Homosexuality and marriage

[buffalo]

The results of this nonsense are coming home to roost:

		 		  		 		 			 			[

CDC: 110,197,000 Venereal Infections in U.S.; Nation Creating New STIs Faster Than New Jobs or College Grads](http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc...s-nation-creating-new-stis-faster-new-jobs-or)

(CNSNews.com) - According to new data released by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 19.7 million new venereal infections in the United States in 2008, bringing the total number of existing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the U.S. at that time to 110,197,000.
The 19.7 million new STIs in 2008 vastly outpaced the new jobs and college graduates created in the United States that year or any other year on record, according to government data. The competition was not close.
The STI study referenced by the CDC estimated that 50 percent of the new infections in 2008 occurred among people in the 15-to-24 age bracket. In fact, of the 19,738,800 total new STIs in the United States in 2008, 9,782,650 were among Americans in the 15-to-24 age bracket.
By contrast, there were 1,524,092 bachelor’s degrees awarded in the United States in the 2007-2008 school year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. That means the total number of new STIs in 2008 outpaced the total number of new bachelor’s degrees by nearly 13 to 1, and the number of new STIs among Americans in the 15-to-24 age bracket outnumbered new bachelor’s degrees by more than 6 to 1.

more…

 

[Apolojez]

Does morality have a place in government? Ethics?

Whose morality? Christians who come to the table with predisposed views that homosexuals are an abomination? Perfect choice.

The problem is that people can’t distinguish a religious issue with a civil rights issue IMO.

 

[Apolojez]

It cannot be treated equal because by definition it isn’t.

Just as blacks weren’t “equal” because they were ignorantly defined as sub-human.

 

[aprilfloyd]

You are free to deny it. Basic philosophy will take you there.

In the UK as part of our legal system’s development Church Law had a role to play in the early development. In many ways the churches were the first attempts by man to have systems to live by.

We see the influence of this in the language of case law were for example the mens rea of murder would include phrases like ‘wicked intent’ or ‘evil intent’. As the systems matured we now just use ‘intent’ or ‘recklessness’ - without the requirement of old fashioned church concepts of ‘evil’ or ‘wickedness’.

 

[aprilfloyd]

tmkmom

Unless the sodomites wish to argue that sodomy is the moral and biological equivalent of heterosexual sex. This would be a stretch, however, since the state gains no benefit of birthing new citizens by this means.

Are you talking about homosexual or heterosexual sodomites?

 

[Apolojez]

I agree fully with the conclusion you draw regarding the issue of this string.
But I would say that I must disagree with you in terms of your conclusions on the place of religion in the public forum. Perhaps my argument on this is too nuanced, but here it is:

Religion is not individual, it is by definition the common understanding of a group. Religion is concerned with ultimate things, including the manner in which that group perceives a higher power, how that group perceives the relationship betweeh humanity and that higher power, and how that perception governs the way human beings relate to each other and to the natural world.

It is in that last part that ideas about what is good and what is bad come forth. As a society ponders those conclusions, it must deal with the fact that not all people will hold the same values, and that some actions by individuals may cause harm to themselves, to others, or to the natural world. Laws are made to define and outlaw actions of that kind.

While individuals may come to conclusions about what behaviors ought to be permitted and which ought to be outlawed, the values of religious groups hold some worth for the society, at least as a starting place for the conversation, since there is a long-standing tradition behind them.

In the issue at hand, religious people of good conscience have come down on both sides of the issue, and a common understanding of the religious content seems to be a long way off. Christianity, which seems to hold center-stage on this issue, has tenets that seem to impact on the conclusions that may be drawn other than the literal reading of a handful of passages from the Bible.

Government, on the other hand, need not be concerned about the reasoning behind the conclusions drawn by religious adherents. Government is the servant of the people, and in the United Stated, we have established a basis for government that favors the protection of the individual even when the manority are in disagreement with the ideas or behaviors of the individuals, as long as there is no harm done to self, others or the natural world.

Very nice Rev. Perhaps my statements can be a bit “simplified” sometimes. I just don’t believe an argument against gay marriage should be made simply because “I don’t agree with it” or “it’s against my religion”.

 

[aprilfloyd]

So, just to clarify, you’d have no problem with a 50 year old man marrying his 13 year old 3rd cousin and you believe that they should have the exact same equal rights as the current marriage laws?

*Disclaimer - I’m not 50 and I have no desire to marry my 13 year old cousin (can’t believe I even have to state this).

I thought that is what you were promoting as somehow being related to homosexual marriage?

 

[Apolojez]

I still can’t get an answer for this question from any supporter of same sex marriage;

How can a male/male couple teach “their” daughter how to grow up and become a woman? Or, how can two women raise “their” little boy to be a man?

My mom raised me. She never told me anything about being a man. I turned out pretty darn awesome if I do say so myself. So we already know a single mom can raise a boy and a single dad can raise a daughter. Are you saying that TWO women raising a boy or TWO men raising a girl would screw it up?

 

[fix]

My mom raised me. She never told me anything about being a man. I turned out pretty darn awesome if I do say so myself. So we already know a single mom can raise a boy and a single dad can raise a daughter. Are you saying that TWO women raising a boy or TWO men raising a girl would screw it up?

How can you compare single parents to same sex parents? They are vastly different?

 

[Apolojez]

How can you compare single parents to same sex parents? They are vastly different?

How exactly are they “vastly different”? Can’t both change a diaper or care for an infant? Can’t both give love and support? Can’t both work jobs and provide? Can’t both help with homework? I don’t see a huge discrepancy actually.

 

[saintjoe]

Are you forgetting that God is perfectly merciful?
Besides, we are not talking about what God does. We are talking about how we treat one another.

We treat one another with love. and that love does not include encouraging someone to live a sinful lifestyle.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Sure, same logic as two men claiming to be married. Anything goes.

Are you against same sex marriage, but pro incestuous relationships?

 

[dandingo]

I thought that is what you were promoting as somehow being related to homosexual marriage?

I’m not promoting it one bit. My point is why even bother drawing a line regarding marriage? if we’re going to completely redefine something that’s been defined one way for thousands of years, let’s at least make sure the definition encompasses full equality.

You still didn’t answer my question. Not long ago, a girl was able to marry as long as she was willing and able to procreate. Would you support a 13 year old, as long as they’re able to procreate and are willing and able, to marry a 50 year old? How about a 50 year old marrying 2 13 year olds simultaneously?

 

[aprilfloyd]

I’m not promoting it one bit. My point is why even bother drawing a line regarding marriage? if we’re going to completely redefine something that’s been defined one way for thousands of years, let’s at least make sure the definition encompasses full equality.

You still didn’t answer my question. Not long ago, a girl was able to marry as long as she was willing and able to procreate. Would you support a 13 year old, as long as they’re able to procreate and are willing and able, to marry a 50 year old? How about a 50 year old marrying 2 13 year olds simultaneously?

I am quite happy with the way that the laws on sexual conduct and marriage are progressing in our country.

Some of the changes to marriage in our laws have been very welcome. To say that marriage cannot change is simply outmoded thinking. Even the Catholic church did not have the chutzpah to suggest that the changes in the law in the 1980s and 1990s were changed back. They like everyone else saw sense and agreed with the changes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

april

**Are you talking about homosexual or heterosexual sodomites? **

The state has no vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. It has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual marriage for the purpose of procreation. Otherwise, how are you going to get new taxpayers?

The assumption allowed is that heterosexual marriage is intended to make this possible. The assumption likewise is that homosexual marriage makes this impossible.

Sodomy between heterosexuals is irrelevant to the state’s interest, as sodomy between homosexuals is useless to the state’s interests.

Contrary to the argument of most homosexuals (who usually argue for their rights but not the rights of incestuous marriage or polygamy - they always deny the slippery slope argument except when it is directed at them), incestuous marriage and polygamy are both more useful to the state because both can produce more taxpayers.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This forum is no place to begin a witch hunt. If you have legitimate arguments for or against the proposition, offer them, but I will not give you personal information.

That’s fair. But I hope you have the courage to make sure your bishop knows your beliefs on marriage-and if you don’t, I have very little respect for you.

The General Accounting Office has identified more than 1,300 civil benefits of marriage. Some of these are for the purpose of raising children (which same-sex couples do, by the way)

Are you really equating the ability to adopt children with the ability to have children?

There are also benefits to society that cannot be enumerated in financial terms. A few: Married people live longer, and are healthier. Married people behave in less reckless ways. Married people are more law-abiding. Married people tend to participate more in the democratic process. Married people contribute more to charitable works. Is that sufficient?

I didn’t ask why you wanted to make same-sex marriage legal. I asked why we had civil benefits attached to marriage in the first place. If you seriously don’t think it had to do with forming families, well, I think you’re deluding yourself.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Also, for somebody who “appreciates” Aquinas, Reverend, you don’t really address his reasoning much.

 

[RevDon]

I still can’t get an answer for this question from any supporter of same sex marriage;

How can a male/male couple teach “their” daughter how to grow up and become a woman? Or, how can two women raise “their” little boy to be a man?

How does a widow or a widower do this? I suspect that there can be resources in the community that can help–that is, if the community (read church) is willing to support this family.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

How does a widow or a widower do this? I suspect that there can be resources in the community that can help–that is, if the community (read church) is willing to support this family.

But notice the difference-this is an unfortunate situation requiring special help and support. Not something specifically set up in advance like it’s a good thing.

 

[RevDon]

RevDon
**
If it is your intent to eliminate sodomy, then say so, but be sure you try to wipe it out wherever it exists.**

I don’t intend to wipe it out. I just don’t wish to honor it with a certificate of marriage. Why do you wish to honor it with a certificate of marriage, since sodomy is the only sexual relationship possible between same-sex partners?

**Again, I direct your attention to the nature of the full relationship. It seems that you are fixated on sex. **

Marriage is fixated on love, the fullest physical expression of which is found in sex and procreation. Marriage is not required for two people of the same sex to live together and love one another. But sex between two such people does not require the sacramental seal of approval. Jesus was not a sodomite, though he loved greatly. Nor anywhere in his teachings does he grant the seal of sacramental status to sodomy between members of the same sex.

You did not mind saying you are a priest. Are you a Dominican priest? Do the Domincans generally favor same-sex marriage. Inquiring minds need to know.

It still appears that your focus is on the bedroom. My experience of married couples is that the sex may be important the first few years, but the relationship does not last because of the sex. Nor do people grow in holiness because of the sex. I would suggest that if you want to see married love, visit a retirement home that hosts married couples, or even better, a nursing home. There you will witness married love.

Please don’t try to make an argument on the basis of what Jesus doesn’t say. That can lead us far from a productive conversation.

As for inquiring minds, they will have to do their own homework.