No, the heart of the pro-gay marriage argument is that a perverse sexual morality must be dignified with a license to perform. It’s as simple as that. And the justification for why it is as simple as that is common sense, a rare commodity in today’s world, to say the least.
Are they universally homosexual?
I read this. The author appears not to want to acknowledge a distinction between SSA and a practicing homosexual. I’m not sure how he can or would explain the existence of a person enduring SSA but trying to live chastely… And it seems that his argument would collapse if it turned out that SSA were genetically influenced. He also focuses on Homosexuality as spreading disease, which I would have thought is more a function of promiscuity (and perhaps of anal sex?), neither of which is intrinsic to a homosexual relationship.
AIDS is mainly attributed to homosexuals or bisexuals. Whereas the incidence of AIDS among heterosexuals is relatively minor by comparison. The sexual diseases of heterosexuals, while often serious, are not so often fatal as those of homosexuals. Any kind of sexual promiscuity is dangerous behavior, and homosexuals are well known for promiscuity (especially male prostitutes … toy-boys) though some are loyal to their partners.
Well…I don’t have the medical facts to comment on the origins of AIDS, but I don’t see merit in discussing homosexuality on the basis that it and promiscuity go together. I can accept however that the moral latitude that accepts homosexual relations may well also extend to accepting multiple partners. But that is not intrinsic to homosexuality.
This completely lowers the bar, and marriage becomes that much more meaningless. Marriage has been the institution between a man and woman, and the foundation for a good society. Each time a requirment is thrown away from marriage(this time gender), marriage will keep getting less and less meaningful, and people will not even bother after a while(outside church). Before we know it, polygamists will be saying they are discriminated against, and the government will permit.
Let’s look closely at exactly what is and what is not being forced. The act of of “getting married” can be divided into two parts. The first part is the main reason people want to get married - to live together and share their lives with each other. And all but the most rabidly anti-gay societies allow this kind of activity, despite the fact that it conflicts with their beliefs about what is right. So at least with this part of gay marriage, in most places, gays are not being forced to conform their lives to the beliefs of others, which is contrary to your claim.
Very brave of you to admit to this on here, and it is interesting to hear that you are choosing to remain chaste.
If you understand that “not good” does not necessarily mean “bad,” You are correct. Yes, it is impossible for same sex unions to engage in marriage because biologically they cannot. Trying to convince others to accept your position is almost impossible in many situations, but we can hope for understanding. If you really think you would have a doozy of a time explaining the Catholic position, I think that says more about the person you are talking to than the Catholic position, especially when you say you are talking with people in a “scientific environment.”So basically the main arguments I’m hearing is pretty much it’s not good for society and biologically incorrect and therefore impossible. As much as I agree with both of those, I think I’m going to have a doozy of a time convincing others. Thanks for all the responses!
As a Catholic, we are all called to a life of chastity (proper sexually conduct), even married people. If you believe marriage IS something, then you know we are not saying same sex couples ‘may not’ marry, we are say they ‘can not’ marry; they are not able to marry. So comparing marriage to other illegal activities doesn’t make any sense; they are begging the question (Are same sex unions marriage?) If you want to compare sodomy to the “baker’s dozen of morally reprehensible things that are legal,” then I would agree with you.
And herein lies the problem, because nowadays nobody believes that you should need a state license to perform sexual acts.
You are still missing the point that gay people can and do have children! It is a more necessarily deliberate act than with heterosexuals, but that is not a bad thing. Fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions is hardly a downside, is it?
When and where? The Roman Christian Emperors just declared that same sex marriage was punishable by death, true, but I don’t see what you think that proves. Likewise the invading Europeans did not ask the native Americans if they wanted to give up their same sex marriage traditions.
Only if one equivocates the meaning of “having children”.
All pregnancies are wanted by someone, even if its not the parents.
Insult?The fact that otherwise intelligent people struggle to grasp such a simple point is a chilling illustration of how dogmatic beliefs can cripple our reason.
The fact that otherwise intelligent people can find an excuse to justify sodomy is a chilling illustration of how relativistic beliefs can cripple our reason.You are still missing the point that gay people can and do have children! It is a more necessarily deliberate act than with heterosexuals, but that is not a bad thing. Fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions is hardly a downside, is it?
The fact that otherwise intelligent people struggle to grasp such a simple point is a chilling illustration of how dogmatic beliefs can cripple our reason.
Boom.
Oh, go on. Tell us again about how homosexuals should just be grateful that you are not imprisoning and beheading them!
