How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[Clinias]

Mr. Goliath asks about the Old Order. I thought that maybe the race questions from Mr. Goliath was about to hijack the thread and so I considered not answering anymore and then I got to thinking that these are all interconnected.

What is the Old Order?

The Old Order is Monarchy, Aristocracy, commons, peasantry, clergy. It is a stratified society. In England in the 9th century A. D, the society was divided between “those who fight, those who pray, and those who work”. The Old Order is the product of the Natural Order.

Who created the Natural Order?

God.

Thru Jesus Christ. Christ is the Logos. The Logos is embedded and creates and establishes the Natural Order of things. Heraclitus describes The Logos as “steering all things from behind”. The Logos also has another name, The Natural Law. The Natural Law guides and directs all things. Jesus Christ is the Logos behind the order in the Natural Order which the Old Order is derived from.

Marriage is part of the Natural Order, part of the Old Order. Race is also a part of the Natural Order. God created both. Both are under attack. Why? The whole of the so-called “Enlightenment” was a transformation of thought, politics, culture and customs; it was about escaping from God; that Man is the measure of all things and that Man decides what is real and what is reality. Man creates his own reality. That is the Novus Ordo.

What is Race? Race is a conglomeration of interrelated families. What is the central aspect of Catholic teaching? The Family. So what is Race? Family. Both of these institutions are Family organizations. It is all about Family and this is the way God has oriented reality—in family groups. We see that in wild horses that live in family groups, lion prides and even in Meerkat groups. The whole of nature is organized in family groups.

What is going on, is that the Left, the heirs of the “Enlightenment” are about unmaking the Natural Order.

Plutarch, a priest at Delphi, of the god Apollo states the core of Western Culture and Civilization:

"We are NOT in this world to give the laws…but in order to obey the commands of the gods."

This quote undermines the whole of the “Enlightenment” and Americanism. We are taught that Liberty and Equality are the goals of this world. Plutarch points to the real truth of reality. We are here to obey—to LIVE IN CONFORMITY with the Logos, with God. Obedience. This is Western Culture and Western Civilization.

Same Sex Marriage is about attacking, undermining and overturning the Natural Order.

 

[David_Goliath]

Mr. Goliath asks about the Old Order. I thought that maybe the race questions from Mr. Goliath was about to hijack the thread and so I considered not answering anymore and then I got to thinking that these are all interconnected.

What is the Old Order?

The Old Order is Monarchy, Aristocracy, commons, peasantry, clergy. It is a stratified society. In England in the 9th century A. D, the society was divided between “those who fight, those who pray, and those who work”. The Old Order is the product of the Natural Order.

Who created the Natural Order?

God.

Thru Jesus Christ. Christ is the Logos. The Logos is embedded and creates and establishes the Natural Order of things. Heraclitus describes The Logos as “steering all things from behind”. The Logos also has another name, The Natural Law. The Natural Law guides and directs all things. Jesus Christ is the Logos behind the order in the Natural Order which the Old Order is derived from.

Marriage is part of the Natural Order, part of the Old Order. Race is also a part of the Natural Order. God created both. Both are under attack. Why? The whole of the so-called “Enlightenment” was a transformation of thought, politics, culture and customs; it was about escaping from God; that Man is the measure of all things and that Man decides what is real and what is reality. Man creates his own reality. That is the Novus Ordo.

What is Race? Race is a conglomeration of interrelated families. What is the central aspect of Catholic teaching? The Family. So what is Race? Family. Both of these institutions are Family organizations. It is all about Family and this is the way God has oriented reality—in family groups. We see that in wild horses that live in family groups, lion prides and even in Meerkat groups. The whole of nature is organized in family groups.

What is going on, is that the Left, the heirs of the “Enlightenment” are about unmaking the Natural Order.

Plutarch, a priest at Delphi, of the god Apollo states the core of Western Culture and Civilization:

**This quote undermines the whole of the “Enlightenment” and Americanism. We are taught that Liberty and Equality are the goals of this world. **Plutarch points to the real truth of reality. We are here to obey—to LIVE IN CONFORMITY with the Logos, with God. Obedience. This is Western Culture and Western Civilization.

Same Sex Marriage is about attacking, undermining and overturning the Natural Order.

OK. I admit I am not too conversant in philosophy. I hold B.S. and M.S. degrees in medical related sciences and work in the medical field. I could chew on all this over time.

Are you opposed to the way liberty and equality is in this country( USA). Does it bother you that Catholicism isn’t given a special place of honor?

And about race: do the current racial demographics of the USA bother you? You praise “racial homogeneity”. Does it bother you, for instance, that there are certain percentages of whites, blacks, asians, mixed race, hispanics, etc? You mentioned something about Proportion earlier.

This previous post of yours i am responding to, would it receive “Nihil obstat” or “Imprimatur” from the appropriate authorities of your religion?

You praise the Old Order and cite 9th century England with it’s stratification of monarchy, aristocracy, peasants, and clergy. More: those who pray, those who work, and those who fight? Does Catholicism “want” the USA to turn into this?

At the same time there are Catholics here who appreciate our currently secular state (USA). One admits he/she is “glad this is not a theocracy”.

It is my understanding that liberty and equality are the goals of the world. One of the seven “Noahide Laws” in Judaism is something along the lines of “establish courts and strive for justice, etc”. So we have courts and all sorts of checks and balances in the good ol’ USA.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And as others have pointed out, I was sickened by the liberal activist judges who took it upon themselves to decide what the definition of marriage should be.

I was going to ask if it would make a difference if it had been made legal by completely democratic action. But before I asked that I looked up how it became legal in your region. It looks like there was a proposal, a debates, a law passed in 2012 by Maryland’s general assembly, put up to voters in November of the same year, and approved by 52.4% of the voters before taking effect in 2013. Are you talking about an area outside of Maryland? If not are your feelings changed by the information that it was a change that involved voters?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This argument is specious. HIV infection rates in North America are less than 1% for the general population. Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest HIV infection rates in the world with over 20% of the general population. Swaziland has an HIV infection rate of 26% of the general population, the highest in the world (source: UNICEF).The spread of HIV in this part of the world is not caused by homosexual promiscuity.

It is not specious. Please note that I am referring to STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) Not only HIV infection.

What is specious is your statement: “The spread of HIV in this part of the world is not caused by homosexual promiscuity”.

Unless HIV infection is now “airborne transmitted”, I am sure we can consider homosexual promiscuity to be a MAJOR cause of the spread of STD’s…including HIV.

The central issue for SSM is equal rights in my opinion. That is how SSM got approved here in Canada. Men and women have the right to marry whether it is opposite sex or same sex. That is likely how it will go down in the USA I believe. Natural law arguments will not prevail over equal rights arguments.

I agree there will likely be an argument over equal rights, but Constitutional law is pretty clear about that.

It is well established that the Constitution protects only “those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’

It is beyond dispute that the “right” to same-sex marriage** is not **deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. In this country, no State permitted same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in 2003 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the State Constitution.

What the supporters of SSM seek, therefore, is not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges. Faced with such a request, judges have cause for both caution and humility.

Sacramental marriage will not change regardless. The Catholic Church will continue to marry men and women as they always have.

That is true, but a favorable decision by the Court will prevent Catholic schools, organizations and individual Catholic employers from discriminating against behavior that we believe are acts of grave depravity, intrinsically disordered, and under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[Havard]

It is not specious. Please note that I am referring to STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) Not only HIV infection.

What is specious is your statement: “The spread of HIV in this part of the world is not caused by homosexual promiscuity”.

Unless HIV infection is now “airborne transmitted”, I am sure we can consider homosexual promiscuity to be a MAJOR cause of the spread of STD’s…including HIV.

I agree there will likely be an argument over equal rights, but Constitutional law is pretty clear about that.

It is well established that the Constitution protects only “those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’

It is beyond dispute that the “right” to same-sex marriage** is not **deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. In this country, no State permitted same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in 2003 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the State Constitution.

What the supporters of SSM seek, therefore, is not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges. Faced with such a request, judges have cause for both caution and humility.

That is true, but a favorable decision by the Court will prevent Catholic schools, organizations and individual Catholic employers from discriminating against behavior that we believe are acts of grave depravity, intrinsically disordered, and under no circumstances can they be approved.

You are correct, but I just want to expand on your point.

All of the rights that any couple needs, gay people already enjoy. Gay couples are already free to engage in religious ceremonies that celebrate their relationships (free exercise of religion). Further, they can already live together, be intimate with each other, and jointly hold assets together (freedom of association).

The only thing they don’t get is a special legal designation. And as we all know, special legal designations are not rights. They are benefits used as incentives such as in this case, to promote stable natural families, as that serves the common good.

There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about a nation deciding to raise up a social institution, like marriage, to promote for the sake of the common good.

 

[exnihilo]

This argument is specious. HIV infection rates in North America are less than 1% for the general population. Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest HIV infection rates in the world with over 20% of the general population. Swaziland has an HIV infection rate of 26% of the general population, the highest in the world (source: UNICEF).The spread of HIV in this part of the world is not caused by homosexual promiscuity.

You have to wonder how a disease can spread one way in one place and an entirely different way in another. Not that it is impossible. But if you just can’t catch HIV from casual contact, and females don’t generally give it to males then how is it spreading in Africa?

I personally think HIV facts are anything but. If you look into it you’ll find the standard for diagnosis various from place to place. Also does it make sense that primitive Africa is able to positively identify HIV infections so well? It doesn’t to me. It is like how hospitals in Texas diagnosis Ebola as an infection needing antibiotics.

 

[epan]

Does the public library stock nudist magazines? Does it carry child porn? Adult porn? Is there any category of material that it should not buy with public money? I presume that it must select some material and not others since it can’t buy everything. Does it give preference to porn if some patron demands it?

Finally we agree. The library should not stock material which clearly and blatantly defends bigotry. Or do you disagree with that, too? Before you answer that, consider the source of virtually all bigotry against homosexuals.

 

[epan]

Would you be content with a Catholic state that still separated non-Catholics from Catholics?For example Jews into ghettos being forced to wear badges, even if it was with the “laudable” intent to stop the spread of “heresy” (ie, anything not Catholic)?

Would you support this:
“As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in 1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.””

Do you want other religions to be of second class status?

What is so wrong with the way the USA is now. It’s like we are all on bus and we all have a seat, right? I have never met an American in person or even online who WANTED what you describe, which frankly, is borderline (if not actually) Totalitarian.

This is unpopular to point out here, but putting Jews in ghettos, and requiring them to wear identifying clothing and patches when outside the ghetto, did not originate with Hitler. I’ll give you a guess where it originated, centuries before the Nazi’s.

Jewish ghettos were a commonplace in Europe for many centuries. Anyone interested in the topic should research its origins. Hitler did not invent the idea. He did take it to an extraordinary next level which is beyond comprehension.

 

[Havard]

This is unpopular to point out here, but putting Jews in ghettos, and requiring them to wear identifying clothing and patches when outside the ghetto, did not originate with Hitler. I’ll give you a guess where it originated, centuries before the Nazi’s.

Jewish ghettos were a commonplace in Europe for many centuries. Anyone interested in the topic should research its origins. Hitler did not invent the idea. He did take it to an extraordinary next level which is beyond comprehension.

Pompey the Great broke up Jerusalem somewhere around 60 BC, after its subjugation. He created Jewish-only districts, and disallowed Jews in other districts. This happened concurrently with the imposition of harsh laws on the Jews, deliberate desecration of Jewish temples, etc. So to my knowledge, Pompey was the first to create “Jewish ghettos” and restrict Jewish ingress/egress in a city. That said, not all of the Roman rulers were equally tyrannical.

 

[Personanongrata]

Pope Francis doesn’t think it’s a non-issue. At all. “The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.” (Jan. 16.)

With all due respect to Pope Francis, that is his opinion only, and I (along with many Catholics) can and do disagree. Besides most of the gay married couples I know have children. So the “lack of openness to life” doesn’t apply to them.

 

[Clinias]

Mr. Goliath, You are overwhelming me with all your questions. It took me years of reading and years of living to arrive at my observations. I have physical library of 200 books and a virtual library of 700 articles and books. But it is also about reading the right stuff because there is a lot of junk out there.

Also, I’m a tiny minority of the Catholic community. Not many Catholics are Traditionalists. I grew up in a liberal Catholic household. 200 years ago, I would be considered mainstream. Not today. Our values have been transformed. I adhere to Cicero’s observation of Truth, “Truth is not one thing in Athens and another in Rome. Truth is not one thing yesterday and another thing today.” The criterion of Truth is Consistency. Truth never changes. So this is my background.

Furthermore, there are a lot of subversives and heretics within the Catholic Church. Marxism has made inroads into many things Catholic. It says in the Bible, “They who handled the Law Knew Me not”; meaning that many of the leadership in the Catholic Church don’t know the Faith or the Will of God. The Bible is there to present the Will of God. God condemned the Tower of Babel and called it Evil. So why was Pope John Paul II busy trying to build World Unity? World Unity is a Masonic and Communist goal. It is not orthodox Christianity at all!

The one of the first commands in the Bible, in Genesis, is to “To Cultivate and To Keep”. That is a command God lays on all of us. One must be able to cultivate one’s kind and to preserve it, guard it. I look at medieval Jerusalem, with its Latin Quarter, Muslim Quarter, Armenian Quarter and its Jewish Quarter. Ancient Alexandria was the same way. Orthodox Jews in New York City, form their own exclusive communities. The Essenes gathered together in communities of their own. People for the longest time have gathered together along the lines of relationship. This is how the world works. Multiculturalism and political correctness are actually genocidal methodologies. It is about destroying group/racial solidarity. I like to ask Catholics out there how is destroying racial solidarity a “common good”? To existentially genocide oneself?

That is how community is formed–naturally.

The background of Traditional European thought is Order. Nature has Order. Things are in their place.

On Politics. There is a good book to start with, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Liberty or Equality. Democracy is the worst form of government. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are all misodemoi i.e. haters of democracy. Von Kuehelt-Leddihn backs up Plato that democracy always falls into Tyranny. Aristotle notes when there is an excess of liberty, it soon turns into chaos, and then turns into ochlocracy, mob rule. We are living in America with mob rule. Pick up Aristotle’s Politics. It is all right there.

As to the Jewish conspiracy, are you aware of the teaching of Jewish Messianism? It requires a utopia established and world unity. All the races are to be done away with. You think I’m kidding? Rabbi Ari Kahn, Chief Rabbi of the London Synagogue has a talk on this very thing: Kahn, Rabbi Ari (2012) Talk: The Messiah.
ou.org/torah/article/the_messiah

This teaching is in Freemasonry and in Communism. Each of these two movement attempt to establish the two ingredients necessary for the Jewish Messiah to occur. On top of this, the Kabbala is throughout Freemasonry of the Scottish Rite, (Masonic lodges in Continental Europe are atheistic.) One of the basic teachings of Masonry, Scottish Rite and the Atheistic branches is “The Brotherhood of Man”. The intellectual goad of communism Hegel was a Kabbalist. Communism was founded by two Jews and the major intellectuals and organizers of communism have been Jews. Communism has been the biggest killer and destroyer of Roman Catholics and its part in Europe. Rosa Luxemburg wrote a pamphlet called “The Nationalities Question” where she castigates Lenin for reviving nationalism in Russia amongst its minorities because communism is supposed to end nationalities and nationalism. Both Freemasonry and Communism have a great hatred for Roman Catholicism. This is why when you read old Roman Catholic texts you will come across that phrase, Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. Many Roman Catholic Intellectuals used that phrase. The earliest was a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Australia in 1886.

It took me years of research to see the things I see.

It is just the nature of things.

If you are interested I wrote a book on what philosophy is and who originated it, how Hegel changed philosophy and that Western Culture and civilization has been transformed. It is free and online. It would answer a lot of your questions

Part I, The Case of the Barefoot Socrates

For others interested in the ramifications of this innovation of normalizing homosexuality, please see

Normalizing Homosexuality

The article is about how the anti-discrimination laws are really about normalizing Homosexuality. That same argument can be used for the push for Same Sex Marriage. It really is a catastrophe of enormous proportions.

 

[epan]

Pompey the Great broke up Jerusalem somewhere around 60 BC, after its subjugation. He created Jewish-only districts, and disallowed Jews in other districts. This happened concurrently with the imposition of harsh laws on the Jews, deliberate desecration of Jewish temples, etc. So to my knowledge, Pompey was the first to create “Jewish ghettos” and restrict Jewish ingress/egress in a city. That said, not all of the Roman rulers were equally tyrannical.

Ah… as a student of history, perhaps you can inform us on the subject of anti-Semitism from 700-1940? Roughly the last 1200 years. Where do you suppose it came from?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Ah… as a student of history, perhaps you can inform us on the subject of anti-Semitism from 700-1940? Roughly the last 1200 years. Where do you suppose it came from?

Rather than digress…stay on the topic of the thread…SSMarriage.

 

[Jeanne_S]

With all due respect to Pope Francis, that is his opinion only, and I (along with many Catholics) can and do disagree. Besides most of the gay married couples I know have children. So the “lack of openness to life” doesn’t apply to them.

Open to life refers to one man one women within the marital act ,being open to the potential life such a unity will create.

 

[JimG]

Finally we agree. The library should not stock material which clearly and blatantly defends bigotry. Or do you disagree with that, too? Before you answer that, consider the source of virtually all bigotry against homosexuals.

Is opposition to same sex marriage bigotry?

 

[Havard]

Ah… as a student of history, perhaps you can inform us on the subject of anti-Semitism from 700-1940? Roughly the last 1200 years. Where do you suppose it came from?

Depends on the time and place. But in Europe, mostly Christians, and secondly Muslims. Do you have a point that relates to this thread?

 

[David_Goliath]

Clinias and all,

I admit I am overwhelmed by so much philosophy, including your capitalized words like “Natural Law”, “Order”, etc.

Regarding the Messiah, I am aware of different Jewish interpretations. The view you cited is that of an Orthodox Rabbi. From my understanding, both orthodoxy and orthopraxy are important to Catholicism. There are wide ranging views on this and that in Judaism from the Reform to the Orthodox spectrum.

Here is a general description of the reform/conservative view:
*“We do not know when the Messiah will come, nor whether he will be a charismatic human figure or is a symbol of the redemption of humankind from the evils of the world. Through the doctrine of a Messianic figure, Judaism teaches us that every individual human being must live as if he or she, individually, has the responsibility to bring about the messianic age”
*

All I can say is that perhaps “Natural Law” or just plain ol’ nature meant for some people to be born (or develop in childhood) sexual and romantic attractions to the same sex. Perhaps it is time for us to accept it. Sure, it is statistically abnormal: put sexuality on a bell curve, maybe heterosexuality is just mean/average. Not all lgbt people are promiscuous and “in your face”. Many are in relationships that are even more monogamous than straight people. Regarding Bibical prohibitions against homosexuality, well, I accept that the Jewish community has evolved the understanding of them.

While one camp sees homosexual behavior (even in committed relations/marriage) as abnormal/threat to society, etc…I see accepting them as harder than not. All social change is hard. Like Rep. Steve Simon of Minnesota said (i posted a video earlier): “how may gay people does G-d need to make before we accept that maybe He wants them around?”

And yes, I know the official Catholic position on “accepting” them is different from mine. And YES I understand that not accepting SSM is not the same as hating all gay people, but I can’t help but wonder that maybe calling homosexuality “disordered” and everything associated that might be the source of a lot of hatred and abuse of gay people.
**
Growing up, some kids in high school thought I was gay(had SSA). Maybe it’s because I played the piano and liked opera? Whatever. I was made fun of some time and at one point was so confused I considered suicide. All that time I still had enormous physical and romantic crushes on girls. But, here I am alive, and yes, i am secure in my heterosexuality. High school=water under a bridge.**

I use the word '“perhaps” over and over again because this is all what I believe. And people will disagree with me, but oh well. I suppose that being Jewish, I accept that my religious views (myjewishlearning.com) are deliberately non-dogmatic (with the exception of very basic core principles, even occasionally having atheist/agnostic phases in life is oK in Judaism). This probably makes me comfortable with accepting the existence of multiple positions on any theological matter. In Jewish parlance, it is “wrestling with God” (like Jacob/Israel did during one night, via an angel?) or being more focused on actions and orthopraxy. If it makes it seem like I am “imbibed by liberalism and cultural Marxism” then so be it, I never thought of it that way.

As for being a Catholic “Traditionalist” (Clinias) I assume that means you prefer the Tridentine liturgy. If you are posting on CAF I assume you are not a Sedevacantist. I visited a Latin Mass once (SSPX). It was interesting (i have a thread on it, see my profile).

Ok everyone, I guess for me, it’s good bye.

Lets all wait and see what happens with the Supreme Court decision in June…

David Goliath.

 

[Havard]

With all due respect to Pope Francis, that is his opinion only, and I (along with many Catholics) can and do disagree. Besides most of the gay married couples I know have children. So the “lack of openness to life” doesn’t apply to them.

You are incorrect. It is not just the personal opinion of the current Pope. It is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons:

Conclusion.

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

*The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication. *

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

 

[revert_jen]

The poster from south Africa complained that the change in 2008 in their laws resulted in higher toleration of gays. I myself would refer to higher toleration of gas as a better condition.

Actually, no. (I mean no about the poster from South Africa; of course I agree that a decrease in hate attacks against gays is good.)

It was legalized here in South Africa here around 2008. I was pretty left wing and still agnostic then, so I didn’t think much about it, but with hindsight it’s been a disaster for the family here in South Africa. It has also failed to lead to greater tolerance of homosexuals here in South Africa, as same sex marriage advocates thought it would, as hate attacks against gays are just as high as ever.

Emphasis mine.

As for the main question of the thread, I was angry and sad. If the people of my state had actually voted to allow it, I would just have been sad. If a Virginia judge decided to overturn the popular vote in Virginia, I would have been sad and less angry. But as a federal judge decided it, and the supreme court refused to defend the centuries-old rights of states to make their own marriage laws, I was very sad and quite angry.

–Jen

 

[jmcrae]

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.

I remember thinking, what do they need marriage for?

The sex act is the means of evolutionary progress, when it occurs between a male and female who have the commitment to take care of each other and their offspring, to bring the offspring to maturity and their own reproductive cycle.

Apart from that, there is little purpose to it, in the broader scheme of things - there is no grand purpose merely to being in physical love.