How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[Rau]

It does not scream that to me and I am a 30 year old heterosexual man.

It does not scream that to me because I realize that in nature some humans experience SSA.

Someone thinking there is something wrong with two people with SSA choosing to couple up with each other or whatever screams one thing to me: “Dinosaur”.

My conservative (overlaps with reform) synagogue (all age groups) is praying for a pro-SSM SCOTUS decision. My friend’s orthodox synagogue is doing the same thing even though their recognition of religious SSM is “in transition”.

My goodness, why do you keep telling us that you are heterosexual!

I share your realisation that some people experience SSA. They (using men as an example):

• experience romantic attraction to another man;
• may become sexually aroused by another man;
• may desire a sexual encounter, a completed sexual act, with another man.

I can also accept that some people view all these things as within the “rights” of the individual, and I have no quarrel on that basis with persons expressing that view.

However, I do quarrel with those who, somehow closing their eyes, see nothing “amiss” in all this. I am not speaking religiously here. They somehow see a functional, integrated reasonable act in the sharing of semen between two men. They see no incongruity between the “maleness” of each party, their bodily form, the nature of semen, and the sexual partner to whom they are drawn. “Nothing of note here”, they say! “The guys desired it, therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable!”

Needless to say, institutionalising this “perfectly reasonable” behaviour, deeming it to be part and parcel of marriage, also seems just a little “amiss”.

 

[David_Goliath]

Thorolfr;12920195:

Because you seem to assume that anal cancer is some kind of evidence that anal intercourse is wrong, should we also assume that cervical cancer in women is evidence that vaginal intercourse is wrong? According to Wikipedia, “Worldwide, cervical cancer is both the fourth most common cause of cancer and the fourth most common cause of death from cancer in women.” The most common cause of cervical cancer (up to 90% of cases) is the Human papillomavirus (HPV) which is usually spread through vaginal intercourse. Somehow, this kind of reasoning does not seem too convincing to me./

All righty then.So,as I stated before,my faith shapes my beliefs. Marriage as God intended it to be is one man one women. Rather than repeat myself,take the time to read all posts in this thread first to last.

Then all you have to do is not marry a person of the same sex.It’s really that simple.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am well aware of that. I know the difference between SSA and “acting” on it.
What I do not “get” is some Catholics and Catholic leaders actively trying to stop SSM between two consenting adults. At least one of those leaders(Cardinal Keith Obrien) turned out to be a closet gay, making lives miserable for other gay people.

Frankly the good Cardinal is saving lives.

 

[David_Goliath]

My goodness, why do you keep telling us that you are heterosexual!

I share your realisation that some people experience SSA. They (using men as an example):

• experience romantic attraction to another man;
• may become sexually aroused by another man;
• may desire a sexual encounter, a completed sexual act, with another man.

I can also accept that some people view all these things as within the “rights” of the individual, and I have no quarrel on that basis with persons expressing that view.

However, I do quarrel with those who, somehow closing their eyes, see nothing “amiss” in all this. I am not speaking religiously here. They somehow see a functional, integrated reasonable act in the sharing of semen between two men. They see no incongruity between the “maleness” of each party, their bodily form, the nature of semen, and the sexual partner to whom they are drawn. “Nothing of note here”, they say! “The guys desired it, therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable!”

Needless to say, institutionalising this “perfectly reasonable” behaviour, deeming it to be part and parcel of marriage, also seems just a little “amiss”.

It does not seem “amiss” to me under the paradigm that the people engaging in it have natural SSA feelings. I am not “closing my eyes” either.

 

[twoshoes]

Shalom!

I would just like to know how some of you felt when you found out same sex marriage (“SSM”) was legal.It could be any situation: in your state, when Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional etc.

If you were/are against legalized civil SSM did you experience any sort of “facepalm reaction”? Imagine you really wanted a certain president to win and he/she did not. Was your reaction to SSM being legalized similar to that if that president didn’t win? Was like facepalm “oh no!!!”?

I’m just trying to get a sense of how people FELT/FEEL.

As for me: I was happy, but more like happy for others because I myself am a heterosexual man.

Marriage is a sacrament from God, not a government decree. Governments got into the marriage business for the cash. To me what the government does not mean a thing. It is wrong only in the sense that more people believe it is ok to sin against God. It’s the same sin as people living together and not getting married before God. SSM will never be OK with God. By the way marriage is not a 2 legged stool, man and man, or woman and woman, it’s a four legged stool. God, man, woman, and children.

As for my beliefs, they, like for lots of Jews (even “religious” ones), fluid:
Here’s a starting point:
myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality.shtml

 

[Rau]

Of course it isn’t.

If a Jewish Rabbi believes he/she should officiate a marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex and have that marriage recognized civilly just as a heterosexual marriage (performed in or out of any religion) AND the state makes such unions illegal, is that not a violation of religious rights, too?

Can’t there be a balance? Yes, I know the cake business thing can get messy. That’s another issue.

Why should YOUR religious convictions supersede the Rabbi in question (or mine)?

In allowing SSM, the state will not force the Catholic Church to have priests perform SSM any more than force the Catholic Church to circumcise eight day old boys and/or change Confirmation to Bar and Bat Mitzvahs.

I did not mention religion. You wish to make it just a question of religion. The Jewish Rabbi can do as he pleases in his church. What the civil authorities recognise is a matter for democratic process.

 

[Rau]

It does not seem “amiss” to me under the paradigm that the people engaging in it have natural SSA feelings. I am not “closing my eyes” either.

The brevity of your response suggests otherwise.

Feelings are not in dispute - they are what they are. Why, is TBD.

But, it is evident that the body and the feelings are incongruous. Something is amiss.

 

[Rau]

In what reality is it so self-evidently wrong, and wrong to the extent that it becomes even remotely your business?

Well, there’s the nature of man and the nature of semen for starters. These things are the business of all of us I’d have thought. Observing and understanding the world…is everyone’s business.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Oh dear, what a fig leaf! A gay person is a person, with the same civil rights as you and I. But there is only one marriage Zoltan. Logically, there is only 1 possible sexual Union that arises from the nature of man, forms natural family units and brings about growth in society through children. It’s called marriage.

You are absolutely right. You have stated a true and concise definition of marriage.

There exist, however, a small group of people who insist on practicing abnormal sexual relations. It is vital for them to have this practice accepted by society as normal. Through activism and a sympathetic media they have pretty much convinced most of the under 35 crowd that their behavior is acceptable. But they hit a wall with society as a whole and the Catholic Church in particular. The only way for them to gain social acceptance is to legally have their relationships classified as a marriage.

You and I know what a marriage really is…but they don’t care. Once marriage is legally redefined to include gay relationships…a “can of worms” won’t describe what will open up.

If two persons have a case for State support for living together, sharing assets, mutual care and the like, well let the case be made. I don’t have a problem with that, do you? Regrettably, expedience will probably see your Supreme Court deem that marriage should fulfill this requirement.

Again, I agree with you.

The hope is that since our Constitution makes no mention of marriage at all and the “equal protection clause” applies to the States…the Supreme Court should rule that this is an issue better left up to the States.

 

[David_Goliath]

Welcome back David! Its awesome to have a scientist here!!!

It’s been a while. I had to stay home sick from work today and decided to drop by.

 

[Rau]

You are absolutely right. You have stated a true and concise definition of marriage.

There exist, however, a small group of people who insist on practicing abnormal sexual relations. It is vital for them to have this practice accepted by society as normal. Through activism and a sympathetic media they have pretty much convinced most of the under 35 crowd that their behavior is acceptable. But they hit a wall with society as a whole and the Catholic Church in particular. The only way for them to gain social acceptance is to legally have their relationships classified as a marriage.

You and I know what a marriage really is…but they don’t care. Once marriage is legally redefined to include gay relationships…a “can of worms” won’t describe what will open up.

Again, I agree with you.

The hope is that since our Constitution makes no mention of marriage at all and the “equal protection clause” applies to the States…the Supreme Court should rule that this is an issue better left up to the States.

We agree far more than we differ. I just have this sense that you oppose the possibility of biological influence principally because you fear that might slightly strengthen the other side’s weaponry, rather that because you think it’s false. The reality is we don’t know, but I don’t believe we have grounds to rule it out.

I’m not so sure it really has much bearing on any court decision. Birth defects are innate too. The afflicted maintain their rights. Society ensures they do not suffer undue discrimination. But a blind man is not permitted to become a surgeon either. Eligibility criteria are not of necessity changed to accommodate all.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It does not seem “amiss” to me under the paradigm that the people engaging in it have natural SSA feelings. I am not “closing my eyes” either.

This I cannot understand.

How can you call SSA feelings…natural? If SSA “feelings” were natural there would not be a reason for women.

Now David, I am not a biologist nor am I a scientist. I don’t need you to elaborate on the complex multifactorial collaboration of numerous of factors. I like to keep it simple. I like to use the Plumbing Explanation of biological function.

In the plumbing department of Home Depot you can buy a “Male” pipe fitting and you can buy a “Female” fitting. No matter how much Teflon tape or Pipe-dope you use, you cannot connect two “male” fittings together. Same with the “Female” fittings. It is interesting to note that when you join a “Male” fitting with a “Female” fitting it creates what is known as a “UNION”.

I maintain that it would not be normal for a plumber to spend all day trying to fit two Male fittings together. No matter how he “feels” about it. It just ain’t NATURAL.

 

[Jeanne_S]

This I cannot understand.

How can you call SSA feelings…natural? If SSA “feelings” were natural there would not be a reason for women.

Now David, I am not a biologist nor am I a scientist. I don’t need you to elaborate on the complex multifactorial collaboration of numerous of factors. I like to keep it simple. I like to use the Plumbing Explanation of biological function.

In the plumbing department of Home Depot you can buy a “Male” pipe fitting and you can buy a “Female” fitting. No matter how much Teflon tape or Pipe-dope you use, you cannot connect two “male” fittings together. Same with the “Female” fittings. It is interesting to note that when you join a “Male” fitting with a “Female” fitting it creates what is known as a “UNION”.

I maintain that it would not be normal for a plumber to spend all day trying to fit two Male fittings together. No matter how he “feels” about it. It just ain’t NATURAL.

Explained in such a way that even a small child would understand.

 

[David_Goliath]

This I cannot understand.

How can you call SSA feelings…natural? If SSA “feelings” were natural there would not be a reason for women.

Now David, I am not a biologist nor am I a scientist. I don’t need you to elaborate on the complex multifactorial collaboration of numerous of factors. I like to keep it simple. I like to use the Plumbing Explanation of biological function.

In the plumbing department of Home Depot you can buy a “Male” pipe fitting and you can buy a “Female” fitting. No matter how much Teflon tape or Pipe-dope you use, you cannot connect two “male” fittings together. Same with the “Female” fittings. It is interesting to note that when you join a “Male” fitting with a “Female” fitting it creates what is known as a “UNION”.

I maintain that it would not be normal for a plumber to spend all day trying to fit two Male fittings together. No matter how he “feels” about it. It just ain’t NATURAL.

Your simplicity is laughable.

SSA is natural in that a small number of people experience SSA (or bisexuality) without choosing it. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Can you RIGHT NOW CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite sex? No, you can’t.

There are complex reasons behind SSA which I will not elaborate here, and those complex reasons are probably too complex to be fully elucidated. Even the entire humane genome and proteome continues to be elucidated.: genes, expression of genes, factors that affect the expression of genes, etc. Biomedical science is not as “static” as say, mathematics.

Two people of the same sex coupling up or whatever is unnatural to you because you do not experience SSA.

To me and my faith community in general (even the “senior citizens”), SSA is not something disordered in the way you might think it is; it is a natural occurrence that is statistically rare.

How many gay people does G-d have to create for some to realize that maybe he just made some people that way and that they fall in love, etc?

Doesn’t it take a bigger spirit to step back, accept that SSA people can and do fall in love and want to be with each other?

Surely, there is the super promiscuous subset of LGBT people but there are also super promiscuous straight people. Those are another set of issues.

You disagree with me. I agree to disagree.

You likely have a certain idealized view of the world that is different from mine.

While your religion (or at least the hierarchy thereof) actively attempts to outlaw same-sex unions, my faith community (Reform, Conservative, some orthodox) actively support civil SSM as part of our sacred duty of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world).

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We agree far more than we differ. I just have this sense that you oppose the possibility of biological influence principally because you fear that might slightly strengthen the other side’s weaponry, rather that because you think it’s false. The reality is we don’t know, but I don’t believe we have grounds to rule it out.

Again I agree

But…

I oppose the concept of biological influence because it is only a possibility.
Advocates of the “born that way” argument MUST admit that they can’t prove it, and that since they can’t prove it, they MUST admit the possibility that homosexuality is acquired. I will challenge anyone who assumes the immutability of homosexuality as a premise.

I’m not so sure it really has much bearing on any court decision. Birth defects are innate too. The afflicted maintain their rights. Society ensures they do not suffer undue discrimination. But a blind man is not permitted to become a surgeon either. Eligibility criteria are not of necessity changed to accommodate all.

Birth defects and the afflicted do not choose their condition. Until proven that homosexuality is not a choice (many have admitted that it is) or acquired there is no discrimination.

 

[David_Goliath]

Explained in such a way that even a small child would understand.

You are not a small child.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Your simplicity is laughable.

Glad you have a sense of humor. But what I said was true…

SSA is natural in that a small number of people experience SSA (or bisexuality) without choosing it. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Can you RIGHT NOW CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite sex? No, you can’t.

You are right…I can’t choose NOW. I’m too old and set in my ways. But as young adolescent beginning to experience sexual feelings I could be directed one way or the other. Encouragement plays an important role at that time. Parental direction or peer pressure can change minds.

A teacher could say its OK to be attracted to boys. Its natural. Lots of guys like guys.
Or an Uncle could say. Stop being a sissy or the girls will never like you. You do like girls, don’t you?

Things like this can be a life time influence.

 

[Rau]

…SSA is natural in that a small number of people experience SSA (or bisexuality) without choosing it. Why is that so hard to grasp?

All manner of ‘defects’ in our makeup are “natural”. A deficiency in the eye that leads to blurred vision as one grows is natural. I accept that SSA MAY BE “natural”, at least in some, though we don’t yet really know.

Two people of the same sex coupling up or whatever is unnatural to you because you do not experience SSA.

Nonsense. We can largely understand what we cannot experience because we have the intellect to do so. The same intellect tells us that, logically, a man is built to couple with a woman. Having semen makes sense in that context. The whole male sexual physiology makes sense in that context.

To me and my faith community in general (even the “senior citizens”), SSA is not something disordered in the way you might think it is; it is a natural occurrence that is statistically rare.

So?

How many gay people does G-d have to create for some to realize that maybe he just made some people that way and that they fall in love, etc?

Doesn’t it take a bigger spirit to step back, accept that SSA people can and do fall in love and want to be with each other?

I’m not so sure that God directs the manufacture of each us or simply, we are what we are - nature runs its course. But regardless, what makes you think God told those with SSA to “go forth and engage in sex acts in accordance with your desires”? Must love of another encompass sex acts, regardless of the nature of the other?

You disagree with me. I agree to disagree.

I (too) disagree with you because you make no coherent argument. Explain again why two men desiring to exchange semen does not at all suggest something amiss. Let us even take as an assumption that their SSA arises due to some biological factor. The fact that “they desire it” cannot be the answer, but it is all you offer.

 

[David_Goliath]

All manner of ‘defects’ in our makeup are “natural”. A deficiency in the eye that leads to blurred vision as one grows is natural. I accept that SSA MAY BE “natural”, at least in some, though we don’t yet really know.

Nonsense. We can largely understand what we cannot experience because we have the intellect to do so. The same intellect tells us that, logically, a man is built to couple with a woman. Having semen makes sense in that context. The whole male sexual physiology makes sense in that context.

So?

I’m not so sure that God directs the manufacture of each us or simply, we are what we are - nature runs its course. But regardless, what makes you think God told those with SSA to “go forth and engage in sex acts in accordance with your desires”? Must love of another encompass sex acts, regardless of the nature of the other?

I (too) disagree with you because you make no coherent argument. Explain again why two men desiring to exchange semen does not at all suggest something amiss. Let us even take as an assumption that their SSA arises due to some biological factor. The fact that “they desire it” cannot be the answer, but it is all you offer.

OK.

As I stated earlier, I returned to forum just because I took a sick day from work today. Cough cough sneeze sneeze going away.

I posted this link before but if anyone wants to know the “whys” of Judaism, start here:

**myjewishlearning.com/article/sex-sexuality/
**
Judaism is deliberately non-dogmatic and non-fundamentalist. I’m used to it. Very little is “official” as in Catholicism.

This forum introduced me to some of the “whys” of Catholicism and I will continue reading the “big” Catechism (I finished the “compedium” little Catechism).

From what I gather, our understandings of sin, original sin, and the world to come (afterlife) differ as well.

I have to say, I enjoy lots of Catholic hymns with organ and love Bach’s B minor Mass (although, he was Lutheran?).

 

[Rau]

OK.

As I stated earlier, I returned to forum just because I took a sick day from work today. Cough cough sneeze sneeze going away.

I posted this link before but if anyone wants to know the “whys” of Judaism, start here:

myjewishlearning.com/article/sex-sexuality/

Judaism is deliberately non-dogmatic and non-fundamentalist. I’m used to it. Very little is “official” as in Catholicism.

This forum introduced me to some of the “whys” of Catholicism and I will continue reading the “big” Catechism (I finished the “compedium” little Catechism).

From what I gather, our understandings of sin, original sin, and the world to come (afterlife) differ as well.

I have to say, I enjoy lots of Catholic hymns with organ and love Bach’s B minor Mass (although, he was Lutheran?).

Ummm…I think this means you don’t wish to discuss further?