How do supporters of so-called "same-sex marriage" define marriage?

[Publisher]

“gay people ARE defined for the most part by their sexual orientation…but it no more defines who they are than my orientation defines me”

So just to be clear: gay people ARE defined by their sexual behavior, but at the same time they are not defined by their sexual behavior?

Ahhh…I see I didn’t have the “NOT”…add “NOT” after “ARE”. Sorry must have got distracted and must have been thinking faster than I was typing.

 

[TracerBullet]

​

Homophobe is a pejorative used against people you disagree with.

Try applying your statement to the definition provided

 

[Stephen168]

​

Try applying your statement to the definition provided

I prefer the de facto definition I provided

In 1993, behavioral scientists William O’Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term “as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality” itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the speaker does not approve.

For the third time: What is your definition of marriage?

 

[TracerBullet]

You disregarded the premise under which the state and the church has started with its agreement of federal monies in exchange for a valued social service. What was acceptable before to the state as far as adherence to religious principles was never a problem until the clamor of new rights claimed by same sex parents.

No it was a problem before, it remains a problem now.
Again if a Catholic or any religious institutions take federal monies to provide adoption services and/or contract with state and local agencies to provide adoption services then they must abide by federal laws regarding discrimination.
If they don’t want to abide by the laws regarding discrimination they need to get out of said business.

So, if I get you right, you don’t see anything purposefully antagonistic to the Church under which you supposedly belong when a dissident or non-Catholic same-sex just ‘married’ couple wish to have a party at the parish hall, even if there are other options for them?

If a parish is going to offer up its hall to be rented by the public then it can’t discriminate regarding who they rent to. If they don’t want to rent to minorities then they shouldn’t offer their halls up for rent.

Kinda like a the options that same sex couple have in approaching a non-Catholic organization to adopt a child, but the same sex couple would insist on adopting a child through the Catholic Church, even if it is generally known that the CC will not be able to place any child in a same sex parent home on the basis of a religious principle?

In many areas there are limited options for adoption agencies.

Taking a position against SS’M’ and speaking of the wrongness of homosexual acts is not homophobic.

Didn’t say it was.

I am however saying is that many posters here ”taking a position” do make statements advocating discrimination, expressing contempt, expressing prejudice, expressing aversion and expressing hatred towards gays and lesbian and to those perceived to be gay/lesbian. And that makes such statements homophobic

As for speech being limited, we only have to look at our neighbor to the north. I provided a link in another thread, the Canadian Crackdown, which another poster thought should be viewed for reading and he opened an entire thread on it. I provide it again here as it’s tedious to repeat the trend that curtailment to free speech is the direction to how far gay activists wish to take their brand of morality. A demand for tolerance, which is really a demand for acceptance by the rest of society, which can only be deemed as tyranny.

I ask YOU just how is YOUR free speech being limited. I have to guess that your free speech is not being curtailed in any way.

As for your link: you might want to look into just what Bishop Henry actually said in his letter. He called an entire minority evil and called on the government to enact legislation to remove legal protections from and actively supress
You would also do well to look at the actual complaints filed - in reality nobody was trying to silence Bishop Henry. It is two individuals, both heterosexuals, who merely want to limit his attacks on minorities.
Here are the two horrible, horrible complains that were filed: “I believe the publication of Bishop Henry’s letter is likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt. These remarks are particularly dangerous when made by a person in a position of trust and authority.” Carol Johnson
“I’m not doing this because anybody in my family is gay, I’m just doing it because what Bishop Henry seems to think he can get away with saying in public against an identifiable group. I think the debate over same-sex marriage has gotten way out of hand, and we need to bring it back to some level of civility.” Norman Greenfield

How tyrannical of them.

You need to read up on the passage of SB49 in other states. Sorry, but I will not spoonfeed you. It would be great if you get a bit enlightened with this exchange of ours.

So you like the Tennessee SB9?…or don’t? …can’t figure that out.

At the risk of asking to be “spoon fed” why don’t you actually say which SB49 you find so objectionable and which includes the “indoctrination” Maybe that will help me figure out just what you’re talking about when you say “indoctrination”

Nay. Personally, I have seen the unreasonableness of gay activists. Close up. What is your reason for being on the opposite side?

I’m still trying to figure out just what “unreasonableness” you are talking about

It is more bowing to what makes sense, not simply to a religious principle. Fuirther, laws, good or bad, are instructive. But you know this already.

Sorry but I don’t see how discrimination makes any sense at all. please enlighten me.

Discrimination is not always wrong. In fact, many laws have qualifiers and requirements which constitute as discrimination. Otherwise, we will have meaningless laws and society will be in perpetual chaos.

Can you identify a current law imposing discrimination on a minority that is good and just?

No, that is not what was meant.

But it is the logical extension of your statement. If you want to justify prejudice against same gendered couples who are parents because they ‘ will not benefit from the necessary mother-father modeling” then you have to apply it to everyone and not just one minority. By this logic children of armed forces personnel killed in the line of duty should be promptly taken away from their surviving parent because they “will not benefit from the necessary mother-father modeling”

You mean the APA studies that capitulated to the gay agenda?

Do you have actual evidence that the American Psychological Association knowingly falsified research data and conspired to present false information?
If you do I would love to see it.

That aside like it or not studies have consistently shown that children of gays and lesbians are happy, healthy, well-adjusted individuals without any significant differences from children of opposite gendered parents

You did not answer the question. Repeat: Do you think it is appropriate that you as a Catholic advocate in effect against the position and teaching of the Catholic Church on SS’M’ and on gay adoption? Do you want the doctrine on homosexual acts changed? Yes or no?
,

The position of the Catholic Church on gays and lesbians has evolved and changed over time. It will continue to do so

 

[TracerBullet]

Can you point out which legal protections weren’t offered under this California law, or the differences with “marriage”, other than the title?

Where are the provisions for adoption of children?

 

[TracerBullet]

I do not accept the notion that gay people are reduced to their sexual orientation and nothing else defines them as gay people…no more than my sexual orientation defines who I am…I am more than my sexual orientation…but my sexual orientation is definitely part of what defines me…but not the “end all”.

Your question suggests that gay people are defined soley on their orientation…difficult to answer a question that entails a false premise.

 

[Stephen168]

For the fourth time: What is your definition of marriage?

 

[livingwordunity]

I prefer the de facto definition I provided

For the third time: What is your definition of marriage?

It’s very clear that those who argue for so-called “marriage equality” are either being dishonest or have absolutely no idea what they mean when they use that newly coined term.

 

[Stephen168]

Marriage is a reflection of the biological necessity of a one-to-one heterosexual union for procreation, true enough, and it provides a legal framework that strengthens that union for the benefit of all.

But that’s not all marriage is, by any means,…

What more is there to marriage than procreation?

 

[Stephen168]

It’s very clear that those who argue for so-called “marriage equality” are either being dishonest or have absolutely no idea what they mean when they use that newly coined term.

If you mean homophobe, I did some research on the word because it just seemed to me it was used as a pejorative. It has had several meaning since it was first used but pejorative is pretty much it these days.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

The position of the Catholic Church on gays and lesbians has evolved and changed over time. It will continue to do so

Again posed to you, which you continue to ignore: Do you think it is appropriate that you as an identified Catholic advocate in effect against the position and teaching of the Catholic Church on SS’M’ and on gay adoption? Do you want the doctrine on homosexual acts changed? Yes or no?

Are you Catholic or not?

In addition, please provide the basis for your statement above.
,

 

[Stephen168]

It’s very clear that those who argue for so-called “marriage equality” are either being dishonest or have absolutely no idea what they mean when they use that newly coined term.

If you mean “marriage equality;” yes I don’t think anyone who uses it referring to same-sex unions doesn’t know what marriage is.

 

[TracerBullet]

Again posed to you, which you continue to ignore: Do you think it is appropriate that you as an identified Catholic advocate in effect against the position and teaching of the Catholic Church on SS’M’ and on gay adoption? Do you want the doctrine on homosexual acts changed? Yes or no?

Are you Catholic or not?

In addition, please provide the basis for your statement above.
,

wow…you just kind of ignored everything i said

 

[livingwordunity]

I ask YOU just how is YOUR free speech being limited.

By “gay” activists groups suing everyone who doesn’t agree with them.

 

[Publisher]

By “gay” activists groups suing everyone who doesn’t agree with them.

Rather an “absolutist” statement with little truth in it. I must have missed all the law suits that gay activists have launched AGAIST EVERYONE who doesn’t agree with them…it’s statements like this that cause credibility to be lost on those you seek to persuade.

 

[Stephen168]

wow…you just kind of ignored everything i said

As you have ignored the very subject of this thread. Which is not surprising.

 

[RobbyS]

No, it boils down to have sex with whoever you want, so long as they are capable of informed consent as legally defined, and you are not breaking the law by knowingly exposing your sexual partner to a sexually transmitted disease such as HIV. Catholic teaching on the subject is completely irrelevent because we live in a society with freedom of religion, not a theocracy in which the population is somehow beholden to Catholic beliefs, therefor what Catholics teach on the subject is not taken into account one way or the other when discussing marriage rights in the United States. After all, Catholics do not recognize marriages following non church sanctioned divorce, yet people are perfectly legally able to marry multiple times. The fact that Catholics don’t approve of this has not (nor should it) resulted in laws that prevent multiple marriages from being legally recognized.

Animals, children, insane people, those who are mentally underdevloped, and those who are severely intoxicated are unable to give informed consent, and thus it is (and should be) illegal to have sex with such individuals and animals.

The only exception to this, for me, is in the case of monogamous individuals who do not have a previously established open marriage that is accepted by both parties. If a person is cheating on their partner, and their partner believes them to be monogamous, that partner is then potentially being exposed to sexually transmitted diseases by the cheating partner. If there is a marriage contract between the two, than the cheater is violating not only their social agreements but legal agreements as well. I think this is still a matter of consent, because if you are having a relationship with a person, and he is having a relationship with another person without your knowledge, there are consquences for you. You may be exposed to an STD. Your partner may get this other person pregnant, or may become pregnant by this person, and you may end up now having to deal with a child you had nothing to do with creating because they are your partner’s child as well. So a person being cheated on is not giving their consent to be involved in this other relationship, yet can suffer the consequences for said relationship. I think this is wrong and I approve of adultary laws, even if they are rarely enforced.

Now, just because I think people should be ALLOWED to have sex with whomever they want (minus the caveats listed above) does not mean they should. Promiscuity, particularly with unprotected sex, can be very risky. Just because I think someone should be allowed to do something doesn’t mean I agree with them. I think it’s really wrong to raise a child in a religion because it presses beliefs on a child whent hey are too young to have the reasoning abilities to judge the information they are being given. It’s why children are typically their parents’ religion. They didn’t have a real choice, it was foistered upon them as kids, when they are at the most impressionable of ages. But even though I think you should not raise a child as Catholic (or any other religion), I don’t think that this should be illegal either.

*** Catholic teaching on the subject is completely irrelevent because we live in a society with freedom of religion, not a theocracy in which the population is somehow beholden to Catholic beliefs, therefor what Catholics teach on the subject is not taken into account one way or the other when discussing marriage rights in the United States. ***

Catholic teaching is authoritative for all baptized Catholics. So it binds even public officlals who hold political office. Beyond that Catholic teaching has had great influence of Anglo-Saxon Law, which depends in part on Church canon law. Even the Protestant churches accepted much of this teaching, and so much of American law drawn from the English common law, has incorporated Catholic elements. It was not insignificant that the common law adopted the Church’s view of marriage as a sacrament. The State has no rights where the sacraments are involved. As marriage is a natural as well as a holy institution, the state does have a role in safeguarding it. Even as a contract, the two parties entering into it exercise their rights to sexual intercourse with in the view that their union will have issue.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

wow…you just kind of ignored everything i said

And you, sir or madam, have been ignoring the answers provided to you, and glossing over an important question you don’t wish to address.

You have not brought anything new to the table which has not been discussed or covered plenty and extensively in scores and scores of threads and posts many of which have been in the recent past. If the answers you have gotten so far do not suffice, please use the useful search forum function and do some serious reading of responses to the challenges you pose against Catholic teaching on homosexual behaviour.

The Catholic members of this forum are happy to engage those outside the faith who ask in sincerity the same set of questions. However, you put yourself out as a Catholic, yet your postings so far sound firmly agenda propelled, very much against the teachings of the Catholic Church. And on the basis of your posts, it’s not like you are not well-read, which is not the same as enlightened.

This is a cultural battle for Catholics. You are wearing a Catholic label and yet you vociferously attack Catholic teaching and position? Can you appreciate why or how this would serve as a stumbling block in conducting a fruitful discourse?
,

 

[livingwordunity]

I ask YOU just how is YOUR free speech being limited. I have to guess that your free speech is not being curtailed in any way.

By “gay” activists groups suing everyone who doesn’t agree with them.

Rather an “absolutist” statement with little truth in it. I must have missed all the law suits that gay activists have launched AGAIST EVERYONE who doesn’t agree with them…it’s statements like this that cause credibility to be lost on those you seek to persuade.

Just recently there was a baker who got sued by “gay” activists because he wouldn’t make same-sex “wedding” cake. That’s only one of many examples. But “gay” activists haven’t sued everyone who disagrees with them because most people who disagree with them don’t want to get sued or lose our jobs, so we are keeping quiet. The only reason I feel free to speak my Catholic point of view about it here is because of the anonymity and because it’s a Catholic forum. Outside of this forum, I don’t feel like I can publicly object to so-called “same-sex marriage” without losing my job or getting sued. In the near future (if Obama gets reelected), saying that homosexual acts are a sin will be labeled as “hate speech”, and I’m sure people (probably starting with Catholic priests) will go to jail for it. That’s how this is limiting our free speech.

 

[peduzzi89]

I suspect any arguments that you see will simply boil down to this: “Infallible Catholic teaching is wrong, therefore there is no Objective Truth, therefore have sex with whoever you want, MAN!”

Before I read through this thread, I really must point out that nobody is fighting for the right to have sex with whomever they want because they can already do that. So your cheap generalization of a huge group of people has proven to be completely useless.