how does gay marriage harm society?

[nordskoven]

“Conservative” means preserving those things that have worked before. Male-female marriage works. The only male-male marriage in history is that of Nero and the slave boy that looked like the wife he kicked to death. Marriage is not and has not been an element of homosexual culture even in those nations ruled by homosexuals. So this “gay marriage” is cultural imperialism, taking what isn’t theirs. We don’t know if it works because it never existed. As a conservative, I can’t support “gay marriage.”

“Domestic partnerships” allow persons to consolidate their households, and that would include single mothers needing to streamline their overhead, and should not demand sexual relations. Gay activists have generally rejected “domestic partnerships” as not having the status and privileges associated with marriage. Yet in recent years, and even today, there have been marriage penalties. One de facto marriage penalty allowed for IRA contributions of $2,000 for working spouses while stay at home spouses could only contribute $200 to their IRA per year, as if their retirement would demand less food, housing overhead, etc. Earned Income Tax Credits are higher for the unmarried. Exemptions for dependent children have been gnawed by inflation to token levels.

Heterosexual marriage is at-risk, with child bearing often culturally disdained if not discouraged. So it is no wonder that homosexuals look at these sterile unions and ask, “Why not us?” Physical factors that may predispose lack of male-female bonding might include low testosterone levels in males that are 1/2 that of their grandfathers; and parallel high estrogen levels.

Homosexuals, representing one of the richest demographics in America, are already a legally privileged class under “hate crime” laws. Yet homosexuals have high rates of homosexual-on-homosexual violence. So they have more to fear at the hands of other gays than straights. Equal protection under the law should be our first goal, and that doesn’t mean “gay marriage” it means abolishing so-called hate crime laws that create unequal protection under the law; and blindly don’t address the hate crimes of male-on-female rape, for example, suggesting this is normative. There is no advantage in promoting same-gender bonding. That’s natural outside sexual parameters. The great integration challenge is to lovingly unite male and female and their embrace of children. For this may the Most High hear our prayers.

 

[JaneGrey]

“Conservative” means preserving those things that have worked before. Male-female marriage works. The only male-male marriage in history is that of Nero and the slave boy that looked like the wife he kicked to death. Marriage is not and has not been an element of homosexual culture even in those nations ruled by homosexuals. So this “gay marriage” is cultural imperialism, taking what isn’t theirs. We don’t know if it works because it never existed. As a conservative, I can’t support “gay marriage.”

No, conservative by definition is actually a principle which seeks to preserve traditional values and attitudes. The word itself does not say anything about whether those attitudes ‘worked’ or not.

“Domestic partnerships” allow persons to consolidate their households, and that would include single mothers needing to streamline their overhead, and should not demand sexual relations. Gay activists have generally rejected “domestic partnerships” as not having the status and privileges associated with marriage. Yet in recent years, and even today, there have been marriage penalties. One de facto marriage penalty allowed for IRA contributions of $2,000 for working spouses while stay at home spouses could only contribute $200 to their IRA per year, as if their retirement would demand less food, housing overhead, etc. Earned Income Tax Credits are higher for the unmarried. Exemptions for dependent children have been gnawed by inflation to token levels.

Heterosexual marriage is at-risk, with child bearing often culturally disdained if not discouraged. So it is no wonder that homosexuals look at these sterile unions and ask, “Why not us?” Physical factors that may predispose lack of male-female bonding might include low testosterone levels in males that are 1/2 that of their grandfathers; and parallel high estrogen levels.
I dont think homosexuals calling for same sex marriage have anything at all to do with heterosexual couples who choose not to have children. The majority of heterosexual married couples go on to have children. Also how is child bearing discouraged? I would say that child bearing at a young age is, but it is quite a stretch to say that people are telling people not to reproduce.

Homosexuals, representing one of the richest demographics in America, are already a legally privileged class under “hate crime” laws. Yet homosexuals have high rates of homosexual-on-homosexual violence. So they have more to fear at the hands of other gays than straights. Equal protection under the law should be our first goal, and that doesn’t mean “gay marriage” it means abolishing so-called hate crime laws that create unequal protection under the law; and blindly don’t address the hate crimes of male-on-female rape, for example, suggesting this is normative. There is no advantage in promoting same-gender bonding. That’s natural outside sexual parameters. The great integration challenge is to lovingly unite male and female and their embrace of children. For this may the Most High hear our prayers.

 

[Eugenius]

You wouldn’t know if I would accept them because you haven’t given them. Also, I don’t allow them to do my thinking for me; that’s a very Protestant thing for someone to say. I agree with their analysis and teaching. Also, I believe the Scriptures are true and teach that homosexual acts are wrong. And I will continually believe so unless I am convinced otherwise by someone who will give me reasons for what they believe. Not just a play on emotions, either: real reasons, with facts. Something you’ve neglected to give me.

There were several resources recommended for reading to explain these reasonings, did you read them? You might not agree with them, but it is a good idea to really understand their point of view. Some of them are quite interesting. However, as Catholics we are not supposed to rely on Protestants, their “analysis and teaching,” or even scripture for that matter. Our authority resides with the Pope.

 

[Eugenius]

I might add not soundly interpreted in other ways. Interpreting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as pertaining to ‘hospitality’ rather than homosexual acts goes against the orthodox Jewish and Christian understanding of the passage which had been the same for over 2000 years.

The book of Ezekiel has been part of holy scripture for well over two thousand years:

“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom:* she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49)

Also, what’s the point of being authoritative if they are not listened to? If you are Catholic in some sense you will understand that the Church teaches that God guides the Church and that the Holy Spirit is with her. She has debated this matter much throughout it’s history and the teaching is the same and will remain the same: homosexual acts, relationships, etc., are sinful. Period.

Clarification…the church has not debated gay marriage throughout history.

Also, the Church gives the impression that it picks and chooses which parts of the Bible it is going to enforce. In the verses I can think of homosexual prohibitions are surrounded by other verses that the church now ignores, rites of purification and dietary laws, for example.

 

[Eugenius]

“Conservative” means preserving those things that have worked before. Male-female marriage works. The only male-male marriage in history is that of Nero and the slave boy that looked like the wife he kicked to death. Marriage is not and has not been an element of homosexual culture even in those nations ruled by homosexuals. So this “gay marriage” is cultural imperialism, taking what isn’t theirs. We don’t know if it works because it never existed. As a conservative, I can’t support “gay marriage.”

Conservatism, Nero, cultural imperialism, taking what isn’t theirs…this sounds like a string of disconnected thoughts. Im sorry, but I’m not following your logic here.

Homosexuals, representing one of the richest demographics in America, are already a legally privileged class under “hate crime” laws.

Protection from bashing, murder and intimidation is a “privilege” ? Also, what exactly is your point about mixing someone’s perceived financial status with protection from hate crimes? Again, I’m not following your logic here.

Yet homosexuals have high rates of homosexual-on-homosexual violence. So they have more to fear at the hands of other gays than straights.

I’m on a fact-finding mission now, would you please provide your sources for this information? Thanks in advance!

The great integration challenge is to lovingly unite male and female and their embrace of children. For this may the Most High hear our prayers.

Amen!

 

[zach_dunn]

I get frustrated with these gay marriage discussions. The justifications for being against gay marriage (role models, promiscuity, God’s intent, procreation, agendas, etc.) are meaningless when the divorce rate is around 50%. You could take just about every point made for being against gay marriage and apply it to heterosexual marriage, but I never see honest discussions like that on this forum. We seem to hold homosexuals to a higher standard than we do heterosexuals. I can accept people following the church’s teaching, but these other excuses are starting to ring false with me.

Heterosexual marriage is ordained by God; in fact, created by God. Homosexual marriage/acts are condemned by God in the Scriptures: this is what the Church believes, too. We don’t “hold homosexuals to a higher standard than we do heterosexuals”, homosexuals are called to chastity as are every unmarried human being. Not allowing them to marry is not holding them to a higher standard.

How can you say God’s intent in creating marriage and the conjugal act as a means of procreation are “excuses” that “are starting to ring false” with you? Do you believe God has done something wrong?

 

[agent_grey]

No such thing as gay marriage.

In order to be married a man and a woman is required. The woman must be a virgin and the man must believe in the true God.

 

[michelleds]

The book of Ezekiel has been part of holy scripture for well over two thousand years:

“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom:* she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49)

Then following in verse 50: And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.

Protection from bashing, murder and intimidation is a “privilege” ?

Actually, every human being in the US is protected under the law and when any person is a victim, the penalty should be the same regardless of perceived motives. Why would it be worse for someone to hit A over the head when he hit B over the head yesterday? If he hit A because he hated something protected about him and he hit B because he hated something unprotected (like his blue shirt or stupid glasses)? This is the point of equal protection, not special protection.

 

[zach_dunn]

The book of Ezekiel has been part of holy scripture for well over two thousand years:

“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom:* she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49)

Exactly!

Ezekiel 16:49-50
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.

I never meant to give the impression that I don’t believe hospitality wasn’t part of the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction. The thing that’s going on with people today is that they’re saying it’s the only reason and that it has nothing to do with homosexual acts which is a false belief. In fact, I believe the greatest reason for their destruction was for their homosexual acts. Why do you think our word sodomy refers to homosexual sex acts rather than inhospitable acts? To deny that the Sodom and Gomorrah episode refers to homosexual acts is to deny what Scripture says about it and history. Here’s another verse for anyone who deny’s this:

Jude 6-7
And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Clarification…the church has not debated gay marriage throughout history.

I’ll grant you that, but it simply enforces my point. It wasn’t debated because homosexual acts were universally regarded as sinful.

Also, the Church gives the impression that it picks and chooses which parts of the Bible it is going to enforce. In the verses I can think of homosexual prohibitions are surrounded by other verses that the church now ignores, rites of purification and dietary laws, for example.

Rites of purification and dietary laws are fulfilled and wiped out in the New Covenant. These laws are not eternal truths whereas the immorality of homosexual acts is.

 

[rockerchar]

You wouldn’t know if I would accept them because you haven’t given them. Also, I don’t allow them to do my thinking for me; that’s a very Protestant thing for someone to say. I agree with their analysis and teaching. Also, I believe the Scriptures are true and teach that homosexual acts are wrong. And I will continually believe so unless I am convinced otherwise by someone who will give me reasons for what they believe. Not just a play on emotions, either: real reasons, with facts. Something you’ve neglected to give me.

Alas. And you refuse to make no further arguments than a flawed Bible- and Catechism- bashing one. Many theologians (including Vatican II Periti) posed pro-homosexual arguments.

You believe that “the Scriptures are true” THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM. This is the same way the Catechism reads them. Other people interpret them differently, and you see this as a non-argument. Summarize my argument, or lack thereof, and I can demonstrate this fatal flaw in your perception.

You, and many on this forum, make no room for scholars to question the traditional understanding of scriptures and teachings. It’s a conservative tendency, and that’s fine if you like it. It’s a good way to root out liberal Catholicism. However, CAF is nothing more than a tool for catechesis. Not substantive theological discussion.

 

[rockerchar]

FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 2011

How Gay Marriage Will Save Straight Marriage!
Straight marriage, the marriage between a man and a woman, is in serious trouble. Traditionally, the married relationship between males and females found its support and stability in social roles, customs and laws which made relatively secondary the type of direct personal relationship between the parties involved. But all these social supports are rapidly fading away. Clearly, genuine personal love between husband and wife as equals will be necessary to sustain the heterosexual family. In many American communities more than half of all straight marriages end in divorce. Once the children are born, sex frequently drops out of the married relationship. The inequality of the partners frequently leads to anger. And anger is the greatest anti-aphrodisiac going. The traditional model for straight marriage is the patriarchal model based on male superiority and female inferiority. Since women’s liberation, there has been a seismic shift in the understanding of the relation of the sexes. Human love in its fullness can exist only between couples who see themselves total and equal to each other. Healthy human love should be love out of fullness and not out of need.

Another major problem with heterosexual marriage is that it is based on gender-identity images. But gender-identity images frequently play a dehumanizing and a depersonalizing role in our culture. If we assume that these heterosexual gender identity images constitute the total mature content of the human personality, serious consequences follow. They result in seeing the human individual, whether male or female, as essentially partial and incomplete. No human person is seen as complete in him or her-self, but as essentially dependent on the opposite sex for her or his completion. The male is required to suppress all the feminine in himself and seek the feminine outside himself in a woman. Women, in turn, must suppress all the masculine in themselves and seek the masculine outside themselves in the male.

Women today, who are more in touch with both their masculine and feminine dimension, and see themselves as whole persons, are increasingly unwilling to play the role of being the mediators of feminine emotional and compassionate needs of men. They want a man who is a total human person in himself. They are demanding, and rightly so, that men get deeply in touch with their own feminine dimension. Many men, in turn, who are becoming in touch with both the masculine and feminine dimensions of themselves, are refusing to continue to play the role of being the mediators of the masculine needs of women for assertiveness and autonomy.

It is this shift in consciousness that has caused the enormous amount of breakdown and divorce when heterosexuals try to follow the traditional patterns of male dominance and feminine submission. Both genders are being called on to develop the fullness of their own humanity, so that they can approach each other as complete, independent persons and not remain essentially dependent on the other gender for their completion.

The new model for a healthy married relationship will come from the emergence of a visible group that can live out fully both its masculine and feminine dimensions without the need to repress either. We need a group that will model the ideal goal of humanity’s present evolution; people who can keep their masculine and feminine dimension in good equilibrium and bring forth a balanced synthesis of the two. That, I believe, is the providential role of the gay and lesbian groups that through divine providence have come into being over the past thirty-five years. Every dialectical movement toward a higher synthesis, if it is to succeed, must carry the seed of resolution within itself.

John Boswell, a Church historian, in his book, Same Sex Marriages, discovered that the Church did not celebrate marriage as a sacrament until 1215. Until then the Church viewed marriage as a civil contract. One bought a wife and the wife was the buyer’s property. There cannot be a sacrament unless a relation of love is involved. It was not until the twelve hundreds and the Romantic Movement that marriage began to be seen as based on a love relation.

However, gay marriage rituals were universally found in Church documents as early as the fourth century. Boswell argues that these rituals were true marriage ceremonies. Such ritual celebrations of marriage were possible because gay couples saw each other as equal and based their relationship on interpersonal love. Nine centuries before heterosexual marriages were recognized as a sacrament, the Church liturgically celebrated same-sex covenants. Gays are being called on once again to model out the true basis for married love.

As I write these pages, legal gay and lesbian marriages are becoming legalin several states and in many countries around the world… We must ask why gay and lesbian marriage, which was unthinkable just a few years ago, should suddenly become a reality at this time. Once again, I believe that this is providential. Most gay people are in touch with both the masculine and feminine dimensions of themselves. Gays have an important gift to make to the human community in modeling out a new and different style of interpersonal relations based on equality and the total human person of each partner. There is a desperate need for this understanding of marriage on the part of all — gay and straight alike. This understanding of marriage is opening up a vast new reservoir of human love .

From the Blog of Father John J. McNeill (formerly of the Society of Jesus).
johnmcneillspiritualtransformation.blogspot.com/

 

[michelleds]

awesome, now you’re quoting an excommunicated heretic who supports everything anti-Catholic teaching! this is offensive trash

 

[rockerchar]

awesome, now you’re quoting an excommunicated heretic who supports everything anti-Catholic teaching! this is offensive trash

Thank you

My intention is obviously to offend.

Btw the above sentence was in jest. Just in case there’s any confusion.

Unless sarcasm is forbidden in the CCC.

 

[zach_dunn]

Alas. And you refuse to make no further arguments than a flawed Bible- and Catechism- bashing one. Many theologians (including Vatican II Periti) posed pro-homosexual arguments.

Question: Do you mean I’m bashing the Bible and Catechism, or that I’m bashing you and/or your argument with the Bible and Catechism? Just a bit of clarification.

Furthermore, as is evident, Vatican II did not adopt a pro same-sex marriage stance precisely because it goes against Divine Revelation.

You believe that “the Scriptures are true” THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM. This is the same way the Catechism reads them. Other people interpret them differently, and you see this as a non-argument. Summarize my argument, or lack thereof, and I can demonstrate this fatal flaw in your perception.

Here goes.

It seems to me your argument can be summarized in these two posts: #17 & #38. You believe that the mandates of the Old Testament were purely purification and cultural and hold no eternal moral value. You believe that the traditional understandings of the passage of Sodom and Gomorrah are, at best, misguided; they represent the patriarchal and, dare I say, homophobic worldviews of those people of the past.

Now, I’ll freely admit that I may have made this sound a little worse than you intend. But that’s a big maybe. I strongly disagree with your “matter-of-fact” interpretations of the relevant biblical passages, and I’ll elaborate if you wish. So, where is the fatal flaw in my perception?

You, and many on this forum, make no room for scholars to question the traditional understanding of scriptures and teachings. It’s a conservative tendency, and that’s fine if you like it. It’s a good way to root out liberal Catholicism. However, CAF is nothing more than a tool for catechesis. Not substantive theological discussion.

What you describe as “substantive theological discussion” is really what you wish to happen: a continual questioning of the traditional understanding of scriptures and teachings. And you know what? You’re wrong in saying I make no room for scholars to question, I actually believe quite the contrary. There is no development if there is no questioning, but I believe firmly in moderation. I test current questionings against time-tested techniques, teachings, and understandings. I also believe the Bible to be true and that the Catholic Church to be the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, and that it is protected by the Holy Spirit from formally teaching error in faith or morals.

This forum is what we, the users, make of it. What I believe is *really *preventing the “substantive theological discussion” you wish to take place is people like you who believe that we (conservatives, or whatever you wish to call us) are all drones having our thoughts thought for us by the Magisterium and can therefore not possibly understand your higher understanding of the Bible/faith/etc.

 

[zach_dunn]

FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 2011

How Gay Marriage Will Save Straight Marriage!

This post only furthers my speculation that you really are not a practicing Catholic in the sense that you accept the authority of the Church. John McNeill was expelled from the Society of Jesus and opposed by the CDF for his heretical beliefs about homosexuality. Yes, I realize that is not an argument against his and your beliefs on homosexuality, it’s not meant to be. What it should mean to you, as a supposedly practicing Catholic, is that his beliefs are not in line with the Catholic faith.

Also, regarding the references to John Boswell, I assume you know that his conclusions about supposed gay marriages occurring in the very early Church, are too debated by scholars.

 

[GraceSofia]

I get frustrated with these gay marriage discussions. The justifications for being against gay marriage (role models, promiscuity, God’s intent, procreation, agendas, etc.) are meaningless …

I get frustrated with them, too, because they get so off track so quickly.

The basis for the discussion should be the Catechism:

***Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.***

 

[Eugenius]

Heterosexual marriage is ordained by God; in fact, created by God. Homosexual marriage/acts are condemned by God in the Scriptures: this is what the Church believes, too. We don’t “hold homosexuals to a higher standard than we do heterosexuals”, homosexuals are called to chastity as are every unmarried human being. Not allowing them to marry is not holding them to a higher standard.

How can you say God’s intent in creating marriage and the conjugal act as a means of procreation are “excuses” that “are starting to ring false” with you? Do you believe God has done something wrong?

You are twisting what I said, I was not questioning God’s intent and procreation or calling them excuses. I’m referring to statements such as those implying that homosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry simply because there wouldn’t be a male and a female role model in the home. Children are raised by single parents all the time, whether through divorce, out-of-wedlock, abandonment, death, etc. My own grandfather died young leaving children under the age of fourteen and my grandmother raised her children well without a male role model for them. To give an excuse that people can’t do a good job raising children under less than ideal circumstances rings false with me as a justification for denying someone to get married.

 

[Eugenius]

Actually, every human being in the US is protected under the law and when any person is a victim, the penalty should be the same regardless of perceived motives.

The operative word here is “should.” Unfortunately in reality some people are not protected equally, hence the reason I believe these “special” laws came about.

 

[zach_dunn]

You are twisting what I said, I was not questioning God’s intent and procreation or calling them excuses. I’m referring to statements such as those implying that homosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry simply because there wouldn’t be a male and a female role model in the home. Children are raised by single parents all the time, whether through divorce, out-of-wedlock, abandonment, death, etc. My own grandfather died young leaving children under the age of fourteen and my grandmother raised her children well without a male role model for them. To give an excuse that people can’t do a good job raising children under less than ideal circumstances rings false with me as a justification for denying someone to get married.

My apologies for misrepresenting what you had written!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You are twisting what I said, I was not questioning God’s intent and procreation or calling them excuses. I’m referring to statements such as those implying that homosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry simply because there wouldn’t be a male and a female role model in the home. Children are raised by single parents all the time, whether through divorce, out-of-wedlock, abandonment, death, etc. My own grandfather died young leaving children under the age of fourteen and my grandmother raised her children well without a male role model for them. To give an excuse that people can’t do a good job raising children under less than ideal circumstances rings false with me as a justification for denying someone to get married.

Your grandmother deserves much credit. However, the argument you raise is not new. It has been raised enough times before and refuted effectively, as in this good counter as drawn by researchers Katharine Young and Paul Nathanson here. These two writers are neither Catholic nor in full agreement with Church teaching on homosexuality. One of them, in fact, is admittedly gay.

Here is another related article by them: Keeping It All In The Family
,