LGBT equality same as black equality

[fnr]

Faux equality and having civil law contradict the moral law is contrary to faith and reason.

In a pluralistic and constitutionally based society such as ours, moral law from one particular belief system cannot be enshrined as legal code. That’s why I said that its important to be clear about the public purpose of marriage. Treating government as a monopoly of force and a democratic republic as a system by which politicians are accountable to the people, that is the constituents of demography, there is a public purpose in maintaining population requisite to remain a viable nation. Superimposed into the geopolitical realm, a state seeks to dominate other states and it cannot do so with a chronically shrinking population. As such, governments can be seen as promoting childbirth and marriage by tax policies that favor marriage and childbearing, and other advantages that promote children.

The problem in saying that reproduction per se the basis for public policies supporting marriage is that we don’t foreclose marital benefits to barren couples or post menopausal women. Therefore, there must be public interest in marriage other than its strictly reproductive function. Perhaps recognizing the stabilizing role of marriage in household economics is one. Stable grandparents and adopting might be other. But then how does the government foreclose those privileges to lgbt?

 

[CopticChristian]

He accepts the meaning behind the terms which is what is important.

Dakota,

Mark has a voice. Have you noticed that you have somehow voiced Mark’s opinion often and you have an opinion as well. Speak for yourself. Let Mark speak for himself.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota,

Mark has a voice. Have you noticed that you have somehow voiced Mark’s opinion often and you have an opinion as well. Speak for yourself. Let Mark speak for himself.

You continue to misunderstand him

 

[SuperLuigi]

Gay rights are not the same as racial civil rights. And I’m telling you this as a gay conservative Christian.

The basic goals of equal protection under the law have already been achieved. Hate crimes laws now cover virtually all homosexual persons, discrimination on sexual orientation in government employment was banned by President Clinton and still stands, and gays can serve in the military.

I’d say if that was the extent of gay rights, I’d be on board. But it’s not, they want radical redefinition of marriage and the family, the right to endless unhealthy sex, and more. It’s disgusting.

And I’m with conservatives that the private sector and religious groups shouldn’t be forced to accommodate anyone they disagree with (although I might make an exception for the disabled) but that’s about it.

:clapping: I think you are very courageous to have the views you do.

Let me just say this about disabled people:

With reasonable accommodations, they can be productive. Most of the time, we aren’t talking about letting blind people work in a knife factory or anything that would mean liability or is injury prone.

I think people would be surprised at the lengths that some companies will go to in order to accommodate disabled persons.

The problem with this, like anything else, is that there are disabled folks who do game the system and that ,like anything else, also needs to stop.

In the liberal world, however, these folks are very much underrepresented.

I’m also not a huge fan of hate crimes. A crime is a crime. As one conservative radio host put it, “does that also mean we have love crimes?”

 

[CopticChristian]

You continue to misunderstand him

Dakota,

You read my mind?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

as with all things there must be a hierarchy and here there is a hierarchy of ideas and beliefs.

Accept Mortal and Venial.

Discuss as you wish however in the end you must reference all as either Mortal or Venial not the other way around.

Coptic, I know what the terms mean, and I accept them as useful and important. As useful and important as they are, however, I do not accept that they must always be the only ways to talk about and understand sin, nor do I believe the RCC makes this demand as you do.

Perhaps I’m just revealing my preference for the English spiritual tradition, but I’m thinking of Martin Thornton’s classic work English Spirituality: An Outline of Ascetical Theology according to the English Pastoral Tradition in which he writes:
…]medieval scholastic and modern Roman systems regard the confessional primarily as restorative and juridical. William [of St. Thierry] and Anglicanism see confession primarily as an act of worship, an expression of penitential love. The first deals with carefully graded juridical distinctions, issuing from the mortal-venial classification, the second makes a generous prostration at the foot of the Cross; if there is any question of reinstatement to a lost position, it is the reconciliation of husband and wife–who have remained “married” during estrangement–rather than the acquittal of a prisoner.

This means that self-examination by meticulously graded lists of question, and carefully classified penances applicable to carefully classified confessions, have little place in traditional English pastoral practice. In William Beveridge’s succinct words: “We do not stand upon fine points with God Almighty.” K.E. Kirk typifies pastoral sanity when he describes the mortal-venial distinction as “unreal from the point of view of God, dangerous from the point of view of the sinner, but real and valuable from the point of view of the priest.” Scholastic intricacy, in other words, can be a useful map or pattern in the back of the confessor’s mind, while a smattering of knowledge of the mortal-venial system continues to do much harm to penitents.
Also, your understanding of hierarchy seems a bit odd. A hierarchy’s purpose is not to de-legitimize the people, things or ideas that are not at the top of the hierarchy, but to show how the various parts of the hierarchy receive light, goodness, authority, what-have-you from those above in order to transmit it clearly and beautifully to those below. The deacon is not worthless because he is not a Bishop. The laity are not worthless because they are not cardinals. A Throne is not rejected because he is not a Seraph. Likewise, a traditional way of looking at sin is not worthless simply because it is not the prevailing way of looking at sin. See Dionysius the Areopagite’s influential tract Celestial Hierarchy for more info, specifically Chapter 3, from which this comes:
Hierarchy is, in my judgment, a sacred order and science and operation, assimilated, as far as attainable, to the likeness of God, and conducted to the illuminations granted to it from God, according to capacity, with a view to the Divine imitation. Now the God-becoming Beauty, as simple, as good, as source of initiation, is altogether free from any dissimilarity, and imparts its own proper light to each according to their fitness, and perfects in most Divine initiation, as becomes the undeviating moulding of those who are being initiated harmoniously to itself.

The purpose, then, of Hierarchy is the assimilation and union, as far as attainable, with God, having Him Leader of all religious science and operation, by looking unflinchingly to His most Divine comeliness, and copying, as far as possible, and by perfecting its own followers as Divine images, mirrors most luminous and without flaw, receptive of the primal light and the supremely Divine ray, and devoutly filled with the entrusted radiance, and again, spreading this radiance ungrudgingly to those after it, in accordance with the supremely Divine regulations.
Find it all here: tertullian.org/fathers/areopagite_13_heavenly_hierarchy.htm. His Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is also illuminating.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Coptic, I know what the terms mean, and I accept them as useful and important. As useful and important as they are, however, I do not accept that they must always be the only ways to talk about and understand sin, nor do I believe the RCC makes this demand as you do.

Perhaps I’m just revealing my preference for the English spiritual tradition, but I’m thinking of Martin Thornton’s classic work English Spirituality: An Outline of Ascetical Theology according to the English Pastoral Tradition in which he writes:
…]medieval scholastic and modern Roman systems regard the confessional primarily as restorative and juridical. William [of St. Thierry] and Anglicanism see confession primarily as an act of worship, an expression of penitential love. The first deals with carefully graded juridical distinctions, issuing from the mortal-venial classification, the second makes a generous prostration at the foot of the Cross; if there is any question of reinstatement to a lost position, it is the reconciliation of husband and wife–who have remained “married” during estrangement–rather than the acquittal of a prisoner.

This means that self-examination by meticulously graded lists of question, and carefully classified penances applicable to carefully classified confessions, have little place in traditional English pastoral practice.

Also, your understanding of hierarchy seems a bit odd. A hierarchy’s purpose is not to de-legitimize the people, things or ideas that are not at the top of the hierarchy, but to show how the various parts of the hierarchy receive light, goodness, authority, what-have-you from those above in order to transmit it clearly and beautifully to those below. The deacon is not worthless because he is not a Bishop. The laity are not worthless because they are not cardinals. A Throne is not rejected because he is not a Seraph. Likewise, a traditional way of looking at sin is not worthless simply because it is not the prevailing way of looking at sin. See Dionysius the Areopagite’s influential tract Celestial Hierarchy for more info, specifically Chapter 3, from which this comes:
Hierarchy is, in my judgment, a sacred order and science and operation, assimilated, as far as attainable, to the likeness of God, and conducted to the illuminations granted to it from God, according to capacity, with a view to the Divine imitation. Now the God-becoming Beauty, as simple, as good, as source of initiation, is altogether free from any dissimilarity, and imparts its own proper light to each according to their fitness, and perfects in most Divine initiation, as becomes the undeviating moulding of those who are being initiated harmoniously to itself.

The purpose, then, of Hierarchy

Find it all here: tertullian.org/fathers/areopagite_13_heavenly_hierarchy.htm. His Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is also illuminating.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

With a Science background, my thinking leans towards clarity…I believe that all philosophical and theologic thought does as well…the Catechism says this…

III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

As a scientist…Stomach is not the place below your ribcage to your navel, it is your abdomen, your stomach is a sack at the end of the esophagus, below the diaprhagm contiguous with the duodenum…

Aquinas appeals to me as does the thinking of the Church because there is no room for what it is I want to think and believe…although I have room for discourse and thought…but ultimately lean towards what it is the Church teaches…

You see that the Catechism says that there are all sorts of sin and then distinguishes that there are Mortal and Venial…and in the context of this thread…LGBT…these are people that commit Mortal Sin…Amen…do I hear an Amen…

 

[michelleds]

Originally Posted by** michelleds **
I understand the teaching to be:

1. feeling a sexual attraction or excitement to or for a person of the same-sex is not ordered towards procreation

This is where the issue lies: is an attraction to another person necessarily ordered toward a sexual act. I don’t see that the catechism makes the connection between attraction to a person and inclination to a sexual act necessary. As I just wrote to Dakota, I understand such an attraction “to be on account of and for the sake of the perception of goodness, beauty and truth in the person to whom one is attracted and not further ordered to any homosexual sexual act.” You believe otherwise based on your understanding of the teaching. Could you show me, in the teaching, why?"

Mark, the CCC is not talking about attractions which are NOT of a sexual nature. if you prefer to have men as friends and confidantes, that’s fine. if you’re just talking about attraction divorced from the inclination/desire/pursuit etc of a sexual act or foreplay, then you’ve moved beyond the discussion of homosexuality or heterosexuality. You can be “attracted” to someone’s charisma, laughter, humor, money, influence, power, etc. that’s obviously not what the CCC is speaking of when it talks about the homsexual inclination.

The questions I’m led to ask, however, mostly based on your 5 points is this: Can you fall in love with someone to whom you’re attracted without thinking that your feelings of love are an expression of a disorder or an invitation to sin or could not actually be feelings of love because they must come from a disordered place? Can you celebrate or enjoy being in love?

I love my friends deeply. loving someone does not mean that I have to have sex with them–this is true for heterosexuals and homosexuals. As for the “in love” feeling, that’s is merely chasing an emotion, one that is actually fleeting. one falls in love, but one stays, endures, enjoys, and becomes secure because of loving. the daily, day-in-day-out grind of just loving. I’m loved by my friends and I love them. that is so much more valuable and important to me than the 100 times that I “fell in love” previously.

Perhaps this will help–the disorder is the desire/arousal to have sexual contact and/or gratification with a person of the same sex, with whom it is literally and completely impossible to procreate with.

I do not think that loving my friends is an invitation to sin. I DO think and believe that everyone–regardless of age, marital status, orientation etc–is required to bring their will into uniformity with God’s will. this means controlling one’s thought patterns and not letting one’s mind run off like a beagle puppy on scent trail.

I bring my mind to heel immediately if something pops into my head that I know will lead me to sin. after 20 odd years of porn and acting out, I have had numerous opportunities to practice this skill!! and it is a skill. when I first started, it would sometimes take what seemed like herculean effort, much prayer, gritted teeth, etc etc. now by the Grace of God, I have developed self-awareness and skill, and it hardly takes a second to banish thoughts.

 

[fix]

In a pluralistic and constitutionally based society such as ours, moral law from one particular belief system cannot be enshrined as legal code.

The moral law is universal. BTW, Christianity has a long history of influencing the moral law in this country.

That’s why I said that its important to be clear about the public purpose of marriage. Treating government as a monopoly of force and a democratic republic as a system by which politicians are accountable to the people, that is the constituents of demography, there is a public purpose in maintaining population requisite to remain a viable nation. Superimposed into the geopolitical realm, a state seeks to dominate other states and it cannot do so with a chronically shrinking population. As such, governments can be seen as promoting childbirth and marriage by tax policies that favor marriage and childbearing, and other advantages that promote children.

That is a reductionist view of the role of marriage in civilization.

The problem in saying that reproduction per se the basis for public policies supporting marriage is that we don’t foreclose marital benefits to barren couples or post menopausal women.

That has nothing to do with the situation. That is a silly argument the homosexualist lobby often makes. Infertile couples have nothing in common with same sex couples.

Therefore, there must be public interest in marriage other than its strictly reproductive function. Perhaps recognizing the stabilizing role of marriage in household economics is one. Stable grandparents and adopting might be other. But then how does the government foreclose those privileges to lgbt?

They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development

 

[RobbyS]

Exactly what part of my post leads you to think that I’m saying or giving cover to its only bad bc other ppl say so!? Your tone is arrogant, condescending and insulting. “We’ll, happy you can deal with your infirmity but . . .”

See that other cheek is not turned.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

loving someone does not mean that I have to have sex with them–this is true for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Of course loving someone doesn’t mean you need to have sex with them. I whole-heartedly agree with you.

As for the “in love” feeling, that’s is merely chasing an emotion, one that is actually fleeting. one falls in love, but one stays, endures, enjoys, and becomes secure because of loving. the daily, day-in-day-out grind of just loving. I’m loved by my friends and I love them. that is so much more valuable and important to me than the 100 times that I “fell in love” previously.

I agree with this, too. And this is the fruit of maturity, is it not? I mean, not everyone gets there at the same time, and not everyone possesses it in equal measure, so it’s lovely to see the grace of maturity so nicely expressed. But this is the fruit of maturity.

That having been said, I’m not talking about getting a crush. Although, since we’re on that subject…is it possible for a same-sex attracted person to get a crush and not see it as an invitation to sin but to look at it and say, “Look, how nice: I have a crush. Anyway, I think I’ll have lasagna tonight.”? Crushes can be quite lovely if you recognize them for what they are: a passing bit of emotional experience that is best dealt with by letting it pass. I sometimes get the impression, though, that if a same-sex attracted person gets a crush, some well-meaning folk would suggest that the only way to deal with it is yell, “Sin!! Horror!! I am defiled!!” And I think that’s just as unhealthy as dwelling on something meaningless (like a crush) as if it were meaningful.

What I’m talking about when I say “fall in love,” though, is in fact what you so beautifully articulated, “one falls in love, but one stays, endures, enjoys, and becomes secure because of loving.” Not only is that a beautiful sentence, but it’s beautifully profound. Is it possible, do you think, for a sex same-attracted person to love someone in this way and to live chastely with someone with whom one intentionally commits to share one’s life?

Perhaps this will help–the disorder is the desire/arousal to have sexual contact and/or gratification with a person of the same sex, with whom it is literally and completely impossible to procreate with.

I was thinking back the other day to when I first realized that I was attracted to other guys in the same way that other guys appeared to be attracted to girls. I had no thought in my head about specifically sexual contact, however. I was conscious of physical attraction and arousal, certainly, but I was not conscious of a repertory of specific acts to which I was drawn. (Indeed, I don’t think that anal sex in particular is exactly an intuitive act for anyone.) Rather, I was conscious of a yearning for intimacy, a desire to be completely comprehended by the person with whom I realized I was falling in love, and a desire to completely comprehend him. Of course part of that comprehension was physical–we learn with and through our bodies after all. But I had no desire to commit a sexual act.

Here’s the related question: because I yearned for this intimacy and was conscious of the yearning–though not conscious or desirous of any sexual acts–was I yet in sin?

I do not think that loving my friends is an invitation to sin. I DO think and believe that everyone–regardless of age, marital status, orientation etc–is required to bring their will into uniformity with God’s will. this means controlling one’s thought patterns and not letting one’s mind run off like a beagle puppy on scent trail.

I completely and, again, whole-heartedly agree.

I bring my mind to heel immediately if something pops into my head that I know will lead me to sin. after 20 odd years of porn and acting out, I have had numerous opportunities to practice this skill!! and it is a skill. when I first started, it would sometimes take what seemed like herculean effort, much prayer, gritted teeth, etc etc. now by the Grace of God, I have developed self-awareness and skill, and it hardly takes a second to banish thoughts.

This is a wonderful and inspiring testimony for anyone, regardless of the drift of their affections. It is clear that you have received the gift of Self-Control from Our Lord the Holy Spirit–I hope we can all receive the grace to be open to this gift!

I’m glad, Michelle, that somehow we’ve managed to come to a place where we can actually talk to each other!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

LGBT…these are people that commit Mortal Sin…Amen…do I hear an Amen…

Do they commit mortal sin of a necessity? That is, by virtue of being same-sex attracted, someone who is L, G or B, for instance, will necessarily commit a mortal sin? That’s an interesting moral position to take, and it bring us nicely back to the issue of bias and that it need not be identical to another form of bias in order to be analogous.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Mark, the CCC is not talking about attractions which are NOT of a sexual nature. if you prefer to have men as friends and confidantes, that’s fine. if you’re just talking about attraction divorced from the inclination/desire/pursuit etc of a sexual act or foreplay, then you’ve moved beyond the discussion of homosexuality or heterosexuality. You can be “attracted” to someone’s charisma, laughter, humor, money, influence, power, etc. that’s obviously not what the CCC is speaking of when it talks about the homsexual inclination.

I love my friends deeply. loving someone does not mean that I have to have sex with them–this is true for heterosexuals and homosexuals. As for the “in love” feeling, that’s is merely chasing an emotion, one that is actually fleeting. one falls in love, but one stays, endures, enjoys, and becomes secure because of loving. the daily, day-in-day-out grind of just loving. I’m loved by my friends and I love them. that is so much more valuable and important to me than the 100 times that I “fell in love” previously.

Perhaps this will help–the disorder is the desire/arousal to have sexual contact and/or gratification with a person of the same sex, with whom it is literally and completely impossible to procreate with.

I do not think that loving my friends is an invitation to sin. I DO think and believe that everyone–regardless of age, marital status, orientation etc–is required to bring their will into uniformity with God’s will. this means controlling one’s thought patterns and not letting one’s mind run off like a beagle puppy on scent trail.

I bring my mind to heel immediately if something pops into my head that I know will lead me to sin. after 20 odd years of porn and acting out, I have had numerous opportunities to practice this skill!! and it is a skill. when I first started, it would sometimes take what seemed like herculean effort, much prayer, gritted teeth, etc etc. now by the Grace of God, I have developed self-awareness and skill, and it hardly takes a second to banish thoughts.

How does one distinguish between being in love and loving someone?

 

[RobbyS]

In a pluralistic and constitutionally based society such as ours, moral law from one particular belief system cannot be enshrined as legal code. That’s why I said that its important to be clear about the public purpose of marriage. Treating government as a monopoly of force and a democratic republic as a system by which politicians are accountable to the people, that is the constituents of demography, there is a public purpose in maintaining population requisite to remain a viable nation. Superimposed into the geopolitical realm, a state seeks to dominate other states and it cannot do so with a chronically shrinking population. As such, governments can be seen as promoting childbirth and marriage by tax policies that favor marriage and childbearing, and other advantages that promote children.

The problem in saying that reproduction per se the basis for public policies supporting marriage is that we don’t foreclose marital benefits to barren couples or post menopausal women. Therefore, there must be public interest in marriage other than its strictly reproductive function. Perhaps recognizing the stabilizing role of marriage in household economics is one. Stable grandparents and adopting might be other. But then how does the government foreclose those privileges to lgbt?

Regarding the marriages of barren and older women, the existing law was not made up logically but was the codification of customary law. Benthamites might thinks that a laws are baed on utility, but they are not. Historically they are as likely to be the products of the dominant cult of a society. To put it another way, laws are based on our prejudices and serve rather than create out social institutions. The gays are using law as a bludgeon to transform a historical institutions to serve their interests. The state’s interests in that institution has always been less the personal welfare of the parties and more on their property and their progeny, of the accumulated national wealth and of future subjects and citizens. The state give not a damn about whether the couple loves one another at all so long as what they do does not endanger the common property or the welfare of young children. Adultery and divorce do both. Until recently the law respected the long established social sanctions against these destabilizing actions.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Do they commit mortal sin of a necessity? That is, by virtue of being same-sex attracted, someone who is L, G or B, for instance, will necessarily commit a mortal sin? That’s an interesting moral position to take, and it bring us nicely back to the issue of bias and that it need not be identical to another form of bias in order to be analogous.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I have explained this before for you…

Same Sex attraction is not sin…to act on that is sin…with that in mind…

Lesbian…in my opinion is someone that proclaims that identity and has acted on it…
Gay…ditto
Bisexual…ditto
Transgendered…ditto

Beyond that look at the OP…

There is a new community paper in our town that is being launched with the specific agenda to “advance the public agenda on behalf of the LGBT community”. I want to respond with a natutal law, non-religious argument why the LGBT and black equality issue are not comparable.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

People with Same Sex attraction are not in my opinion launching a community paper to advance the public agenda on behalf of the LGBT community.

So anyone that states that they are gay, have acted on that attraction, and anyone that has acted on that attraction has committed Mortal sin…Ok…do I hear an Amen…Amen…

 

[PropertyDualist]

Should a sterile woman be allowed to “marry” considering she cannot have children?

Plus I want to point out that there are tons of rights that married people have that gays do not get in unions.

Thirdly, marriage is a contract. A legal contract with the state. That’s why a christian’s marriage is the same as an atheist’s marriage… they are both of the state, not a particular religion.

Therefore, using a religious argument to deny someone of a legal right, is just wrong.

 

[CopticChristian]

Should a sterile woman be allowed to “marry” considering she cannot have children?

Plus I want to point out that there are tons of rights that married people have that gays do not get in unions.

Thirdly, marriage is a contract. A legal contract with the state. That’s why a christian’s marriage is the same as an atheist’s marriage… they are both of the state, not a particular religion.

Therefore, using a religious argument to deny someone of a legal right, is just wrong.

PD,

You have been busy posting I see.

Sterile women and the infertility arguments do not equate to gay marriage.

There are tons of rights. A ton is 2000 lbs. Gay people can vote, sit anywhere they want to on a bus, eat in public restaurants anwhere they choose, drink out of the same drinking fountain, go to any college they wish, are citizens, get paid for their labor…and are not offended by being called gay. So what’s up with the ton of rights? There is no legitimate reason gay unions deserve rights provided to married people.

Marriage is a covenant and not a contract on this CAF and while some may not honor that covenant is a problem. So while you profess marriage to be a contract this is so for you.

Therefore your premise is in error and your conclusion concerning a religious argument to deny legal rights assume that their are legal rights deserved and they are not.

 

[vsedriver]

I’ve heard this argument before, only to be responded with “what about a heterosexual couple who can’t have children. Do they not have a right to marry either if they cannot produce children? Should THEY remain celibate simply because one or both of them are infertile.”
I don’t know how to respond to that…Thoughts?

Nature designs us to have two parents who are of the opposite sex. The point of legal marriage is to encourage the stable union of a mother and a father who will probably produce children. A heterosexual couple who are sterile can still be a mother and a father through adoption. However, fertility is not a requirement for marriage, just the potential to be mommy and daddy.

'A Homosexual couple cannot provide a mother and father for a child. Deliberately depriving a child of the natural experience of a mommy and daddy is child abuse.

 

[vsedriver]

Yes I understand your point, but what will be difficult in the discussion is that you are equating a "genetic predisposition’ toward something “wrong” or “disordered” within the person such as alcoholism or addictive personalities with sexual orientation…you would have to convince the person you are debating with that same sex orientation IS “disordered” like a genetic predisposition to alcoholism instead of a genetic variation of human sexuality which is both a normal and natural variation…that is going to be a difficult thing to convince someone of who doesn’t hold your religious convictions to begin with.

of course same sex attraction is disordered. It’s a disorder of the sex drive. It’s self evident that our sex organs are designed for procreation. Procreation requires opposite sex genders. To not be attracted to the opposite gender is a disorder.

Your argument is like saying being color blind is a variation of human eyesight when it is a disorder of the function of the human eye.

 

[vsedriver]

True, and that’s why eventually same sex marriage here in the US will eventually become a reality. More and more people are not buying into the “disordered”…“sin”…“unnatural”…“sex is for procreation”…“natural law” arguements. Society as a whole is…has…become more diverse in more ways than race and sexualtiy. Most people are beginning to realize that the sexual orientation of their neighbor or their marriage status does not effect them in any way.

I’m so glad to see this. Because I demand the right to marry who I love too. I want the same rights and benefits of marriage. I should not be discriminated against! I want to marry my 80 yr old mother. We’ve been living together for 2 years. I should be able to put her on my insurance, deduct her as a dependent, and inherit all her property without sharing with my siblings.