Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[John_of_Woking]

World /Devil: “You are not allowed to oppose gay marriage because 'bigot/homophobe/untruthful slur”

Correctly formed conscience: “it is objectively morally wrong to not oppose gay marriage”

 

[Godspells]

And what is the purpose of sexual attractions if not sexual “action”?? God made men and women “attractive” to each other for a purpose. That purpose is not personal gratification (pleasure). God included the “fun” to insure the purpose.

This might be the point at which we will disagree Zoltan. I do, in fact, believe quite strongly, that the “fun” and “gratifying” aspects of sex are indeed divinely appointed as integral components of the sexual act. I do not hold that it is purely for the process of procreation, and to do it for any other purpose is a sin. Such sounds remarkably similar to dystopian world of “1984”.

There is much, much more to sexual action than mere intercourse. There is courtship, warmness of heart, gentleness, kindness and most importantly love, and when these ingredients are properly added, it is a very deep and beautiful bond. When any of these things are subtracted it becomes distasteful, shameful and guilt driven.

I have agreed with you on this before. I know some homosexuals struggle with their disorder. Some have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex desires. Some have overcome the desires. But…the overwhelming majority of homosexuals have no desire to “struggle”. In fact they want to “promote”. They despise the Catholic teaching on homosexuality and hold our Church in contempt. Anyone who does not accept them and their behavior is a “homophobe”.

It depends very greatly on what you mean by “accept”. If by accept you mean, “not calling them demon possessed and hell bound,” I would tend to agree with the homosexuals. On the other hand, I have never purported to believe homosexual acts are not sinful, yet I have never been called homophobic.

The main thing that I am upset with is homosexuality being singled out as a sin, as somehow being the chief act of a hierarchy of sin. There is no basis for such a claim, and I know of many Christians, Catholics included, who commit some other sin, not homosexuality, yet also demand to be “accepted”. You don’t get to just discriminate against the sin that you aren’t tempted by.

 

[Havard]

None of these are acceptable comparisons because they deal specifically with matters that harm other people and as a matter of social policy cannot be tolerated for specifically that reason.

Homosexuality, as it pertains to social policy, does not have the same or even similar effects as any of the items you cited. A better comparison is whether or not it should be illegal to fornicate, speak blasphemy, or promote non-Christian religion, as all of these things are religious matters that do not innately affect common welfare.

At least as it pertains to the US, the law states that the government has no legitimate interest in regulating what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their home.

As it pertains to marriage equality, as I said before, they is no such thing as a same-sex marriage religiously speaking, however as far as the state is concerned the allowance of same-sex partnerships, civil unions as they are sometimes known, has no affect on me whatsoever, so it is not my place to judge.

Hello again!

Sorry if this seems silly, but I have a suggestion for a thought exercise… forget for a moment the specifics of this discussion. Just ponder for a minute or two why the government should weigh in at all about marriage of any kind (leaving out the gay/straight aspect).

Now what are your thoughts?

 

[Rau]

And what is the purpose of sexual attractions if not sexual “action”?? God made men and women “attractive” to each other for a purpose. That purpose is not personal gratification (pleasure). God included the “fun” to insure the purpose.

I don’t know what point you are making. Undoubtedly, the “blueprints” for us provide for OSA. Our bodies are objective evidence for this. Yet, some of us find we don’t have that OSA. For some boys, no interest in girls! No inclination to admire their form. Their smiles and soft voices and soft hair hold no wonder at all. Somewhere, sometime, something went awry on the production line.

 

[Godspells]

Consensus is fine in politics, but it has no place in science. Medical or otherwise.

“…for in the sciences the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”—Galileo

It is the gay community that is claiming that homosexuality is innate…the burden is on them to come up with scientific proof.

No, scientists are not infallible. It doesn’t mean the consensus is not valuable. If I go the doctor and 9 tell me I have cancer, and 1 tells me I have a cold, I go with the 9.

Most medical professionals conclude homosexuality is a normal variation (does not mean its moral), since that is the prevailing opinion, I am inclined to follow it until there is some reason to think otherwise.

If I have to choose between my brain and my heart, I will choose my heart. And my heart loves all people, gays included… not like that though.

I am not promoting reparative therapies. Although there is of evidence that they are successful. My point is that the goal of gay activists is the acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal.

As I understand they have an extremely high suicide rate, which has lead several states to ban their use. One, Exodus International I believe, closed down and issued an apology statement.

Many “ex-gays” end up reverting back to homosexuality because they were never actually cured.

In order to understand this, you have to think about whether or not you (as a straight person) could make yourself sexually attracted to the same-sex. Moreover, it is preferable to make that attraction exclusive–you’ll find this exercise challenging and unlikely to be successful for any extended period of time.

The idea of “switching teams” is of vital importance to gay activists.

“The truth is, numbers matter, and political influence matters,” said Scout, director of the nonprofit CenterLink’s Network of LGBT Health Equity,

Well, it is hard for me to imagine gays advocating heteros to become exclusively gay. As they say, its not a choice.

For many years society did not condone heterosexual sexual involvement outside of marriage. As far as we know, this did not force the people so inclined into greater sexual promiscuity, higher rates of alcoholism, suicide and disease.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality does cause this?

Promiscuity, if it is higher in homosexuals, will almost certainly be because they have been pushed out of the Church (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox).

Alcoholism and suicide is most certainly due to anxiety and discrimination.

As for disease… well, stereotypes aside, sodomy (whether it be hetero or homosexual) is naturally more prone to STI’s. However, STI’s just do not occur in monogamous relationships. Homosexuality does not “create” disease.

 

[Godspells]

Hello again!

Sorry if this seems silly, but I have a suggestion for a thought exercise… forget for a moment the specifics of this discussion. Just ponder for a minute or two why the government should weigh in at all about marriage of any kind (leaving out the gay/straight aspect).

Now what are your thoughts?

The main thing that comes to mind is when dealing with visitation at hospitals, and various legal rights of a spouse, things of that nature.

Tax purposes, but in all honesty, if you want to get into taxes, that’s a whole other can of worms.

Then there is matters about the nuclear family. Some people oppose gay couples adopting. Since we allow Muslims, Pagans, etc. to adopt, I don’t really have a reason to prohibit gays.

Then there is polygamy… in all honesty our Faith is far more friendly to polygamists than it is homosexuals. There is only one verse that I know of in scripture that is interpreted to prohibit it, but it was openly tolerated, and the children of Jacob who fathered the twelve tribes came from two different mothers, so, its not entirely clear that polygamy is innately immoral.

You may have been getting at something else, though, that I didn’t think about.

 

[Havard]

The main thing that comes to mind is when dealing with visitation at hospitals, and various legal rights of a spouse, things of that nature.

Tax purposes, but in all honesty, if you want to get into taxes, that’s a whole other can of worms.

Then there is matters about the nuclear family. Some people oppose gay couples adopting. Since we allow Muslims, Pagans, etc. to adopt, I don’t really have a reason to prohibit gays.

Then there is polygamy… in all honesty our Faith is far more friendly to polygamists than it is homosexuals. There is only one verse that I know of in scripture that is interpreted to prohibit it, but it was openly tolerated, and the children of Jacob who fathered the twelve tribes came from two different mothers, so, its not entirely clear that polygamy is innately immoral.

You may have been getting at something else, though, that I didn’t think about.

Thanks for humoring me. I wasn’t looking for any specific right answer, but the deeper issue I’m trying to get at is why should the government single out marriage to control, over other relationships.

A quick comment about what I’m NOT talking about… If we unbundled all of the benefits of marriage, like joint tax filing, SSI benefit collection, community property laws, etc., there’s no real reason, aside from a logistical headache, that each one couldn’t apply to, say, a brother and sister right? Take for example my godparents. They were brother and sister, and since they were best friends who never found the “right one” for marriage, they lived together until death. If the government had decided to extend some of these benefits to them, that is a far cry from promoting incest, right?

Okay, so the point that I’m getting at is not about any individual perk. It’s the deeper question of why the government is singling out marriage at all. What is it about this particular relationship that merits mountains of special laws?

 

[Rau]

If it ever is scientifically proven that “homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”…then a cure or treatment could be developed. … If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the “race for the cure.” (And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race.) If it is discovered that homosexuality can be genetically determined before birth I would expect an increase in abortions.

You’re probably right regarding abortion in that scenario. But any test would be unlikely to be definitive of course.

If the cause is biological (which is a much broader thing than ‘genetic’) I very much doubt the possibility of “cure”. It seems unlikely that the mechanisms that give rise to such fundamental behaviour and which have such pervasive impact on the individual could be reversible. Perhaps an understanding of cause may suggest a means to prevent or minimise the chance of a mis-formed sexual orientation. Or perhaps the mechanism at work is something well beyond our capacity to influence.

 

[Rau]

Most medical professionals conclude homosexuality is a normal variation (does not mean its moral), since that is the prevailing opinion, I am inclined to follow it until there is some reason to think otherwise.

What does “normal variation” mean to you? Hair colour? Congenital blindness? Cystic fibrosis? Autism? SSA?

In general, the medical profession assesses whether each of these is a problem for the individual, or a threat to others. If the answer is no to both, it concludes no treatment is warranted. With SSA, the opinions of individuals will vary.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

For 1&2 : have you met a single person that was TRULY homosexual (truly unable to be attracted by the opposite sex) and “cured” with prayers?

I have met one person who claimed to have “ended” his same sex attraction with the help of the Holy Spirit. But we really have no way of knowing if he was TRULY homosexual or not.

I’m not talking about some people who just choose to marry/date someone of opposite sex, because those people are still homosexuals, no matter how much they try to hide that! Oh, there is also another cateogory , that is bisexuality. In case you were wondering, for those people , well, the situation is VERY different. They are able to choose between the two sexes, therefore no divine intervention. But, again, they can’t choose their sexuality, they can’t choose who they fall in love with, they can’t! Many homosexuals feel opressed by this mentality, and I think you should stop

Stop what?

(but it’s your choice after all). I understand defending your faith, but it’s also about being human!

I will strongly defend my faith. But you have probably noticed, from other posts on this subject. that I take a secularist position and debate from a non-religious point of view.

This is not tolerant behaviour!

Tolerance is relative. Some things deserve absolute tolerance and some things deserve zero tolerance but most fall somewhere in between. For example, our society should have high tolerance for freedom of speech (i.e. the right to say“I’m gay”) but low tolerance for harmful behavior (i.e. sodomy). The tolerance a thing deserves is relative to the degree of benefit or harm that it will produce.

For instance I could say that there is not a shred of tolerance within the gay community towards the feelings of most Americans (especially Christians) about the re-definition of marriage.

Perhaps you just had the luck to be “normal” (define that, please).

Normalcy is functioning according to nature or design. Normalcy is not based on popular opinion.

Does that mean that you’re allowed to bash them? Even if you think something about ANOTHER person is wrong, as long as they’re not directly harming you, why do you do so? I hope you won’t get angry , really,

No. We don’t bash people.
If someone’s actions have no effect on me or society…I could care less.
However…Sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate.

but if a homosexual person wants to be christian, or any religion that puts homosexuality as a sin, then, only then, you can “help” this person to overcome the “disease”. If that person doesn’t and prefers our “secular” world, then so be it. Now, do you realise that their “sinful” relationships are that way only in your eyes (well, and in the eyes of others who think the same way)?

I think I understand what you are saying here. If I do…then I agree with this.

We are ~7 billions people on Earth. Do you really, really think every single person shares your ideas? That goes the same for me , but you’re motivating violence towards them, really! Some people , when they find out that someone is gay, they go after him/her and kill him/her (yep, that’s extreme , but happened)!

You mean like Matthew Shepard??

Of course, this doesn’t happen everywhere , much more predominant is this thing called bullying. OF COURSE, OF COURSE, I’M NOT SAYING THAT YOU’RE AT FAULT FOR THAT! But your point of view is. This is just like saying black people are impure and they must be purified (because of their skin color). KKK , anti-gay version, or what? Or being mean towards jews because…they’re jews? You see, during nazism many people agreed with that.

You are bringing up cultures. Society should pursue civic equality based upon things like race, ethnic heritage and religion. But cultural practices are not morally neutral. Few of us would agree that the cultures of German Nazism, Soviet Communism, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are the equals of American culture.

The “culture” of homosexuality – a way of life rooted in un-natural sexual practice – is not equal to the inherited family-based cultures of African-Americans, Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans.

What I’m trying to say is that if you want to express your point of view, you can do it in a nice way.

I try to express my point of view in a factual truthful manner. I try to be nice…but I just don’t think things like sodomy are very nice.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Maybe I’m just being sensitive to what you’re saying, but if I shared your ideas, I would say something like this: " I don’t agree with it, but you’re free to do whatever you wish with that. " And probably explain why I view it that way. But nothing more. Not saying they have a disease, not saying they’re evil, nothing like that! Why would you do that? People can be evil or good, whether they’re straight or gay! But it’s also about perspective. You said that they’re evil for spreading disease (that is number #3). Okay, I understand that, ANYONE should refrain from such acts in that situation. But the homosexual community is way WAY smaller than the heterosexual one. Do you know what that means , right? That means that mostly straight people spread disease. Therefore…you cannot accuse homosexuals of something like that.

Yes I know what it means…there are fewer homosexuals but the RATE of infection is higher in the gay community than in the heterosexual community.

From the CDC:

The data indicate that rates of HIV infection among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more than 44 times higher than rates among heterosexual men and more than 40 times higher than women. Rates of syphilis, an STD that can facilitate HIV infection and, if left untreated, may lead to sight loss and severe damage to the nervous system, are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.

I am not trying to be mean but you are wrong to say that “mostly straight people spread disease”. The facts are that STD and HIV infections are at epidemic levels in cities with large gay communities.

Being honest, but nice as I can…what this means is that sexual behavior withing the gay community is endangering all of society.

How about prostitution? Isn’t that mostly straight sex? Do you consider their acts evil? Many people involved in that get AIDs or many others. This is just about responsibility. Just about that. It’s about humans, it’s about their maturity level. It’s about how wise they are. But our society it’s really … I shouldn’t say anything more about that. Just, very very very corrupted.

Prostitution is illegal. Homosexuality was illegal. Now it is not.
Sounds like you are trying to justify one evil with another evil. That does not work.

If society is so very very corrupted, we do not fix it by increasing corruption.

Therefore evil is at any step. You should see the whole picture. The only remedy is to help, support and understand each other, and if we can’t do that, just keeping distance must be satisfying enough. Love and acceptance, how about that?

How about that? Indeed.

How can I accept a public school teacher who tells children that a same sex relationship is normal and sexual behavior that produces pain, bleeding and spreads disease is “…really a beautiful thing”.

I saw that you are debating with other people. I didn’t read other replies, so I hope I didn’t say something untrue about you or if you did mention anything about what I’ve written, I’m sorry, I didn’t see it. I don’t mean to offend you, I don’t mean to say you’re bad and I tried to put my thoughts into the nicest words. And I’m saying this because I don’t want a fight. Just a nice dialogue. I may sound a little grumpy because I keep hearing these things and I’m getting kinda angry. I hope you understand and provide me enlightment over those things I also talked about other points because, I’m guessing that you may have referred to them. Just wanted to cover it all.

Likewise I hope my blunt, but honest, replies did not offend you. I look forward to further discussions.

 

[Elizium23]

Homosexuality does a good deal of harm, both to the partners as well as to people close to them and society as a whole. Let’s look at the physical harm. STDs are easily spread, moreso than in procreative sex. The parts are not meant to fit together and so you have all the problems arising from incompatibility. Injuries and organ damage. Homosexual parents seriously damage children they obtain through adoption or surrogacy. This is a real danger now with homosexual “marriage” and in fact the advent of this redefinition is causing Catholic orgs to pull out of the adoption business as their religious freedom is curtailed. Therefore, whether or not you subscribe to my assertion that children are in fact damaged by homosexual persons, you can’t deny that children will be served less well because of the lack of Catholic facilities which have historically done an invaluable job of matching children with parents, providing foster care, and other adoption-related services (PRO-LIFE).

Then we have society as a whole. Homosexuality and its promotion fits into the Population Control agenda. The more any kind of sterile sex or abortion is promoted, the farther fertility levels drop. Fewer parents are having children through the normal means approved by God. Therefore you have a society that implodes upon itself, commits suicide, is overrun by immigrants and other newcomers who ignore Population Control and go ahead and have large families (of course this includes faithful Catholics who accept God’s call to be fruitful and multiply.)

Widespread homosexuality is simply the last gasp of Western society, still too rich and fat to see its own decline, and content to wallow in its own filth while Nero fiddles.

 

[Rau]

…STDs are easily spread, moreso than in procreative sex. The parts are not meant to fit together and so you have all the problems arising from incompatibility…

This may be so, but I suspect you are assuming that anal sex is as common in same sex relationships as vaginal sex is in opposite sex relationships. That’s incorrect - anal sex is not common-place. I’ve seen figures quoted in other threads and they were quite low.

 

[Rau]

Most medical professionals conclude homosexuality is a normal variation (does not mean its moral), since that is the prevailing opinion, I am inclined to follow it until there is some reason to think otherwise.

What does “normal variation” mean to you? Hair colour? Congenital blindness? Cystic fibrosis? Autism? SSA?

In general, the medical profession assesses whether each of these is a problem for the individual, or a threat to others. If the answer is no to both, it concludes no treatment is warranted. With SSA, the opinions of individuals, as to whether their condition causes them a problem, will vary. Some say yes, some say no, and many will say yes but that the problem arises solely from the rejection and/or prejudices they experience from others. Of these three groups, only the first might warrant (medically speaking) or seek treatment, and they may well be a minority.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This may be so, but I suspect you are assuming that anal sex is as common in same sex relationships as vaginal sex is in opposite sex relationships. That’s incorrect - anal sex is not common-place. I’ve seen figures quoted in other threads and they were quite low.

How do you account for the figures that I quoted from the CDC above. What kind of sex has the STD levels within the San Francisco gay community at epidemic levels?

 

[Godspells]

Homosexuality does a good deal of harm, both to the partners as well as to people close to them and society as a whole. Let’s look at the physical harm. STDs are easily spread, moreso than in procreative sex. The parts are not meant to fit together and so you have all the problems arising from incompatibility. Injuries and organ damage. Homosexual parents seriously damage children they obtain through adoption or surrogacy. This is a real danger now with homosexual “marriage” and in fact the advent of this redefinition is causing Catholic orgs to pull out of the adoption business as their religious freedom is curtailed. Therefore, whether or not you subscribe to my assertion that children are in fact damaged by homosexual persons, you can’t deny that children will be served less well because of the lack of Catholic facilities which have historically done an invaluable job of matching children with parents, providing foster care, and other adoption-related services (PRO-LIFE).

Personally, I have no problem if the Catholic Church were to discriminate for adoption purposes against homosexuals. They’re not exactly a “new” religion, I’ve heard they’ve been around for 2,000 years or something.

Public orphanages, on the other hand, have to make other considerations, however. The fact of that matter is that no set of parents is going to be perfect, and there are many homosexual couples that are preferable for adoption than heterosexual couples. Ideally, yes, the parents would be reasonable, well-grounded, faithful and Christian, and also man and woman. Unfortunately, such parents are not grown on trees, and it might be better for a child to be loved by two fathers or two mothers than to be loved by neither.

As far as your earlier comments, STI’s are never spread in monogamous relationships of any kind, and injury to sexual organs occurs quite frequently in heterosexual couples, which is why it is recommended that you wear a helmet during sexual activity.

Then we have society as a whole. Homosexuality and its promotion fits into the Population Control agenda. The more any kind of sterile sex or abortion is promoted, the farther fertility levels drop. Fewer parents are having children through the normal means approved by God. Therefore you have a society that implodes upon itself, commits suicide, is overrun by immigrants and other newcomers who ignore Population Control and go ahead and have large families (of course this includes faithful Catholics who accept God’s call to be fruitful and multiply.)

What on Earth?

First of all, there is no “Population Control agenda” unless your speaking of those who support limiting the number of children you choose to have to how many you can provide for.

Second, decrease in fertility rate, or rather the population growth rate, is a natural process that occurs after a nation industrializes. Usually after an initial population explosion as a result of longer life spans and medical advances, people start to limit the number of children they have 1) because they have them later in life to pursue other goals first and 2) because more children survive to an elder age.

Having smaller families certainly seems more advantageous than people starving to death because of food shortages due to overpopulation.

 

[Godspells]

Thanks for humoring me. I wasn’t looking for any specific right answer, but the deeper issue I’m trying to get at is why should the government single out marriage to control, over other relationships.

A quick comment about what I’m NOT talking about… If we unbundled all of the benefits of marriage, like joint tax filing, SSI benefit collection, community property laws, etc., there’s no real reason, aside from a logistical headache, that each one couldn’t apply to, say, a brother and sister right? Take for example my godparents. They were brother and sister, and since they were best friends who never found the “right one” for marriage, they lived together until death. If the government had decided to extend some of these benefits to them, that is a far cry from promoting incest, right?

Okay, so the point that I’m getting at is not about any individual perk. It’s the deeper question of why the government is singling out marriage at all. What is it about this particular relationship that merits mountains of special laws?

Oh, OK. Fair enough. This is essentially the position I’ve taken too. Governments promote a great deal of marriages that the Catholic Church would probably not condone. Though aside from the absolute prohibition of divorce, I think Catholics have a good theology on marriage.

As I see it, marriage is a sacrament, and so there is no marriage that is “not” a sacrament. So the Church defines what marriage is. The state can do whatever it wants. Christians can be Christians no matter what our government does.

 

[Rau]

How do you account for the figures that I quoted from the CDC above. What kind of sex has the STD levels within the San Francisco gay community at epidemic levels?

I don’t doubt that a proportion of people go in for anal sex and multiple partners. But what that proportion is viz a viz the population of homosexuals, I have no idea. The “community” to which you refer is itself only a subset of homosexuals.

 

[Godspells]

What does “normal variation” mean to you? Hair colour? Congenital blindness? Cystic fibrosis? Autism? SSA?

In general, the medical profession assesses whether each of these is a problem for the individual, or a threat to others. If the answer is no to both, it concludes no treatment is warranted. With SSA, the opinions of individuals, as to whether their condition causes them a problem, will vary. Some say yes, some say no, and many will say yes but that the problem arises solely from the rejection and/or prejudices they experience from others. Of these three groups, only the first might warrant (medically speaking) or seek treatment, and they may well be a minority.

Well, homosexuality does not cause any innate physical damage. I consider it a sexual preference.

Like someone might prefer blonde hair. The hair does not aid in the reproductive process, its just a variation of interest. Some people like blonde hair, some people like the same sex. I don’t see it as causing any unnecessary distress on others.

Probably LGBT community would be more open to a “cure” if they had not undergone so much abuse in trying to ascertain one. And I’ve heard it was a popular teaching in the RCC at one point that sodomy condemned someone to eternity in purgatory.

 

[Rau]

Well, homosexuality does not cause any innate physical damage. I consider it a sexual preference.

Like someone might prefer blonde hair. The hair does not aid in the reproductive process, its just a variation of interest. Some people like blonde hair, some people like the same sex. I don’t see it as causing any unnecessary distress on others.

Probably LGBT community would be more open to a “cure” if they had not undergone so much abuse in trying to ascertain one. And I’ve heard it was a popular teaching in the RCC at one point that sodomy condemned someone to eternity in purgatory.

“Hair colour” refers to variation of an individual’s hair colour, not what colour they like.

Are all the “variations” of individuals that I listed earlier what you would call “natural variations”?

Do you think having no inclination to engage in a reproductive act is a natural variation?