Gay Marriage

[gamewell45]

.

The claim is made that allowing Gay Marriage will not hurt anyone. Can this be verified? Reminds me of the claim that contraception and divorce will not hurt anyone, but hindsight is 20/20. Also, religious people argue that gay marriage would be putting the souls of those people in danger.

Even if we can prove that it will not hurt anyone, is that a reason to allow it? The American Psychology Association list all kinds of disorders which to not harm anyone, yet they treat them. Or what about Polygamy, Cannibalism, Bestiality, or any number of things which we could show do not hurt anyone?

I’m assuming that you think that everyone in the world has some sort of religious belief; so for those who are religious and claim that it puts the souls of those in danger, then they themselves have the right not to put their own souls in danger.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps those who are gay do not agree with your position?

Putting aside the religiious aspect; I am unable to find anything by the American Psychology Association defining Homosexuality as an “illness” or “disorder”. You can debate polygamy all you want, but those who think its ok will never agree with you. You also mention cannibalism and bestiality; both are very extreme examples and are really not relevant to rational debate.

The fact of the matter is that you haven’t given one solid example of how gay marriage could hurt you. Using your analogy, it would be tantamount to the government forcing you to draw a a card describing certain features of a woman (red hair, brown eyes, while you might be attracted phyiscally to blonde haired, blue-eyed women) out of a hat and telling you that you can only marry this type of person whether you agree or not.

I honestly think your rationale is flawed.

 

[estesbob]

yes I did: between 2 people, just didn’t spell it our.

Why does it matter to you that it be restricted to two people? And I assume that means that you would have no problem with a Mother marrying her son or two sisters marrying each other?

 

[surritter]

I’m assuming that you think that everyone in the world has some sort of religious belief; so for those who are religious and claim that it puts the souls of those in danger, then they themselves have the right not to put their own souls in danger.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps those who are gay do not agree with your position

I won’t speak for Chessman, but my angle in this discussion has been that it doesn’t have to be about religion, it is about biology and common sense. Marriage has to do with sex. Sex has to do with procreation. Somewhere in there our society got off track, and so of course homosexual “marriage” will seem like no big deal.

See post #19 for more on this logic.

 

[sambos671]

A fellow Christian once told me this: “I am a Christian, and I will support gay rights, as my Bible teaches tolerance and acceptance; it teaches love and compassion; it doesn’t teach bigotry and hatred.”

I always thought that Catholicism is against homosexual acts. Homosexual love and desire are not sins but engaging in sex would be an act against God. What about gay marriage? Would that be a homosexual act and should Catholics be opposed to that?

Furthermore, we are not to judge others. Only God can judge us. Therefore wouldn’t us taking away rights from homosexuals be a sin? Afterall, it’s their problem and they are the ones who must repent for committing homosexual acts.

Yuck! On the whole subject matter.

However, there is much misunderstanding here.

There are two equal authorities of teaching in the Catholic Church. Scriptures themselves and Tradition as affirmed by the magisterium.

This is what the bible has to say: 1 Cor 6:9

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

This sentiment is the same in the Old testiment. Sin is sin. It has nothing to do with judging others. If something is defined then thats what it is. Plus you take the whole Judge not lest you be judge out of context. This is the passage in context Matthew 7:1-2

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

If you are doing what right and you judge someone else by the same standard you judge yourself not such a big issue.

So the issue of homosexuality. If a person has homosexual desires then they must not fulfill it or even allow themselves to be put in a comprimizing situation where they might be tempted. Homosexuality is a sin. The bible is clear about it. Having desires is not a sin. To give in to those desires is sinful. So to equate it with another sin. To be drunk is also a sin. If a person is an Alcoholic then even one drink is to many and they should abstane forever. The same goes for the homosexual. They should abstain from the act which marriage will only compromise them.

Marriage has historically been a contract between men and women each with obligations for each other. Now in our sexually confused society we want to expand that to homosexuals and animals and even children!!! This has never been a historical accepted form. Even Spartans were able to distinguish between their male lovers and their wives. And they were pagan from the first. Marriage is for male and female for the propogating and raising of children by the format God intended when he created us.

Now to the issue of Rights. Homosexuals have no less rights than anybody else in this country. They can marry women (if they are men) and vice versa. They are not discriminated from Jobs. They live in the same areas as any one else they can do anything and everythng we do. Now if the question comes up they can’t have their lover’s on their insurance well neither can a straight guys mistress be put on it either or girl friend. So there are no rights that are neglected to homosexuals. It is a myth that homosexual put forth to forward their agenda of having special right and dispensations from the government. Simple as that.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I’m assuming that you think that everyone in the world has some sort of religious belief; so for those who are religious and claim that it puts the souls of those in danger, then they themselves have the right not to put their own souls in danger.

Since we are on a Catholic forum, the my first position is that we are religious here. If you want to debate homosexuality from a scientific standpoint, by all means I am ready.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps those who are gay do not agree with your position?

Did it ever occur to you that Murders do not agree our position either, but they are still in jail.

Putting aside the religiious aspect; I am unable to find anything by the American Psychology Association defining Homosexuality as an “illness” or “disorder”. You can debate polygamy all you want, but those who think its ok will never agree with you. You also mention cannibalism and bestiality; both are very extreme examples and are really not relevant to rational debate.

The APA only took homosexuality off the list of disorders in 1973. Since that time only a handful of studies have been done to confirm if homosexuality is a disorder, most of those were done before 1980.

If you look at the definition of what they say about homosexuality, they say that homosexuality does not per se cause any harm. How convenient for them to say this about homosexuality, when that same statement could also be applied to numerous other disorders they do still list, but they still treat those disorders.

History is showing that there were political or illegal influences that prompted the APA to remove homosexuality from their list.

The fact of the matter is that you haven’t given one solid example of how gay marriage could hurt you. Using your analogy, it would be tantamount to the government forcing you to draw a a card describing certain features of a woman (red hair, brown eyes, while you might be attracted phyiscally to blonde haired, blue-eyed women) out of a hat and telling you that you can only marry this type of person whether you agree or not.

I honestly think your rationale is flawed.

Your example is flawed.

I have not given you an example of how homosexuality “could hurt” me, because I do not need to, yet. There are numerous things that our government does not allow, which inturn does not hurt anyone besides the parties involved. Drug use, necrophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality.

Fact is, you need to prove that homosexual marriage makes sense in the first place. Simply appealing to emotion, and saying how awful it is that homosexuals can not get married, is not an argument.

So, once you provide me with a rational reason why to allow homosexual marriage, I will discuss it with you.

 

[buffalo]

What about those married couples who decide not to procreate? What happens to civilization then?

If enough of them do not see - Demographic Winter - 1.3 and below civilization fails.

 

[gamewell45]

I won’t speak for Chessman, but my angle in this discussion has been that it doesn’t have to be about religion, it is about biology and common sense. Marriage has to do with sex. Sex has to do with procreation. Somewhere in there our society got off track, and so of course homosexual “marriage” will seem like no big deal.

One does not have to be “married” to have sex. Having sex does not mean that one must procreate, that’s why we have contraception; outside of a church or other religious body, marriage is a “contract” between two consenting adults. Most of the time its a legal, binding document between the couple giving both certain legal rights.

Society is evolving whether you or I like it. Alot of things have changed over the past 200 years, this is just part of the evolution plain and simple.

 

[gamewell45]

If enough of them do not see - Demographic Winter - 1.3 and below civilization fails.

If your afraid that everyone will turn gay and civilization as we see it will vanish, I think your going to be very surprised. Trust me, there will be plenty of heterosexual couples around for a long time.

 

[gamewell45]

Since we are on a Catholic forum, the my first position is that we are religious here. If you want to debate homosexuality from a scientific standpoint, by all means I am ready.

Did it ever occur to you that Murders do not agree our position either, but they are still in jail.

The APA only took homosexuality off the list of disorders in 1973. Since that time only a handful of studies have been done to confirm if homosexuality is a disorder, most of those were done before 1980.

If you look at the definition of what they say about homosexuality, they say that homosexuality does not per se cause any harm. How convenient for them to say this about homosexuality, when that same statement could also be applied to numerous other disorders they do still list, but they still treat those disorders.

History is showing that there were political or illegal influences that prompted the APA to remove homosexuality from their list.

Your example is flawed.

I have not given you an example of how homosexuality “could hurt” me, because I do not need to, yet. There are numerous things that our government does not allow, which inturn does not hurt anyone besides the parties involved. Drug use, necrophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality.

Fact is, you need to prove that homosexual marriage makes sense in the first place. Simply appealing to emotion, and saying how awful it is that homosexuals can not get married, is not an argument.

So, once you provide me with a rational reason why to allow homosexual marriage, I will discuss it with you.

Guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree

 

[chessmane4e5]

Guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree

So are you saying that you do not have one rational reason to allow Gay Marriage?

Does this mean that we should allow anything in society, simply because people want to do it?

 

[surritter]

One does not have to be “married” to have sex. Having sex does not mean that one must procreate, that’s why we have contraception; outside of a church or other religious body, marriage is a “contract” between two consenting adults. Most of the time its a legal, binding document between the couple giving both certain legal rights.

Sex is an action of union between a man and a woman for two purposes: expression of love (Catholics call this the “unitive aspect”) and reproduction (we call it the “procreative aspect”). You’re right that biology allows heterosexuals to do both “aspects” even without marriage. But because both aspects are there, they CAN get married.

Conversely, homosexuals obviously CAN’T do both aspects. That’s exactly why we say that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.

Society is evolving whether you or I like it. Alot of things have changed over the past 200 years, this is just part of the evolution plain and simple.

 

[JohnCS]

That’s not really true. The world can tell the Church anything it wants, but the Church has the final say over what its definition of marriage is when it comes to the members of the church. But the Church cannot nor should it attempt to define what it considers marriage to non-Catholics; most people have already defined in their minds what constitutes marriage whether it is in conformance with the teachings of the church or not…

The truth is that there is only ONE TRUTH! What people think or believe is irrelivant to the argument. The Catholic church as the keeper and protector of God’s word has the WHOLE Truth to back her up. As Catholics we are to spread the good news or Truth. We are not to pick and choose which parts we like and which we don’t like. Gay or not we are all called to chastity. That is the whole Truth. No we can not force everyone else to live by the Truth, but it is our duty to and obligation to try to show everyone the proper way (lovingly, not harshly) For those of you who claim we should be compassionate to our gay neighbors and not judge them, I point you to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is regulated by reason. Without this regulation, compassion is only passion. Like all passions, compassion in this case is a powerful but irrational inclination, and therefore a potentially dangerous one since it can favor not only good, but also evil. To feel pity at the sight of someone’s sufferings is normal. However, to act without prudent analysis may lead to unintended harm.” If you sit and think about it with solid reason, the Truth becomes clear. Allowing someone to pave their path to hell is not loving them. Make no mistake about it, sodomy, sex outside of marriage, etc. are all mortals sins and in turn are paving paths to hell. Yes, we can hope that everyone who chooses to live a life of sin will have a death bed conversion, confess their sins, and thus recieve God’s mercy and salvation; it’s possible. But I won’t be counting on that to happen. If we truly love our neighbors we should be doing everything in our power to help them to attain heaven. God bless you all.

 

[portarica]

Why does it matter to you that it be restricted to two people? And I assume that means that you would have no problem with a Mother marrying her son or two sisters marrying each other?

You would make that assumption , but not because you believe it, but because you think you have somehow tricked me into exposing an opening into the slippery slope argument.

So lets make it two consenting adults and follow the rules regarding relatives as they are now.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

You would make that assumption , but not because you believe it, but because you think you have somehow tricked me into exposing an opening into the slippery slope argument.

So lets make it two consenting adults and follow the rules regarding relatives as they are now.

Peace

But by what right do you have to change marriage from Man and Woman, to two consenting adults?

If you do not have a reason for this change, then we do not need a reason to use the slippery slope as it logically follows. Namely, if you do not have a reason to redefine marriage, then no one else needs a reason, so incest and polygamy will follow.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

You would make that assumption , but not because you believe it, but because you think you have somehow tricked me into exposing an opening into the slippery slope argument.

So lets make it two consenting adults and follow the rules regarding relatives as they are now.

Peace

There’s no trickery involved. It is indeed a slippery slope. If we’re going to expand the definition of marriage to include 2 consenting adults regardless of gender, why not allow polygamy?

You can make the same arguement for polygamy that you can for gay “marriage.”

 

[surritter]

You would make that assumption , but not because you believe it, but because you think you have somehow tricked me into exposing an opening into the slippery slope argument.

So lets make it two consenting adults and follow the rules regarding relatives as they are now.

Peace

And why keep the rules regarding relatives as they are now? Is there a logical reason behind the current rules that you can elucidate?

 

[edwest2]

One does not have to be “married” to have sex. Having sex does not mean that one must procreate, that’s why we have contraception; outside of a church or other religious body, marriage is a “contract” between two consenting adults. Most of the time its a legal, binding document between the couple giving both certain legal rights.

Society is evolving whether you or I like it. Alot of things have changed over the past 200 years, this is just part of the evolution plain and simple.

Right now, around the world, everyone is doing what they want in the privacy of wherever they live. I don’t know what they’re doing and I don’t want to find out. But when any group insists on not only a legal but a societal redefinition of the basic family unit and natural procreation, it is a violation of norms established long before the existence of the United States. Change can be good or bad. This situation did not happen by itself. It was based on the actions of small groups around the world.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SugarMagnolia]

For a marriage to be valid it must be consummated through sexual intercourse. Two people of the same sex cannot have sexual intercourse.

Concerning civil marriage, gays complain that they are being denied equal rights but this is untrue. Their argument is illogical. Gay people have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Sometimes I think the gay rights activists forget there are legal restrictions regarding civil mariage that apply to all people, whether heterosexual or homosexual. For example, a brother and sister cannot get married even though they are heterosexual. Two heterosexual males cannot get married. Two heterosexual females cannot get married. One might say: but heterosexuals do not want to marry same-sex people. Generally they don’t, but even if they did, they would not be allowed. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. The fact that most of them choose not to is irrelevant. They have the right to do it.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Concerning civil marriage, gays complain that they are being denied equal rights but this is untrue. Their argument is illogical. Gay people have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Sometimes I think the gay rights activists forget there are legal restrictions regarding civil mariage that apply to all people, whether heterosexual or homosexual. For example, a brother and sister cannot get married even though they are heterosexual. Two heterosexual males cannot get married. Two heterosexual females cannot get married. One might say: but heterosexuals do not want to marry same-sex people. Generally they don’t, but even if they did, they would not be allowed. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. The fact that most of them choose not to is irrelevant. They have the right to do it.

I remember when I first realized this, it was a big “DUH” moment for myself.

 

[gamewell45]

So are you saying that you do not have one rational reason to allow Gay Marriage?

Does this mean that we should allow anything in society, simply because people want to do it?

No, what it means that neither of us are going to agree on anything regarding this thread and as such further discussion would be futile.