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

[Galbin]

Hi SMGS127

I am terribly saddened to read about your situation. May I ask why you decided to convert to Catholicism when it doesn’t support the sexual acts of your orientation? I am just so sad to think that you are forcing yourself to possibly live out a marriage with a gender you have never had a real attraction to. To me, that would be as awful as someone telling me that my attraction to my husband was wrong and that I should leave him and spend the rest of my life looking to have a relationship with a woman. Yes, I can see women are attractive, but I would hate to know it was a marriage with a woman or NO sexual relationship whatsoever for me. The difference between your male friends and you is that they will not have to abstain from their attractions forever. You will.

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.

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.

Well, you sound very honest indeed. Many people have not been so honest in the past. Instead they tried to repress their sexuality and ended up having disastrous marriages. Clearly, the man who married you would go into the marriage knowing this. I personally would hate to be married to a man who I knew was really gay, but only suppressing such desires because of the Church. Being in love with someone is not about wanting to jump on them, as you clearly know from your past relationships. However, it sounds like you would love your dh but not be in love with him.

Of course you never know, you could fall in love with a man one day. However, if you didn’t then I disagree that it would be the same as a hetero person marrying someone they are mad about. Marrying someone to care for poor kids is a really lovely thing to do, but I do not think it is the passionate love I am talking about. And I feel every human should at least be allowed to seek such love out in their lifetime.

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.

But how can a fully gay person be in love with someone of the opposite sex? By definition they are bisexual then.

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.”

Poor wording on my part. Yes, it is possible, but the gay men I was friends with said that it didn’t feel right to them. Even one kiss with a gay person was more attractive to them than full sex with a person of the opposite sex.

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.

Yes, but I have my man. I dated other men before him and found “the one”. If I were forced to marry a woman, I doubt I’d be able to stay true to the sacrament. How could I when my most fundamental sexual need was not being met? Gay people are forcing themselves into such situations, yes because society or Church says they must. That is hardly free will.

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

My point was that the assertion here on this forum is that gay ppl should just change their sexuality. Yet my point is that if I cuddled a hetero man the way I used to cuddle up to my gay friend, he would have become aroused. In other words, gay people cannot just change their orientation with the drop of a hat.

 

[Rau]

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 think it’s worth nothing that “banning SSM” is not really a meaningful or accurate expression. It suggests that “marriage” is something that 2 people can do on their own, but that the State outlaws it (like a crime). But that’s wrong - secular marriage is a right conferred by the State and subject to eligibility criteria set by the State - criteria which in the State’s view reflect the merits.

 

[Rau]

Hi SMGS127
…My point was that the assertion here on this forum is that gay ppl should just change their sexuality.

I don’t believe that such an assertion is common on this forum, and it is not one that the Church makes either.

 

[SMGS127]

Hi SMGS127

I am terribly saddened to read about your situation. May I ask why you decided to convert to Catholicism when it doesn’t support the sexual acts of your orientation?

Because I knew it was correct. God let me know it was correct. I can’t really give any more details, because I don’t have any. He just pushed me and pushed me until I gave in and accepted His gift of faith. I apologize if this is a dissatisfying answer, but it’s the only one I can give.

I am just so sad to think that you are forcing yourself to possibly live out a marriage with a gender you have never had a real attraction to. To me, that would be as awful as someone telling me that my attraction to my husband was wrong and that I should leave him and spend the rest of my life looking to have a relationship with a woman.

I’d only do it if I was comfortable with it. Marriage is a partnership built on common trust and support with the purpose of providing a stable home for children. Nowhere in there is the need for optimal sexual pleasure listed. Suggesting I’m missing out on something makes as much sense to me as suggesting I’m missing out on an adventure of life by not doing certain drugs. The reason I say that is, by abstaining from them, I deprive myself of an ultimate pleasure that I otherwise could get fairly easily in order to protect myself from the longer-term effects. I submit to the authority of the Church as God has revealed Her to me to be, and part of that is acknowledging that certain teachings will not make as much sense on Earth, but following them anyway.

Yes, I can see women are attractive, but I would hate to know it was a marriage with a woman or NO sexual relationship whatsoever for me. The difference between your male friends and you is that they will not have to abstain from their attractions forever. You will.

So? I still fail to understand what is so life-ending about that proposition. So I have to trade less sexual pleasure for God. People make sacrifices all the time in their life. Why should unending perfect hedonistic pleasure be the endgoal of life?

Well, you sound very honest indeed. Many people have not been so honest in the past. Instead they tried to repress their sexuality and ended up having disastrous marriages. Clearly, the man who married you would go into the marriage knowing this. I personally would hate to be married to a man who I knew was really gay, but only suppressing such desires because of the Church. Being in love with someone is not about wanting to jump on them, as you clearly know from your past relationships. However, it sounds like you would love your dh but not be in love with him.

I wouldn’t be infatuated, but I don’t know if I’d say that meant I wasn’t “in love” with him. You’ve never had a woman in your life who you’ve been extremely close to, to the point where you considered her an extension of your family? Just because the relationship isn’t sexual doesn’t mean it can’t be turned into one of love. Which is what I’d be doing with any prospective husband.

And I am very active in encouraging people not to be repressed about their attractions. Acknowledge them, accept them, and ignore them. Don’t fight them like they’re the very crux of your being. But why would you not want to marry a man who was gay if he treated you well and made you happy? Is it that important to you to know that your husband wants to jump on you every five seconds in the day that you’d have refused to consider any guy that didn’t?

Of course you never know, you could fall in love with a man one day. However, if you didn’t then I disagree that it would be the same as a hetero person marrying someone they are mad about. Marrying someone to care for poor kids is a really lovely thing to do, but I do not think it is the passionate love I am talking about. And I feel every human should at least be allowed to seek such love out in their lifetime.

Passionate love is not a requirement for marriage, and it hasn’t even been the defining characteristic of marriage for the vast majority of history. Passions fade over the years; the simpler underlying love doesn’t.

But how can a fully gay person be in love with someone of the opposite sex? By definition they are bisexual then.

No, one’s sexuality is defined by one’s physical attractions, not one’s capability of loving.

Poor wording on my part. Yes, it is possible, but the gay men I was friends with said that it didn’t feel right to them. Even one kiss with a gay person was more attractive to them than full sex with a person of the opposite sex.

Yes, one kiss with a girl is more electric (I choose to replace your word with mine) than sex with men to me. And? Again, we’re talking past each other. Why is that electric, passionate, maximize-pleasure attitude more important than the simpler love and emotional bond between the two people?

 

[SMGS127]

Yes, but I have my man. I dated other men before him and found “the one”. If I were forced to marry a woman, I doubt I’d be able to stay true to the sacrament. How could I when my most fundamental sexual need was not being met? Gay people are forcing themselves into such situations, yes because society or Church says they must. That is hardly free will.

“Sexual needs” are a cultural trend; in my opinion, they don’t exist. There is no such thing as a “need” to be sexually pleasured. Maybe a high want, but not a need. Do you think your life would end tomorrow if your husband suffered an accident paralyzing him from the waist down? Of course not, you’d still love him all the same. Accidents happen all the time. The fact that I am attracted to girls wasn’t chosen by me, but I can choose to accept that I won’t have the same sexual electricity as my other friends with their husbands if I choose to get married. I can also choose to accept that my husband wouldn’t love me any less as a result.

My point was that the assertion here on this forum is that gay ppl should just change their sexuality. Yet my point is that if I cuddled a hetero man the way I used to cuddle up to my gay friend, he would have become aroused. In other words, gay people cannot just change their orientation with the drop of a hat.

Some people on this forum advocate for people to change their sexuality; I am not one of them. I firmly believe that one’s sexual orientation is fixed in life. So I understand feeling more comfortable around gay men. My orientation being permanently aimed towards women does not change the fact that I still have a free will choice on who to date, if anyone.

 

[minkymurph]

It always seems that abortion and same sex marriage people walk hand and hand my only thought is they must want sex with out the responsibility of it. Any thoughts

I don’t see a correlation between same sex marriage and abortion myself.

This is my position -

I do not think a union of two people of the same sex is natural, but neither do I see that I have the right to determine how others lead their lives. I believe in the separation of church and state and there is a difference in a civil marriage and a sacramental marriage.

The state can permit gay marriage if it chooses, but it cannot determine a sacramental marriage. That does not mean to say those who believe they should oppose it should not do that, that is their right, but in my view opposition will not end gay relationships and marriage encourages monogamy. There is also scientific evidence coming to light there is different between brains of gay people and heterosexuals so there is much we do not know as to why someone is gay.

Abortion is different. It is not merely about sexual preference and people are not biologically programmed not to have a particular child at a particular time. There is a difference between the right to live one’s life according to sexual preference irrespective of whether or not others think it is natural, and the right to to choose not to let the a particular human being come into existence. I use that terminology because the point at which life begins is hotly disputed, but there is no dispute that from the moment of conception the blue print for a person is present.

Gay may be considered unnatural and immoral, but it is between two consenting adults. To be honest I think prostitution, human trafficking and pedophilia is a bigger problem than gay marriage yet I don’t hear objections to these things voiced as loudly.

 

[Rau]

I don’t see a correlation between same sex marriage and abortion myself.

This is my position -

I do not think a union of two people of the same sex is natural, but neither do I see that I have the right to determine how others lead their lives. I believe in the separation of church and state and there is a difference in a civil marriage and a sacramental marriage.

The state can permit gay marriage if it chooses, but it cannot determine a sacramental marriage. That does not mean to say those who believe they should oppose it should not do that, that is their right, but in my view opposition will not end gay relationships and marriage encourages monogamy. There is also scientific evidence coming to light there is different between brains of gay people and heterosexuals so there is much we do not know as to why someone is gay.

Abortion is different. It is not merely about sexual preference and people are not biologically programmed not to have a particular child at a particular time. There is a difference between the right to live one’s life according to sexual preference irrespective of whether or not others think it is natural, and the right to to choose not to let the a particular human being come into existence. I use that terminology because the point at which life begins is hotly disputed, but there is no dispute that from the moment of conception the blue print for a person is present.

Gay may be considered unnatural and immoral, but it is between two consenting adults. To be honest I think prostitution, human trafficking and pedophilia is a bigger problem than gay marriage yet I don’t hear objections to these things voiced as loudly.

Clearly, abortion and gay “marriage” are different. And I understand that the notion of separation of Church and State provides an avenue for one to be “relaxed” about gay “marriage”. But at the end of the day, you need to be clear in your own mind about whether same sex sexual relationships are pleasing to God or not. And given we live in societies, we need to consider what messages the laws of those societies send.

 

[minkymurph]

Clearly, abortion and gay “marriage” are different. And I understand that the notion of separation of Church and State provides an avenue for one to be “relaxed” about gay “marriage”. But at the end of the day, you need to be clear in your own mind about whether same sex sexual relationships are pleasing to God or not. And given we live in societies, we need to consider what messages the laws of those societies send.

I take your point that laws send a message to society and legalizing certain actions endorses them, so there is an area for caution.

I am clear in my mind that if there is a biological/psychological reason for being gay God knows about it. If there is not, God knows that as well.

There are many things that are not pleasing to God. Being gay is only one of them. The point I was making is there are many things that are abhorrent to God that don’t receive the same attention as homosexuality.

 

[christopher_r]

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.

I would not agree that most times married couples were together they were attempting to conceive a child. Certainly, they weren’t after 50 or so. Yet with good fortune they have another 30 years together, 1/2 of the marriage duration. The average fertile couple will conceive a child within a year if attempting to become pregnant. Look around at Mass. The families are almost all small.

 

[adawgj]

Maybe someone can help me. I’m pro life, but I try to be neutral on SSM.

What I mean by neutral is that I don’t support redefining marriage, but I believe that it’s up to the states to decide on matters and if they do then it’s not my power to change that.

 

[christopher_r]

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?

Sex is a strong source of pleasure for married couples. Without contraception it led to large families. It needed to. Most children died young. Lots of adults died young also. Many women died in childbirth and pregnancy. The losses were large.

Today, the child and maternal death rates are low. The population is high and stabilizing in the developed world (shrinking in Europe, especially Spain and Italy).

It is important to raise children to be loved and to love. Many children are not required for the human race to survive.

We do need couples to love and stay together. To care for each other and their children.

 

[Frances_Fishers]

I take your point that laws send a message to society and legalizing certain actions endorses them, so there is an area for caution.

I am clear in my mind that if there is a biological/psychological reason for being gay God knows about it. If there is not, God knows that as well.

There are many things that are not pleasing to God. Being gay is only one of them. The point I was making is there are many things that are abhorrent to God that don’t receive the same attention as homosexuality.

QFT (quoted for truth). Thank you.

 

[JimG]

Maybe someone can help me. I’m pro life, but I try to be neutral on SSM.

What I mean by neutral is that I don’t support redefining marriage, but I believe that it’s up to the states to decide on matters and if they do then it’s not my power to change that.

However, much of the thinking (and action) on this issue now seems to take the position that it doesn’t matter what the states decide. The Courts will decide for them, and perhaps overturn what the states have decided.

 

[JimG]

I take your point that laws send a message to society and legalizing certain actions endorses them, so there is an area for caution.

I am clear in my mind that if there is a biological/psychological reason for being gay God knows about it. If there is not, God knows that as well.

There are many things that are not pleasing to God. Being gay is only one of them. The point I was making is there are many things that are abhorrent to God that don’t receive the same attention as homosexuality.

Homosexual marriage is receiving a lot of attention now because the issue is being pushed by homosexuals. If polygamous marriage is pushed, then there will be a pushback on that as well. If pederast marriage is pushed, there will also be a pushback.

Marriage is the foundation of civilization, the source of children and families. It has been so for millennia. Changing what marriage is, on a whim, is dangerous to society.

Contraception is also a detriment to society. We ought to have fought back on that much harder. Humanae Vitae was ignored. Now we see the results: divorce, cohabitation, skyrocketing out of wedlock birth rates, gay marriage.

 

[minkymurph]

Homosexual marriage is receiving a lot of attention now because the issue is being pushed by homosexuals. If polygamous marriage is pushed, then there will be a pushback on that as well. If pederast marriage is pushed, there will also be a pushback.

Marriage is the foundation of civilization, the source of children and families. It has been so for millennia. Changing what marriage is, on a whim, is dangerous to society.

Contraception is also a detriment to society. We ought to have fought back on that much harder. Humanae Vitae was ignored. Now we see the results: divorce, cohabitation, skyrocketing out of wedlock birth rates, gay marriage.

Of course homosexual marriage is being pushed by homosexuals. Why would they not and who else would?

There is also a push on polygamous marriage in the UK.

What I would say is this. Monogamous man/woman marriage is a Christian interpretation of marriage. There is nothing wrong with this institution of marriage. It is not a bad concept of marriage and I personally object to notions it is bad. If I choose the Christian concept of marriage no one has the right to interfere with that, but I have no right to interfere with the way those who are not Christian define marriage.

You speak of changing marriage. Marriage has meant many things down through the centuries. I believe in separation of Church and State and to me that means the State is under no obligation to define marriage in accordance with Christian beliefs, or one particular Christian denominations beliefs. The State can allow gays to marry the Church will not. Church does not interfere with State State does not interfere with Church.

A Christian marriage is a Christian marriage and that will not change no matter what other interpretation are put on marriage. But, we cannot legislate in accordance with one religious belief or one religious denomination if we embrace the principle of separation of Church and State. The objection to gay marriage is God says it is wrong. God says many things are wrong. Why does gay receive more attention than other things God says are wrong? Why are we so distraught about gay, and less upset about other things God finds equally bad?

 

[JimG]

No, marriage between man and woman is not a Christian interpretation of marriage. It has been the universal interpretation of marriage throughough nearly all of history. It made sense, because only man and woman are sexually complementary; only man and woman can make families.

It wasn’t always monogamous. But even polygamy is heterosexual. Even in societies which accepted homosexual activities, it never occurred to them to classify it as marriage. Because it could not by nature produce future citizens, it was of no interest to the state.

Same sex marriage is something new, a trendy idea, which is only thinkable because marriage is already in decline. Same sex marriage is merely the penultimate prelude to the elimination of marriage entirely. SSM advocate Masha Gessen has said that of course she supports same sex marriage, but in the end, marriage itself should not exist.

We’re getting there.

 

[Rau]

…What I would say is this. Monogamous man/woman marriage is a Christian interpretation of marriage. There is nothing wrong with this institution of marriage. It is not a bad concept of marriage and I personally object to notions it is bad. If I choose the Christian concept of marriage no one has the right to interfere with that, but I have no right to interfere with the way those who are not Christian define marriage.

You speak of changing marriage. Marriage has meant many things down through the centuries. I believe in separation of Church and State and to me that means the State is under no obligation to define marriage in accordance with Christian beliefs, or one particular Christian denominations beliefs. The State can allow gays to marry the Church will not. Church does not interfere with State State does not interfere with Church.

A Christian marriage is a Christian marriage and that will not change no matter what other interpretation are put on marriage. But, we cannot legislate in accordance with one religious belief or one religious denomination if we embrace the principle of separation of Church and State. The objection to gay marriage is God says it is wrong. God says many things are wrong. Why does gay receive more attention than other things God says are wrong? Why are we so distraught about gay, and less upset about other things God finds equally bad?

It seems reasonable to me that, in a given society, we have to adopt common definitions of key concepts, institutions, actions, etc. Eg. We all need to know what is murder, and some of us can’t take the view that, say, killing a daughter who has disgraced the family is not murder. We can’t have 12 year old children being married because that is OK in their particular Faith. [These examples are not the point here - just the idea that we have to have a shared understanding.]

In view of its central place in society, the weight of history, and the unique characteristics of (opposite sex) Marriage, I’d suggest that we (in a country such as the US) should all have a common definition of marriage, and it should be “one Man + one Woman”.

Now, whether there is a case to define alternative institutions - meeting the needs and/or desires of same sex couples or polygamous groupings - is another question. I agree that that question (like all others in a democratic society, including the one in the prior paragraph), will be settled via the democratic process. Catholics, like everyone else, get to express their view.

 

[Kitcat1968]

I am pro gay civil marriage and pro life. Take a picture

 

[minkymurph]

No, marriage between man and woman is not a Christian interpretation of marriage. It has been the universal interpretation of marriage throughough nearly all of history. It made sense, because only man and woman are sexually complementary; only man and woman can make families.

It wasn’t always monogamous. But even polygamy is heterosexual. Even in societies which accepted homosexual activities, it never occurred to them to classify it as marriage. Because it could not by nature produce future citizens, it was of no interest to the state.

Same sex marriage is something new, a trendy idea, which is only thinkable because marriage is already in decline. Same sex marriage is merely the penultimate prelude to the elimination of marriage entirely. SSM advocate Masha Gessen has said that of course she supports same sex marriage, but in the end, marriage itself should not exist.

We’re getting there.

Gay unions are not new.

Same sex unions were known in Greece, Rome, and among Native Indians to mention a few. Of course Greece and Rome may not be the best examples.

Maybe it is trendy. In which case it will run its course. It’s also like a bit of ‘forbidden fruit’ syndrome. If your not allowed to do something you want to. It’s less attractive if it’s allowed. It’s a funny thing that when something formerly illegal becomes legal less people want to do it. In time, I would say there will be just as much gay divorce and broken homes if they adopt and foster.

 

[JimG]

Gay unions were not unknown, but gay marriage is a different thing altogether. A few crazy Roman emperors had pretend weddings with their same sex partners, but even with a ‘wedding’ the union was not recognized as a marriage, and their subjects laughed at them.

Western civilization did not, thankfully, adopt the practices of Native American tribes, and I have not read a great deal of historical detail about Native American practices.

Yes, it will run its course. The next step will be the elimination of marriage. The trend is already downward. When marriage has been robbed of meaning, why bother. At least, that will be the perception. If current trends continue, we will have to endure some social chaos and probably a new dark age, from which a more reasonable society will eventually be restored.