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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SMGS127 said:
: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.

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?
Click to expand...
It’s not about amazing sexual pleasure. I actually think women are very sexually attractive. However, what I am saying is that if a person is gay they are likely to only feel that magic if they are free to be with the gender they are attracted to. Even if I couldn’t sleep with my dh, I would still feel a sense of completeness and magic and true love that I simply couldn’t with a woman. You’ve had relationships before, so I hope you know what I mean about the distinction between sexual attraction and the magical feeling of being in love. After all, you can feel that magic even if you never have sex with the person.

Fair enough if that’s not your goal. However, most people want to spend their life with someone they love and are in love with. It’s a basic human desire. Whereas doing drugs is not. So I am simply not going to believe that such a desire is wrong.

Plus, there is more to marriage than having children…
SMGS127 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, my bff. I love her and she loves me. However that is not being in love. Maybe you are a practical type of person? I am the romantic type. I think a person who valued romance less would find it easier to marry someone they were not in love with. Which again is fair enough.
SMGS127 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I absolutely would hate to marry a gay man. I would always know I were second best. Not for me. Again, not about sex, but I would know he wasn’t in love with me. So why would I settle for that when I could marry someone who adored me and saw me as his dream woman? For example my dh thinks everything I do is cute even though we have been together for years. If he wasn’t in love with me he wouldn’t think that, and that too has nothing to do with sex.
SMGS127 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Passion does fade. However, attraction does not in a truly healthy marriage. My parents were still crazy in love 25 years into their marriage, the year he died. I am glad we are not living in the past. I like the more modern ideal.
SMGS127 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because we are human. And few humans can deny their basic sexuality for life. And I don’t believe they should have to unless they are hurting someone else, i.e. if they are driven to rape or abuse people.
 
SMGS127 said:
But why would you not want to marry a [person] who was gay if s/he treated you well and made you happy?

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.
Click to expand...
The question you pose is probably one that each individual has to answer. But for me, it would be conceptually difficult to commit to something as “weighty” as marriage if there was a box left “un-ticked”. So, if the would-be partner lacked desire for physical closeness, that would seem to me to be an un-ticked box. How might this affect our future relationship?

The “simpler underlying love” you refer to may indeed be the basis for a committed relationship, but a non-sexual relationship, which therefore is not “Marriage”.
 
*Quote:
Originally Posted by SMGS127
Why is that electric, passionate, … more important than the simpler love and emotional bond between the two people? *
Galbin said:
Because we are human. And few humans can deny their basic sexuality for life. And I don’t believe they should have to…
Click to expand...
Are not all elements mentioned by SMGS127 valuable where Marriage is contemplated? I assume Galbin intends to say that our humanness makes the “passionate” important, rather than to suggest that the “love and emotional bond” are not important. That is, they are both positive factors.

The statement that “few humans can deny their basic sexuality” is problematic, not least because the meaning may be unclear. Can we use the following meanings:

“deny” - refuse to embrace and indulge in [relationships which exploit one’s sexual desires].

“basic sexuality” - the direction of one’s sexual desires (ie. homosexual attractions or heterosexual attractions).

On this basis, there are clearly many who are denied, or choose to deny - the single/never married (and chaste), the Religious, etc. What is their success rate? What is the success rate of gay persons who find their same sex attractions a trial, but seek to resist them? I’ve no idea, but I do know that the objective morality of an act is not determined by one’s success in avoiding it.

I can understand the difficulty of the position in which gay persons, who do not embrace their sexual attractions, find themselves, and can well understand the difficulty in "denying their sexual attractions" [trying to remain chaste].

But on the other hand, I am sometimes surprised at the ease with which those who do embrace same sex sexual relationship are able to “deny” the reality of their very bodies.
 
I am very pro homosexual, since I am a transsexual woman. I am also Catholic. I can’t imagine abortion, or any way of ending life to be okay or approve of it in any way. If a same sex couple, or opposite love each other and choose to express their love in sexual relations why would it be wrong? I want to help LGBT people find a way of reconciling their sexual orientation, or gender identity with their faith. Trust me accepting yourself is the only way. Plus making someone live a chaste life (depriving them of some day meeting someone they love, and expressing that love), or even change who they are is completely unhealthy.
 
“I have never ever met a pro “gay marriage” pro life person”

I have.
 
Adamski said:
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
Click to expand...
Just a suggestion, but maybe getting out into the world would help you to meet people you never thought existed 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top