assumption).

I guess if the state allows abortion you will have to have one since you give such credence to what the state says is OK.( that is an example of taking your argumentative form to a different subject).

You’re missing the point. In the beginning God created them, Male and Female. And the two shall become one. The only people that can “marry” are a male with a female. Just like the only people that can carry a baby, are woman. It is a fundamental truth (at least to Christians, clearly you can believe what ever you want).

But what is still surprising me in all this, is that you have not given a reason why gay marriage should be allowed in the first place.

We can talk all day about the problems in the Catholic Church, and who you think is gay, and how hypocritical the Catholic Church is, but that is not a reason to allow gay marriage.

Can you at least formulate a logical, rational, argument why marriage should include the same sex? One reason is all we are asking.

 

[surritter]

That’s fine if you wish to “shake the dust” and move on.

But you need to realize the fallacy of many of your statements. This is not based on hatred or dislike, but on truth.

So why do we feel that a gay person who we may not even know will affect our Catholic marriage?

It may not, but would you also say this: “Having abortion be legal doesn’t affect me since I’ll never get one.”

I think you are putting your feelings at the forefront of the discussion. The feelings are OK, but you need to examine the logic first, and then any discord between the intellect and the feelings can be ironed out.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Since this appears as if it heading for a nasty discussion that nobody wants to be involved with, I will finish with a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt and an observation.

“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

The concept that someone else’s gay marriage can negatively affect our marriages without our permission is folly.

We know imperfect marriages within our parishes, within our families and among our friends.

We know marriages with abuse , both verbally and physical, we know marriages that are devoid of love . We know marriages that are farces because either or both parties are in adulterous relationships. We see these people every week at church.

And still we don’t let these imperfect marriages demean or threaten our marriages.

So why do we feel that a gay person who we may not even know will affect our Catholic marriage? Why would we feel our marriage would become inferior to what it is now , if some gay person gets married?

Only because we would allow ourselves to feel our marriage inferior to what it was.

Somebody else now has what I have, that devalues what I have. Its ironic that the catholic position about the value of marriage depends on how others view it.

That’s a courageous response.

That’s what was nice about how Jesus said to handle such things. Just shake the dust off our sandals .

Peace

No one (but you) has suggested what I put in bold. I do not think gay marriage is going to hurt my marriage one bit. Just like abortion doesn’t hurt me. But by making these thing legal, it can hurt future generations. It also most definitely hurts those that are involved.

But I am still waiting for your reason to allow gay marriage in the first place. Or is that your reason, “It doesn’t hurt anyone, so they should be allowed to do it”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

God was really clear about Shrimp in Lev too.

we dont have to eat kosher. see Peters Vision, Acts 10. thats basic Christianity 101.

To say if gays marry we have to let animals marry people uses the same reasoning as if we let men marry women we have to let women marry women and then women marry animals.

no, im pointing out that you cannot deny marriage to anyone or any combination of people, because it would be a right. that means you cant tell people not to marry a chicken, a vacuum cleaner or a hole in a tree.

more important to a feminist. you wouldnt be able to deny polygamous relationships. 1 man and as many women as he can support.

what it boils down to is whether or not we have the right to regulate morality. if we do then there is no problem. if we do not, then we cannot have laws. you fall into the trap of subjective morality.

If you use causation in an argument, then you are agreeing about similar things happening from the same root causes.

causation? what causation are you refering too?

So in essence is that marriage in the first place leads to all kinds of possible wierd combinations.

marriage is a Sacrament. these wierd “combinations” are not marriages. they didnt even work well as a social construct when the hippies tried it. people dont seem to be built for the wierd combinations.

 

[romesweethome]

The question can be remedied without any theology or biblical teaching, it is a natural law.

Gravity is part of the natural law which tells us that if we step off a ten story building, or a one story building, we will fall and most like be terribly hurt or die.

Sexuality is also proven by the natural law.

Here is a man made analogy for the natural law. Take for instance a bolt and a nut that fit together. The two are complimentary in that they fit each other for a purpose. The purpose is to fasten things together. If you tried to fasten the same things together with two bolts or two nuts only, then the object would fall apart. If the complimentary pair are not used in the application, then it does not work to fit the purpose it was given. The same can be said for sexuality.

We know from nature and science that male and female are scientifically and naturally complimentary. It takes one man and one woman to conceive a child, period. Even in a test tube baby, it took the sperm from the male human and the egg from the female human to make the new life we like to call an embryo. It is better said that this is a new human in the embryonic stage of life, just as the tadpole is a frog in the embryonic or tadpole stage of development. There are no exceptions to the fact that it takes one human man and one human woman to make a new human life, always.

Therefore if you take two human males and try to procreate, it is impossible, just as it is for two female humans. There is no exception whatsoever.

Nature and science show that the natural result of sexual relations between one male and one female human, brings forth a new human being. This is never an accident because this is the natural result and everyone knows this who is of the age to be having sexual relations. To want the act and not the result is unnatural and wishful thinking.

There is nothing complimentary about two humans of the same sex having some type of awkward sexual relations outside of the design that is evident in nature. The female uteris opens when climaxing, expanding and reaching downward to receive the semen of the male. This is just one of the dozens of natural reactions which occur during the sexual act, showing that it is meant exclusively for male and female. Two females have no way of procreating so any sexual act between them is purely for personal enjoyment and never for the natural intended purpose at all. It would be purely selfish sexual relations. The same thing with two males. Semen is designed to transport sperm for the purpose of conceiving a new human life and nothing more. Although sexual relations are naturally supposed to be pleasing to each partner, the end result inevitably and normatively is a new human life between one male and one female human being. The same can be said for pretty much all mammals.

You may ask “what about those who cannot conceive a child”? This would be the exception. The fact that we are fallible and not perfect tells us that there will be women and men who cannot procreate. This could be for many reasons. It still goes back to the fact that there can never be procreation without one male human and one female human.

For anyone who is homosexual(not gay), it would take going OUTSIDE of their claimed sexuality to conceive a child, therefore proving that they are not only not truly homosexual, but have desires which heterosexuals have, once again proving that they are not fully homosexual in their desires. Why would anyone who supposedly only has the desires for the same sex, ever want a child which can only be accomplished through heterosexual means? This is the natural desire of heterosexuals and is limited to the heterosexual act of male and female having sexual intercourse, naturally.

Many people have the desire to have sex with non humans and even small children, which are totally not complimentary and unnatural desires. Should we then let these people have sex with animals and children because that is their desire, even though it is not natural, scientifically speaking? Of course not. In the same way, if someone has desired to kill humans from a very young age, as early as they can remember, should we let them kill when they desire and how they desire to fill their wants? Of course not because it goes against the natural law and is not a complimentary act for humans. None of the afore mentioned acts are life giving and therefore are immoral and unnatural, scientifically speaking.

Just because a person has the desire for something, does not mean they need to act on it. Having the desires for the same sex is not a sin. Acting on the desire is sinful and a defect in the character of the human being. Persons with the desire for the same sex can be more fully satisfied through service to God and others. I am an exhomosexual and have experienced both side of this situation. The desire for the same sex was removed over 17 years ago and I am happily marrid and have 3 children and one on the way. i thank God for his mercy and grace. I am a walking miracle. My heart longs forthose who struggle deeply with these desires and they do not go away. My prayers are with them.

I hope this helps. peace RSH

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Since this appears as if it heading for a nasty discussion that nobody wants to be involved with, I will finish with a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt and an observation.

“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

The concept that someone else’s gay marriage can negatively affect our marriages without our permission is folly.

We know imperfect marriages within our parishes, within our families and among our friends.

We know marriages with abuse , both verbally and physical, we know marriages that are devoid of love . We know marriages that are farces because either or both parties are in adulterous relationships. We see these people every week at church.

And still we don’t let these imperfect marriages demean or threaten our marriages.

So why do we feel that a gay person who we may not even know will affect our Catholic marriage? Why would we feel our marriage would become inferior to what it is now , if some gay person gets married?

Only because we would allow ourselves to feel our marriage inferior to what it was.

Somebody else now has what I have, that devalues what I have. Its ironic that the catholic position about the value of marriage depends on how others view it.

That’s a courageous response.

That’s what was nice about how Jesus said to handle such things. Just shake the dust off our sandals .

Peace

you are completely missing the point. G-d said homosexuality is an abomination. sarah, Lots wife was turned to a pillar of salt for sympathizing with the homosexuals G-d destroyed in sodom.

sarah only looked back at sodom as they were leaving. apparently, the lesson is that those who even sympathize with homosexuals, receives their destruction.

so no, there can be no quarter given on the topic. none whatsoever. i wouldnt look too good as a salt statue.

one is either with G-d or the world. one cannot be with both.

 

[edwest2]

Actually Ed , as I said before, I agree with the direction you are moving in.

Knowing gay friends and relatives , I know they didn’t choose their orientation.

If they want to be in a committed relationship or marriage because they believe as you do , except for the homosexuality as sin thing. Wouldn’t it better for all of us if they are afforded that privilege?

The practical effect of the anti Gay marriage movement is to marginalize gays and make them more likely to not want to be part of the body of Christ.

There is so much hypocrisy within the church regarding homosexuality that would be cleared up if Gays were given the opportunity to receive all the sacraments. Marriage being the only one they do not receive on a regular basis in the church now.

Peace

Why do you insist on sacremental marriage? No one should receive Communion in a state of mortal sin. Gay Marriage is about gay sex. Why do you continue to deny clear Church teaching? According to the Catholic Medical Association, people are not born gay:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Long ago I was of the opinion that homosexuality was fine because homosexuals were just minding their own business doing what they wanted in the privacy of their own homes. What changed my thinking? Well, gradually I started noticing that homosexuals were no longer minding their own business and doing what they wanted to do in privacy.

The gay rights movement encouraged homosexuals to be proud of their orientation and to display it openly. Psychologists started to say homosexuality was normal and natural. Homosexuality became a mainstay on television and in the movies. I can hardly watch television without seeing two women kissing or two men snuggling.

Next came the view of homosexuality as trendy and cool. Heterosexual men now want to see women engaged in sexual acts with each other. If I watch TV late at night I always see advertisements for videos of women (presumably heterosexual women) engaged in homosexual behavior. The advertisements are clearly aimed at heterosexual male consumers. Male homosexual behavior is not as vigorously promoted, but male homosexuals are very bold in their behavior in public. I once saw a young homosexual man on the train “pole dancing” for the entertainment of his male friends. As a society we are literally encouraging the younger generation to experiment with homosexuality because it is promoted as fashionable. Thus many young people call themselves bisexual. If this keeps up there may come a day when anyone who doesn’t experiment with same-sex sexual behavior will be viewed as the abnormal and unnatural one.

Gay marriage will further legitimate this behavior. Taking homosexuality out of the DSM means that homosexuals will not even try to get help for their disorder because they are told it isn’t a disorder at all.

I noticed a post here that said it was a straw man argument to say the next step after gay marriage will be a three person marriage. That is not a straw man argument at all. I agree that saying gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage or marraige to an animal is indeed a straw man argument. Marriage involving relatives or animals will most probably still be disallowed. But marriage involving any two or more non-related humans will be the logical next step after marriage involving any two non-related humans. Just as homosexuals have long cohabited with each other and acted like spouses to each other, there are now people who live in polyamorous arrangements. Does anyone really think this group of people isn’t going to fight for the legalization of polygamous or polamorous marriage?

 

[portarica]

You’re missing the point. In the beginning God created them, Male and Female. And the two shall become one. The only people that can “marry” are a male with a female. Just like the only people that can carry a baby, are woman. It is a fundamental truth (at least to Christians, clearly you can believe what ever you want).

But what is still surprising me in all this, is that you have not given a reason why gay marriage should be allowed in the first place.

We can talk all day about the problems in the Catholic Church, and who you think is gay, and how hypocritical the Catholic Church is, but that is not a reason to allow gay marriage.

Can you at least formulate a logical, rational, argument why marriage should include the same sex? One reason is all we are asking.

First of all God didn’t just create men and women. He created men, women and hermaphrodites and people who are neither nor.

Unfortunately in the past society and all religions treated people with uncommon attributes as deformed and unordered.

That includes our church which by the way also considered slavery OK, also the church that treated mental illness such as depression as demonic possession. Support for the existence of slavery is very strongly found in Paul and the OT, so perhaps critical consideration is called for when those sources are used as defense of any issue that may have a different slant if considered from Jesus’ viewpoint of treating the least like they may be He.

As to Chess…Saying "Can you at least formulate a logical, rational, argument why marriage should include the same sex? "

Because it shows Christian compassion. But you will say that is not rational, even if Jesus was gay, which he might have been.

Or another rational argument is that all people are better off in a committed relationship with all that it entails. ( BTW the procreation argument doesn’t apply to this since it doesn’t apply to traditional marriage either.)

For a laundry list of reasons why conservatives should be in favor of gay marriage see:newsweek.com/id/229957 List is by the guy that got Bush elected.

As for the polygamy argument we need to consider that the Bible was OK with it when it involved Abraham Jacob David among others . So they were also adulterers too.

Peace

 

[surritter]

First of all God didn’t just create men and women. He created men, women and hermaphrodites and people who are neither nor.

But recall that we are talking about the design of the person. Not disorders from that design. This is no slam on people that suffer from hermaphroditic conditions since they haven’t chosen it, but it must be recognized that that is not a condition in accord with the design of the human body, right?