You seemed to endorse Exodus International in the same breath as endorsing Courage. But the groups have always been quite different. Exodus attempted to convert people from being gay to being straight. Courage tries to help same-sex attracted people live chastely. There is a world of difference between the two goals – indeed, the goal of Exodus was based on bad theology.
I’m humbled by your willingness to hear me out, Mac. God bless you!
Good Afternoon Abu: I wasn’t really addressing human frailties. I was discussing homosexual and heterosexual behavior.
Heterosexuality is indeed in the design of the creator, however, apparently homosexuality is too. I have to reason that the intent of the creator is implicit in observable outcomes, especially when they are found ubiquitously throughout creation, in this case, the natural world. Aside from humans, homosexual behavior is found throughout the natural world, to include the following species (to name a few):
Rin mentioned in post #238 how this is a misinterpretation of “disorder”, and therefore not relevant to the the discussion of “what should be”. If instances of behavior in the animal world are to taken as excuses for any human behavior, then we should also notice that thievery is very common in the animal world. Yet I don’t hear anyone raising a defense of thieves in human society the way you are implying a defense of homosexual behavior in human society.
There are not far short of a hundred different studies on this that I know of, using all sorts of different ways to try to measure ‘harm’ - only a tiny monority of which showed any sign that same sex parents were worse than opposite sex ones. Of those that did support your assertion, even a lowly physical scientist such as myself can understand flaws such as the Regnerus study comparing stable married heterosexual couples to mainly broken single-parent families and some people trying to argue that this showed that same sex couples were bad parents.
Hypothetically: I propose that having only one mother or only one father is a form of harm.
I am sorry to hear that. You seem to have had a very rough childhood, all things told.
You think that gay couples will not have kids if they are persecuted more? Or they will still have kids, and you will just be perseciting the kids along with the parents?
Good Afternoon Leaf: I would argue that it remains to be established that homosexual tendencies and their attending behaviors are in any way on par with thievery. I would also point out that mutually consenting adult homosexual relationships differ from thievery in many ways. One of the ways in which it differs is mutual consent, and foreknowledge of intents, both of which are missing in thievery.
Of course thievery and homosexuality are not on a par. I was referring to only one aspect of both them - the same aspect that you referring to in your posting - the fact that both of them are observable in the animal world. Since that was the **only **aspect of homosexuality you were addressing at the time, and you were using that observation to support the tolerance of homosexual behavior, it seems appropriate when answering your argument to also address that aspect.
A very good point. The fact that humans have the ability to reason suggests that we** not** rely exclusively on animal behavior to decide what is good behavior.
Good Evening Leaf: My post was in reply to the idea that it was an unnatural behavior, or disorder.
Again the point about natural behavior was with regard to the idea that it was somehow unnatural behavior. I have not heard a philosophical or rational argument yet as to why governments should prohibit gay marriage. Keep in mind the context , in which I am not referring to churches or religious arguments.
You said they used all sorts of different ways to measure “harm”. But you didn’t mention any of these ways. My guess is they probably have to do with financial success or personal health, or some such thing. But I don’t see why these things are indicators of harm or its lack.There are not far short of a hundred different studies on this that I know of, using all sorts of different ways to try to measure ‘harm’ - only a tiny monority of which showed any sign that same sex parents were worse than opposite sex ones. Of those that did support your assertion, even a lowly physical scientist such as myself can understand flaws such as the Regnerus study comparing stable married heterosexual couples to mainly broken single-parent families and some people trying to argue that this showed that same sex couples were bad parents.
I don’t think anyone should approach anyone else under the attitude that they are “living in sin”. That’s certainly not how I approach unmarried heterosexual couples that are raising children.
In our society, children without married parents are hardly ever persecuted (so far as I know). Children of gay people are persecuted, yes – and I think that is VERY wrong. However, calling the parents “married” won’t stop them from being persecuted because their parents are gay.
The reality is mankind – created flawless with free-will which was abused resulting in the Original Sin – there is nothing apparent about it, and trying to compare mankind to animals in a reductio ad absurdum.
Good Morning Abu:
The reality here is the FACT of Original Sin which no real Catholic can deny from which follows ALL of the aberrations in mankind, both physical and mental, with which we are afflicted – having lost the original justice with which we were created.
Dear Abu: Neither of us can prove that what we believe in regards to God is anything more than an idea. An idea that resonates with you and me as truth does not give us license to define how everyone else under a governmental system is to live, nor does it give us the right to define someone else’s perceived spiritual reality. And they are all perceived Abu, and we all have to live together. But this thread is about what governments allow or don’t allow. Governments represent you and I as well as people who believe lots of things that we don’t believe. They also represent people who believe in nothing. We are free as a Catholic community to define marriage within our faith. We are not free to define marriage for atheists, Protestants, or anyone else. We have our cake, and governments have to allow for others to have theirs too.
Of course, Catholics are allowed to vote and legislate their consciences, just like anybody else. Do you really think the Constitution forbids me from voting against, say, incest, simply because my objection to it is rooted in my faith?
Good evening Prodigal Son: Yes, you can vote all you like. So can people who disagree with you. That is the point.Of course, Catholics are allowed to vote and legislate their consciences, just like anybody else. Do you really think the Constitution forbids me from voting against, say, incest, simply because my objection to it is rooted in my faith?
But you were saying that “We are not free to define marriage for atheists, Protestants, or anyone else.” But of course, if we all voted to make marriage between a man and a woman, we **would **be defining marriage for atheists, Protestants, and so on. Thus, according to American law at least, we are perfectly justified in legislating our own morality.
You vote for whoever you think best represents your ideas. Tides are shifting in the ideas that people have about institutions like marriage, but in some places that’s not the case. I live in a very right wing state that is quite homophobic. We even have a state law that specifically prohibits gay marriage that was just put in place a couple of years ago. I voted against the law because I have no desire to push my morals on other people. My morals are considered rather extreme to many people, but that’s really my issue. I have no ideas about what other people should do. I am only worried about what I do, and I fully understand that other people feel differently about a lot of social issues than I do.
I respect your sentiments, but I’m afraid that morals get imposed on somebody, either way. When same-sex marriage is legal, children are imposed upon, since they are intentionally denied either a mother or a father.
To play devil’s advocate, they’re also intentionally denied either an extra mother or father when SSM is illegal, in case they wanted that
False.
God has defined marriage for all, and Christ mandated that Catholics should go and teach all nations His truths through His Church and that includes the absolute reality that marriage is between a man and a woman. God even wiped out the sodomists at Sodom and Gomorrah and His Church carries His truths to all of mankind – when others try to cripple society with lunacies Catholics have to promote truth and combat error. There is no room for fifth columnists.