Gay Marriage

[SMGS127]

I don’t see why it’s not preferable.

Do we think that money is what wins hearts? I’d be more than happy to have the papers reporting on the fact that the Church was being forced to shell out millions of dollars for obeying its conscience.

Moreover, I would refuse to write the checks, if I were the diocese. If the government seizes the assets, you can’t do anything about it, but paying an unjust fine is cooperating with evil.

My point is that the amount of money that the Church lost would be heavily disproportionate to the attention anyone would pay to the Church losing it. The Church would have 15 minutes of fame and then everyone would move on. But the money would be permanently gone. The government would never allow a public display of force to hit the media; look at how that worked for the UK with Gandhi .

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My point is that the amount of money that the Church lost would be heavily disproportionate to the attention anyone would pay to the Church losing it. The Church would have 15 minutes of fame and then everyone would move on. But the money would be permanently gone. The government would never allow a public display of force to hit the media; look at how that worked for the UK with Gandhi .

It wouldn’t be a flash in the pan if the Church dealt with every conflict this way. It would intimidate legislators not to casually vote against religious liberty. And most importantly, it would mean that the Church was still serving the children and families who want to adopt.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The church is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to operate an adoption service. Closing down is probably a good prudential judgement, preserving the church’s resources for other useful purposes.

Maybe. But what would the early Christians have done? Would they have closed their orphanage, simply because Rome outlawed it?

 

[shelby_sun]

IVF is actually fairly uncommon. The temptation of IVF is that two people can still have children the “normal” way: between two spouses, using their own zygotes. That obviously can’t apply to gay couples. But you are correct to note that sperm donation is very common with lesbian couples (“lesbians bring a turkey baster on the second date”), and surrogacy is very common with gay male couples. Adoption occurs occasionally too, but there’s so many obstacles to adoption, especially for gay couples, that they usually either go with foster homes or adopt the unwanted children of good friends so they avoid the usual adoption process. Occasionally they adopt foreign, but very few countries who need foreign adoption sponsors view homosexual physical relationships as moral.

Well good for those gay couples that are willing to love, feed, and care for a abandoned child. It makes me sick to hear some of the things being said on this site with such moral snobbery.

I do not think gay unions belong in the Church at this time, but I do see the reason gay people want them as a legal bind. Like I said before, this all came about because families rejected their children’s wishes of having a partner be with them when they were dying of AIDS. They also want society to stop thinking of them as always having multiple partners, that they are serious about commitment.

I know several wonderful people who have been with their partners for 20-30 years with no need to get married. I know of others who have legally been married and are not raising an adoptive child. Do you really think God has a problem with a same sex couples taking in a child and giving them a loving home and a family for the rest of their life? He would rather that child live out their life in foster care with God only know what happens to him, only to leave with no one to call family. Do any of you know what happens to many children in foster care? You don’t know if these gay couple are not following the rules of abstaining from sex anymore than you know that married couples are abstaining if they do not want anymore children. Who are you to judge.

I will say again that I know many gay people, couples that are far better people, and Catholics than many of the people that read the Bible and go to Church every Sunday. It is one thing to read and know everything in the Bible and all the Churches teachings. It is another thing to go out and live it the way God wants us to.

Our Easter homily was about the fact that we need to work on fixing ourselves first, then we can start trying to fix everyone else, and since fixing ourselves is a life long process, we really should stop trying to fix others and let God take care of that!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I find it interesting that your case against anyone offering well-thought out arguments against a redefinition of marriage amounts to this…

Who are you to judge.

And yet your argument for “gay marriage” and the rights of gay partnerships to adopt amounts to you making a severe judgement…

I will say again that I know many gay people, couples that are far better people, and Catholics than many of the people that read the Bible and go to Church every Sunday.

Somehow, you believe it is quite within your rights to make emotional and generalized judgements about “Catholics” and their shortcomings and yet take immediate offence whenever reasoned arguments challenge the hash you offer as “judgements.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I will say again that I know many gay people, couples that are far better people,

And then there is this if anecdotal evidence is what you want to hang your hat on…

abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3794616.htm

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why? You didn’t document your original claim that “in no previous civilization has there been a serious or successful effort to institute marriage for homosexuals.”

I’ll answer that one for you, on the likelihood that you are just going to ignore that question: you did not document your assertion because you cannot. Equally, I will document mine because I can, easily.

And yet I am not the the one with any need to document my claim, as I am not building any argument on the assertion that previous civilisations did have same sex marriages. You, who are unable to support your assertion, are trying to build an argument on that apparently baseless assertion.

So, for the USA, a couple of citations:
Alfred L. Kroeber, The Arapaho, 18 Bull. Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 1, 19 (1902)
George Devereux, Institutionalized Homosexuality of the Mohave Indians, 9 Hum.
Biology 498 (1937)
Walter L. Williams, The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian
Culture (1986)

Well, not really. I chose Native (North) American same sex marriages as they are both recent, well documented and obviously relevant to those readers such as yourself who are based in the USA.

For south America:
Pedro de Magdlhaes’ The Histories of Brazil (1576)
For Africa:
Ifi Amadiume, Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society 48-49 (1987).
For Siberia:
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (p. 58) (1988)
Lots more cases and citations in that last one (Greenberg). In short, any serious attempt at researching this will show numerous cases of civilisations which recognised same sex marriage. Yet this claim keeps on popping up here, even from those who have already been shown evidence to the contrary.

David Greenberg is an advocate of the view that censure of homosexuality is homophobic. So he has a dog in the fight. Likely as true for all the others you cite, and it’s truly telling that you don’t give a single quote from any of your supposed authoritative sources that proves the historical existence of same-sex marriage as opposed to same-sex partering. I want to see a quote that actually uses the word “marriage.” You don’t see institutional same-sex marriage practiced anywhere in the history of Western or Eastern Civilizations.

Moreover, the best you can seem to do is offer the example of tribes of native Americans as models for justifying homosexual marriage. Would you likewise promote scalping as natural because it was practiced by native Americans?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

And then there is this if anecdotal evidence is what you want to hang your hat on…

abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3794616.htm

Would you like me to post dozens of links about father’s molesting their daughters?

 

[shelby_sun]

And then there is this if anecdotal evidence is what you want to hang your hat on…

abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3794616.htm

You can absolutely find evil in all kinds of situations. Do you have a link to married couples where the mother or father have molested their children or other children. I am not saying all married gay couples should be able to adopt children but at least they go through a screening process, unlike heterosexual couples where there are plenty that should never be allowed to have children.

It seem to me that you are the one saying it is wrong or bad for any gay couple to be able to adopt children. I am say that there are some very good gay couple that make wonderful caring parents. There are some that should certainly not have children, just like some heterosexuals.

It is my experiences and knowledge of some Catholics to be not as kind, accepting and Christ like as some of the gay people I know. This is not a judgement it has been my experience. Just like every group of people, there are ones that simply don’t act as nice, yes even some Catholic.

 

[shelby_sun]

Would you like me to post dozens of links about father’s molesting their daughters?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Our Easter homily was about the fact that we need to work on fixing ourselves first, then we can start trying to fix everyone else, and since fixing ourselves is a life long process, we really should stop trying to fix others and let God take care of that!

This is not logical. We can’t do both at the same time?

Think multi-task. It’s good for you!

 

[DrTaffy]

David Greenberg is an advocate of the view that censure of homosexuality is homophobic. So he has a dog in the fight.

Most people who write scholarly articles about homosexuality will have strong views one way or another - the important point is that he references his sources, so you can check for yourself whether or not what he says is true.

Likely as true for all the others you cite, and it’s truly telling that you don’t give a single quote from any of your supposed authoritative sources that proves the historical existence of same-sex marriage as opposed to same-sex partering.

It is ‘truly telling’ that you:

• leap immediately to an ad hominem argument against every single author I cite, based on nothing more than your allegation that one of them considers all censure of homosexuality to be ‘homophobia’
• do not seem to realise that every single citation I gave explicitly references same sex marriage
• still have not supported your claim that “in no previous civilization has there been a serious or successful effort to institute marriage for homosexuals.”

You are seriously alleging that Pedro de Magdlhaes, writing in 1576, was a gay rights activist?

I want to see a quote that actually uses the word “marriage.”

Every single one does.

Moreover, the best you can seem to do is offer the example of tribes of native Americans as models for justifying homosexual marriage. Would you likewise promote scalping as natural because it was practiced by native Americans?

No - again you are the one making the argument from tradition, and basing it on a false premise that you have not even tried to support.

I am only arguing that the existence of same sex marriage in all these different cultures gives the lie to your assertion that “in no previous civilization has there been a serious or successful effort to institute marriage for homosexuals.”

 

[shelby_sun]

This is not logical. We can’t do both at the same time?

Think multi-task. It’s good for you!

I have three teenagers, four dogs, a husband, a house, and a job, multi-tasking is my life, but that you for the cute suggestion.

I will relay your message to out priest who I am sure does not know more than you. Yes I was paying attention and I understood what he said very well, as I suspect that was going to be your next comment.

 

[JimG]

In the case of gay adoption, it’s not about evaluating individual persons. The fact is that homosexual acts are objectively immoral, and a union based upon an objective moral disorder cannot be approved by the Church, nor can a child be placed for adoption into such a situation. An adoption agency must place a child in a home with a mother and a father if at all possible. In no case should it place a child in a household which bases itself on objectively morally disordered actions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am only arguing that the existence of same sex marriage in all these different cultures gives the lie to your assertion that “in no previous civilization has there been a serious or successful effort to institute marriage for homosexuals.”

No lie. Of course I can’t go through every civilization that has existed to prove anything to you, since you have already made up your mind I am a liar.

You have already made up your mind that I lie, yet you cannot furnish a single quote from your plentiful so-called documented sources to show that same-sex marriage is well documented throughout the world. You tell me to go and look them up for myself?

Ho-hum!

Show me a quote, just one quote! Thanks!

While you’re at it, show me a quote that proves same-sex marriage was ever instiutionalized in Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, Europe, The Arab Countries, the Near East, the Far East, Africa, North America, South America, etc. etc.

Still waiting. :yawn:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have three teenagers, four dogs, a husband, a house, and a job, multi-tasking is my life, but that you for the cute suggestion.

I will relay your message to out priest who I am sure does not know more than you. Yes I was paying attention and I understood what he said very well, as I suspect that was going to be your next comment.

I’m sure your priest can multi-task too. He can look out for your salvation as well as his own.

 

[Kitcat1968]

So, because a few folks lost the meaning of marriage, that makes it acceptable to completely twist it inside out? That’s not logical in any way. Marriage, real marriage, will always and forever continue to be based on the same foundation. Anything outside of that is a poor imitation at best.

I could use that same argument in favor of SSM. Very, very few same-sex couples would go out of their way to try and force a church or church sponsored program into doing something against their beliefs. Of the gay couples that attend church, they already attend a church, typically, that is open and accepting of them. If they wish to marry in the church, they would probably use their own church. Just as you don’t want the actions of a few to speak for all, the same goes for gay people.

The vast majority of them are not extremists. They do not want to bother a church who is anti-gay or simply against their “lifestyle”. Common sense would lead one to ask, why would they? As I said on this forum before, it is unfortunate that the very loud extremists within the gay community are often the most publicized in the media.

ETA: and as much as no one here probably wants to hear this, the number of heterosexual couples who divorce far outnumber the amount of homosexual couples who are extremists.

 

[Rau]

… It makes me sick to hear some of the things being said on this site with such moral snobbery.

Plse call out such behavior when you see it. It has no place here.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

ETA: and as much as no one here probably wants to hear this, the number of heterosexual couples who divorce far outnumber the amount of homosexual couples who are extremists.

Um, that would be because heterosexuals by far outnumber homosexuals.

 

[Kitcat1968]

Um, that would be because heterosexuals by far outnumber homosexuals.

I’m talking about said people relative to their respective communities.