I have never ever met a pro "gay marriage" pro life person

[christopher_r]

I’m sorting MYSELF out on abortion. It’s a truly difficult issue of determining what is a human and what is not.
Gay marriage is not even the POSSIBLE killing of a human.

Human the child of humans. Created when the egg and the sperm fuse.

I would say loved by God also

 

[laircy]

You’ll meet many in Protestant or Evangelical churches. Protestants are gradually rethinking their stance on this issue.

Heck, aren’t there many in Catholic churches too?

I notice Christians are much more emotionally invested in the abortion issue than the gay marriage issue, which they tend to be more indifferent about.

Many of them only appear indifferent. That’s the best they can get away with. The slightest display of disapproval often is met by loud challengers ready to hurl “homophobe! bigot! hater!” or some sad emotional argument like, love is love is love is love (which is somehow limited to “consenting adults”, although in the high school setting, just “consent.”) and how dare you deny someone happiness? look at me, or look at my friend, yadayadaya. It’s terribly, terribly tempting to just say nothing at all and avoid the whole uncomfortable scenario.

---

But I think the whole reason one might expect someone to be “consistent” on these issues is because both involve the current cultural “sex for pleasure” which cannot deny either homosexuality or the inevitable result of it when the ““protection”” goes ““wrong.””

 

[christopher_r]

Many of them only appear indifferent. That’s the best they can get away with. The slightest display of disapproval often is met by loud challengers ready to hurl “homophobe! bigot! hater!” or some sad emotional argument like, love is love is love is love (which is somehow limited to “consenting adults”, although in the high school setting, just “consent.”) and how dare you deny someone happiness? look at me, or look at my friend, yadayadaya. It’s terribly, terribly tempting to just say nothing at all and avoid the whole uncomfortable scenario.

---

But I think the whole reason one might expect someone to be “consistent” on these issues is because both involve the current cultural “sex for pleasure” which cannot deny either homosexuality or the inevitable result of it when the ““protection”” goes ““wrong.””

almost all sex is for pleasure
consider the number of children for a woman in the US (lifetime) is estimated at 1.88.
CDC current data. The population neutral rate is about 2.1 (the US population increases by immigration).

So lifetime conception is about 2 per woman (about 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage).

This suggests that almost all sex, >> 99% is not for conception in the US today.
Even in the decades when there was no modern birth control this was <10/woman lifetime… Yes even then almost all sex was not about procreation.

the data is clear

 

[LeafByNiggle]

almost all sex is for pleasure
consider the number of children for a woman in the US (lifetime) is estimated at 1.88.
CDC current data. The population neutral rate is about 2.1 (the US population increases by immigration).

So lifetime conception is about 2 per woman (about 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage).

This suggests that almost all sex, >> 99% is not for conception in the US today.
Even in the decades when there was no modern birth control this was <10/woman lifetime… Yes even then almost all sex was not about procreation.
the data is clear

Your statistics do not support your conclusion. Most sex did not yield offspring. It does not follow that the sex was not for offspring. Look at the maple tree. It produces zillions of seeds every year. I should know. I have to clean them out of my rain gutters. Yet only a tiny fraction of those seeds ever sprout into maple trees. Would you then say that most of the seeds produced by the maple tree were not for reproduction? No, they all were originally for reproduction. The tree has no way to “know” which seeds would develop into trees. You wouldn’t say the tree made most of those seeds “for pleasure”. If we feel pleasure from sex, it is because sex leads to reproduction. If we do ever manage to separate sex from reproduction, the pleasure from sex will eventually be eliminated through evolution, just like fish that live in dark caves all their lives have evolved to eliminate the wastefulness of making eyes, so they are blind.

 

[Lokadottir]

Your statistics do not support your conclusion. Most sex did not yield offspring. It does not follow that the sex was not for offspring. Look at the maple tree. It produces zillions of seeds every year. I should know. I have to clean them out of my rain gutters. Yet only a tiny fraction of those seeds ever sprout into maple trees. Would you then say that most of the seeds produced by the maple tree were not for reproduction? No, they all were originally for reproduction. The tree has no way to “know” which seeds would develop into trees. You wouldn’t say the tree made most of those seeds “for pleasure”. If we feel pleasure from sex, it is because sex leads to reproduction. If we do ever manage to separate sex from reproduction, the pleasure from sex will eventually be eliminated through evolution, just like fish that live in dark caves all their lives have evolved to eliminate the wastefulness of making eyes, so they are blind.

actually I doubt it would evolve out. There is no pressure AGAINST sexual pleasure. It does not affect ability to survive. Therefore it will remain stagnant.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

actually I doubt it would evolve out. There is no pressure AGAINST sexual pleasure. It does not affect ability to survive. Therefore it will remain stagnant.

There was no pressure against having eyes for those fish in dark caves, except the very slight pressure from the waste of resources to build eyes. Yet that that small pressure was enough, over eons, to have the characteristic fade away. Don’t worry, though. This kind of effect won’t impact humans for eons, if we even last that long. And if reproduction were totally divorced from sexual intercourse, we would have bigger problems to worry about than the gradual fading of sexual pleasure.

 

[marymary1975]

I wanted to mention I do know one lesbian woman who is indeed in a so called gay marriage and is all for gay marriage but at the same the both her and her partner are heavily pro-life ( including being against contraception now not for religious reasons but the point is they are pro life). I also have a very good atheist lesbian friend who is both anti gay marriage ( for reasons nothing to do with religion) and who is anti abortion. I would not call her pro life because she is pro contraception and pro euthanasia but as to abortion she does not agree. I think maybe they are a minority but certainly there are.

 

[Rau]

almost all sex is for pleasure
consider the number of children for a woman in the US (lifetime) is estimated at 1.88.
CDC current data. The population neutral rate is about 2.1 (the US population increases by immigration).

So lifetime conception is about 2 per woman (about 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage).

This suggests that almost all sex, >> 99% is not for conception in the US today.
Even in the decades when there was no modern birth control this was <10/woman lifetime… Yes even then almost all sex was not about procreation.

the data is clear

I think you are trying to say that the anticipation of pleasure (for at least one of the participants) is what prompts most sex to happen. But what do you think follows from this?

 

[Galbin]

I am 100% pro life and firmly anti abortion. I am also pro gay marriage.

Totally agree with KevinB’s position:

"Killing a baby is not related with letting two people who love each other get married. At all. I do not believe homosexuality violates natural law. At all. Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other. They agree to support each other and care for one another. The race, gender, or religious affiliation of the participants is irrelevant to the meaning of the ceremony.

Natural law is easy. It’s the bit inside you which tells your gut something is wrong. Many serial killers, for instance, got a thrill for doing something they know is wrong. Since homosexuals, deep down, are created by God to be attracted to someone of their own gender, it would go against natural law for them to mate with someone if the opposite gender.

If you need a bible to determine if something is wrong, then it doesn’t violate natural law."

 

[Rau]

I am 100% pro life and firmly anti abortion. I am also pro gay marriage.

Totally agree with KevinB’s position:

"Killing a baby is not related with letting two people who love each other get married. At all. I do not believe homosexuality violates natural law. At all. Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other. They agree to support each other and care for one another. The race, gender, or religious affiliation of the participants is irrelevant to the meaning of the ceremony.

Natural law is easy. It’s the bit inside you which tells your gut something is wrong. Many serial killers, for instance, got a thrill for doing something they know is wrong. Since homosexuals, deep down, are created by God to be attracted to someone of their own gender, it would go against natural law for them to mate with someone if the opposite gender.

If you need a bible to determine if something is wrong, then it doesn’t violate natural law."

I believe later posts pointed out the objective errors in KevinB’s argument, particularly his misunderstanding of the substance of Natural Law.

How is it that you are able to ignore the lack of complementarity of the bodies of the two sexes in deciding that it is fine for two men to have sex with each other?

 

[Galbin]

I believe later posts pointed out the objective errors in KevinB’s argument, particularly his misunderstanding of the substance of Natural Law.

How is it that you are able to ignore the lack of complementarity of the bodies of the two sexes in deciding that it is fine for two men to have sex with each other?

Because even the Catholic Church admits that people are born gay and that homosexuality has occurred throughout the ages. Also, of the gay men I’ve known, most did not engage in the stereotypical homosexual act, citing that they found it distasteful. And homosexuality is not a choice. If it were, most people would not choose it, due to negative attitudes and lack of equality.

I’m not gonna sit on high here in my married state and just condemn gay people to a life of misery all alone. I’m just not. Also, just because other posters agree with you does not mean anything to me. I am not the one casting stones here, and condemning gay people to a life of celibacy they did not choose.

 

[kozlosap]

Because even the Catholic Church admits that people are born gay and that homosexuality has occurred throughout the ages. Also, of the gay men I’ve known, most did not engage in the stereotypical homosexual act, citing that they found it distasteful. And homosexuality is not a choice. If it were, most people would not choose it, due to negative attitudes and lack of equality.

I’m not gonna sit on high here in my married state and just condemn gay people to a life of misery all alone. I’m just not. Also, just because other posters agree with you does not mean anything to me. I am not the one casting stones here, and condemning gay people to a life of celibacy they did not choose.

:thumbsup:Thank you for this well thought out response. I agree whole heartedly.

 

[Galbin]

:thumbsup:Thank you for this well thought out response. I agree whole heartedly.

Yay for meeting a like-minded person here. It seems many on this forum are all about hellfire, damnation and judgement. Not exactly things Jesus valued…

 

[SMGS127]

Because even the Catholic Church admits that people are born gay and that homosexuality has occurred throughout the ages. Also, of the gay men I’ve known, most did not engage in the stereotypical homosexual act, citing that they found it distasteful. And homosexuality is not a choice. If it were, most people would not choose it, due to negative attitudes and lack of equality.

I’m not gonna sit on high here in my married state and just condemn gay people to a life of misery all alone. I’m just not. Also, just because other posters agree with you does not mean anything to me. I am not the one casting stones here, and condemning gay people to a life of celibacy they did not choose.

The attractions themselves are not a choice (or even remotely sinful), but whether to act on them is most definitely a choice. I, for one, never cast stones at actively gay people; I certainly have my own sins to worry about. But that does not mean that I will help deceive gay people into thinking that it is completely spiritually fine for them to commit same-sex physicality. And gay people are not condemned to a life of celibacy. They are given the options of marriage or celibate vocations just like anyone else is. Yes, they have a huge cross, as they do not have the same physical pleasure a heterosexual person would have in a marriage. But that also greatly helps them in a marriage, steering them clear from lust and helping remind them that marital sex is about love for God and each other, not for some massive physical pleasure.

 

[Rau]

Because even the Catholic Church admits that people are born gay and that homosexuality has occurred throughout the ages. Also, of the gay men I’ve known, most did not engage in the stereotypical homosexual act, citing that they found it distasteful. And homosexuality is not a choice. If it were, most people would not choose it, due to negative attitudes and lack of equality.

I’m not gonna sit on high here in my married state and just condemn gay people to a life of misery all alone. I’m just not. Also, just because other posters agree with you does not mean anything to me. I am not the one casting stones here, and condemning gay people to a life of celibacy they did not choose.

Your first statement is factually wrong as a quick look in the Catechism will confirm. The Church states that the “psychological genesis” of homosexuality is unknown. Science does not have a fixed view on the cause of homosexuality, and the Church proffers no opinion on that matter.

I agree with you that SSA is not a choice, though sexual acts are. You note that many gay men do not engage in sodomy, and state a view that they should not have to remain chaste. I assume this means that their sexual acts comprise mutual masturbation. I’m unclear why you are ok with this? Morally - is love all that is required for sex? Biologically - what is the purpose of spreading male gametes to another male?

I share your human compassion for persons enduring unwanted SSA. Their burden is great. But, like the heterosexual person who does not find a spouse, they are called to remain chaste.

 

[Galbin]

The attractions themselves are not a choice (or even remotely sinful), but whether to act on them is most definitely a choice. I, for one, never cast stones at actively gay people; I certainly have my own sins to worry about. But that does not mean that I will help deceive gay people into thinking that it is completely spiritually fine for them to commit same-sex physicality. And gay people are not condemned to a life of celibacy. They are given the options of marriage or celibate vocations just like anyone else is. Yes, they have a huge cross, as they do not have the same physical pleasure a heterosexual person would have in a marriage. But that also greatly helps them in a marriage, steering them clear from lust and helping remind them that marital sex is about love for God and each other, not for some massive physical pleasure.

Are you married? Did you date before marriage? I am assuming you are straight, so I’ll put a hypothetical to you. Can you imagine how horrific it would be to NOT have a vocation (most people don’t), and continually meet people you wanted to be with, or even people you fell in love with, yet never even be able to kiss them, let alone anything else? To know that even if you met “the one” you would never be allowed to be with them, or anyone you were attracted to ever? And as for gay people marrying the opposite gender… pfff. We all know how well that works out! Also, the marriage is not at all fair to their spouse as they are not truly freely consenting (instead they are forcing themselves into ‘pretending’ to be straight). And of course having a homosexual orientation is real grounds for annulment. The idea of a gay person marrying a straight person is a slap in the face to the sacrament of marriage, since it will never be real love. That would be like me marrying my husband while being in love with someone else. It’s just an insult to their spouse. Don’t they deserve someone who is actually in love with them?!

Have you ever spent any time with gay people or been friends with one? Well, if you haven’t I can tell you for a fact that marital sex for a gay person is night on impossible for sure. They indeed do not “have the same physical pleasure a heterosexual person would have in a marriage” because by definition they are not attracted to the opposite sex!!! That would be like me being forced to marry a woman and go to bed with her every night. I might be able to “do the deed” if needed, but I would not be in love with the woman or be properly attracted ton her. Men would soon catch my eye, no matter how much praying I did. It’s simple biology because I am not gay.

When I was young I had a very close male gay friend who used to hug and cuddle me all the time. Yet there was not even a whimper of the normal male response in such a situation. And before you ask, since I know gay men are gay, I am not scared of hugging them in the same way I’d hug my female friends.

 

[Galbin]

Your first statement is factually wrong as a quick look in the Catechism will confirm. The Church states that the “psychological genesis” of homosexuality is unknown. Science does not have a fixed view on the cause of homosexuality, and the Church proffers no opinion on that matter.

I agree with you that SSA is not a choice, though sexual acts are. You note that many gay men do not engage in sodomy, and state a view that they should not have to remain chaste. I assume this means that their sexual acts comprise mutual masturbation. I’m unclear why you are ok with this? Morally - is love all that is required for sex? Biologically - what is the purpose of spreading male gametes to another male?

I don’t use the term sodomy as it is a derisive term; however yes many gay men do not have anal sex. I don’t quite know what they do instead, as I don’t go around asking ppl what they do sexually. I just know that gay friends have volunteered that they did not do anal sex. There are statistics backing this up.

I am okay with gay people for the reasons given above to the other poster. The fact that gayness exists across all cultures and even in the animal kingdom is significant. I personally feel that God created the homosexual orientation as a natural fertility regulator, the same way he made women have infertile periods. After all, a consenting homosexual relationship does not hurt anyone else*. Its not like rape or child abuse or incest.

*I know you’ll say it hurts society and weakens the family etc., but there are plenty of straight couples who keep the family unit intact. The human race will not die out anytime soon.

 

[SMGS127]

Are you married? Did you date before marriage?

Nope and yes. I have been in eight relationships in my life.

I am assuming you are straight, so I’ll put a hypothetical to you.

You would be quite wrong! I’m a lesbian as far as physical attractions are concerned. I can find guys attractive, but I’ve never had any form of gut visceral reaction towards them whatsoever.

Can you imagine how horrific it would be to NOT have a vocation (most people don’t), and continually meet people you wanted to be with, or even people you fell in love with, yet never even be able to kiss them, let alone anything else? To know that even if you met “the one” you would never be allowed to be with them, or anyone you were attracted to ever?

I’m not going to deny that it can be difficult when I run into a girl (usually of the skater-girl, dyed-hair, punk-rock variety) and have to withhold flirting and things I’ve grown accustomed to previously in life before I converted to Catholicism. And I’m also not going to deny that there are times where I’ve had to avoid situations out of risk of sin. But Catholicism requires self-sacrifice. Why is it any more unfair that I have to withhold from dating women than it is that my guy friends with super-ridiculous libidos have to withhold from masturbation and all forms of premarital sex? Everyone has some cross and some sacrifice that they have to put up with.

And as for gay people marrying the opposite gender… pfff. We all know how well that works out! Also, the marriage is not at all fair to their spouse as they are not truly freely consenting (instead they are forcing themselves into ‘pretending’ to be straight).

Who’s pretending to be straight? If I married a dude that I was extremely close to in order to provide a home for troubled kids or something like that, and was completely open about my sexuality, I wouldn’t suddenly be straight. I’d be a lesbian in a marriage with a guy.

And of course having a homosexual orientation is real grounds for annulment.

Only if the orientation is not knowledge of both spouses at the onset of the marriage. Which is not the case I’m discussing.

The idea of a gay person marrying a straight person is a slap in the face to the sacrament of marriage, since it will never be real love.

Well, that’s harsh. So, as in the previous example, if I married my best friend in order to provide for him and for kids because I care about him, regardless of the fact that I’m not being told by my body to jump on him every five seconds, I wouldn’t “truly” love him? Come on.

That would be like me marrying my husband while being in love with someone else. It’s just an insult to their spouse. Don’t they deserve someone who is actually in love with them?!

I’m not suggesting a situation where someone wouldn’t be in love with the person. Ideal sexual stimulation is not the same thing as love, as we see every day with rampant hook-ups on college campuses.

Have you ever spent any time with gay people or been friends with one?

Yep, 5 years in the LGBT communities of two different states as an active lesbian.

Well, if you haven’t I can tell you for a fact that marital sex for a gay person is night on impossible for sure.

Not to cause scandal, but I can most assure you from my pre-Catholic immoral past that it is most definitely not impossible. I don’t know where you’re getting that idea. Just because it’s not as physically stimulating or enjoyable does not mean it’s “impossible.”

They indeed do not “have the same physical pleasure a heterosexual person would have in a marriage” because by definition they are not attracted to the opposite sex!!!

Never said they had the same physical pleasure.

That would be like me being forced to marry a woman and go to bed with her every night. I might be able to “do the deed” if needed, but I would not be in love with the woman or be properly attracted ton her. Men would soon catch my eye, no matter how much praying I did. It’s simple biology because I am not gay.

I mean, someone who couldn’t trust themselves to stay loyal isn’t fit for marriage in the first place. But I tend to give gay people more credit than that, no? A gay person comfortable with their sexuality, with an informed partner of the opposite sex, would hardly feel trapped if they entered into the marriage of their own free will.

When I was young I had a very close male gay friend who used to hug and cuddle me all the time. Yet there was not even a whimper of the normal male response in such a situation. And before you ask, since I know gay men are gay, I am not scared of hugging them in the same way I’d hug my female friends.

I have gay male friends I hug all the time too. I don’t understand the correlation of your post to this paragraph.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I’m not going to deny that it can be difficult when I run into a girl (usually of the skater-girl, dyed-hair, punk-rock variety) and have to withhold flirting and things I’ve grown accustomed to previously in life before I converted to Catholicism. And I’m also not going to deny that there are times where I’ve had to avoid situations out of risk of sin. But Catholicism requires self-sacrifice. Why is it any more unfair that I have to withhold from dating women than it is that my guy friends with super-ridiculous libidos have to withhold from masturbation and all forms of premarital sex? Everyone has some cross and some sacrifice that they have to put up with.

And we carry our crosses as an act of love for Him who carried it first as an act of love for us.

 

[Cristo_Vive]

Until I became Catholic, I was extremely pro-life and extremely pro-SS’M.’ Stereotyping usually doesn’t turn out so well. The difference is that it is a lot easier to play to someone’s natural concern for human life (abortion) than it is to discuss an issue that really has no secular basis or defense behind it (banning SS’M’).

I support LGBT people, and abortion not.