My personal take on gay "marriage"

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusExMachina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A not very agile deflection.
And a category error. What is good for a bonobo is not necessarily good for a human.

Furthermore, all other animals lack free judgement, so they can’t reflect on the purposes of their facilities and move said facilities to their purpose and fulfillment.

Sexuality is complicated, with multiple dimensions, but all of the complexity is rooted still in the procreative purpose of sex. Stripping sex from procreation is disastrous!

What happens when you strip eating and meals from their nutritional purpose, and just focus on the pleasures and other complexities of meals? You get waste, gluttony, obesity, depression, forced vomiting, and eating disorders.

What happens when you strip hunting of the purpose of find food and resources, and just focus on the “thrill of the hunt?” You get herds of rotting corpses and endangered and extinct species.

What happens when you strip sex from procreation, and use it only for pleasure and other “complexities?” You get sex abuse, divorce, psychological and physically damaged children, poverty (only the bourgeois can afford the devices that block the consequences of perverted sex), murder via abortion, increased violence, and sentimental, studied stupidity, as well as the destruction of an inner, contemplative life and another uncontrolled desire for the greedy capitalists to exploit.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
The government can legislate whatever it needs to in order to ensure the freedom and equality of every citizen in this country. Banning gay “marriage” would do the opposite,
A (sexual) union of man+man is not the same as that of man+woman, so it would not be apparent that the State has cause to recognise and treat them as equivalent.

Gay ‘marriages’ were not “banned”, but rather such unions were not recognised by the state as being marriages, because, objectively, they did not fit the definition of marriage understood in the society. States are now progressively changing the definition of marriage. Where will it stop?
 
Youre missing the point.Gay marriage is and should be legal because, like you say, *not everyone has the same ****religion ***as I…
The conclusion that SSM is a mistake does not need to rely on:
  • the tenets of certain religious faiths;
  • a presumed bigoted attitude toward gay persons.
This short video makes these points, and also reviews alternative understandings of “what is marriage”.
youtube.com/watch?v=an2TU58LlTE
 
The conclusion that SSM is a mistake does not need to rely on:
  • the tenets of certain religious faiths;
  • a presumed bigoted attitude toward gay persons.
This short video makes these points, and also reviews alternative understandings of “what is marriage”.
youtube.com/watch?v=an2TU58LlTE
As the video says, there are different views about what marriage is. I don’t disagree with that. But this video doesn’t really prove in any way that one of those views is more correct than another. It’s still a matter of opinion about what things different people consider to be important in a marriage.

I also am a little skeptical of the claim that lots of gay people are against gay marriage.

The person doing this video believes that “traditional” marriage should be between two people and that there is nothing inherently religious about the concept of “traditional” marriage but then admits that there are many societies around the world that see nothing wrong with things like polygamy which is a very old form of marriage that appears frequently in the Old Testament. A huge part of the world’s population (Muslims) do not think that there is anything wrong with polygamy. Polygamy is in fact perfectly “traditional” for Muslims and other cultures in the world.

He also seems to imply that “to death do us part” and “faithful, to you alone” marriages (a characteristic of what he calls “traditional marriage”) would not appeal to any gay people.
 
I don’t know if any of you live in San Francisco but the “gays” have literally taken over one neighborhood – they had to close the Catholic grammar school a/c there were not sufficient children – not sure but think they still have Mass in the Church there. A few years ago I was going downtown on the train and a number of gays were on it also – they literally had taken over the train – they were kissing, hugging, etc., etc. Frankly I wouldn’t approve of that behavior with ordinary people – but that’s San Francisco!!!
Oh, how AWFUL! :rolleyes:
 
As the video says, there are different views about what marriage is. I don’t disagree with that. But this video doesn’t really prove in any way that one of those views is more correct than another. It’s still a matter of opinion about what things different people consider to be important in a marriage.
It doesn’t try to. But it identifies two clearly different models, and implications flow according to which you prefer, and which you reject.
The person doing this video believes that “traditional” marriage should be between two people and that there is nothing inherently religious about the concept of “traditional” marriage but then admits that there are many societies around the world that see nothing wrong with things like polygamy which is a very old form of marriage that appears frequently in the Old Testament. A huge part of the world’s population (Muslims) do not think that there is anything wrong with polygamy. Polygamy is in fact perfectly “traditional” for Muslims and other cultures in the world.
The point he makes concerning multi-party ‘marriage’ is that if OUR society believes marriage should encompass man+man then it should be acceptable for it to also encompass other structures - be it polyandry, polygamy, polygyny or any other variation that brings joy and happiness to the participants.
He also seems to imply that “to death do us part” and “faithful, to you alone” marriages (a characteristic of what he calls “traditional marriage”) would not appeal to any gay people
He doesn’t say that at all. He says that the “permanence” of marriage is not particularly aligned with the 2nd model of marriage he presents - which is the one that would admit same sex unions.
 
Regarding the “separation of church and state”, the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 was not to “a friend” but to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it he wrote: “…make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Religion can draw such a subjective experience that no real controls can be administered. There would be too much left to interpretation, perhaps leading to arbitrary rulings. Not to mention that these days there are way to many religions to keep up with, and some are incompatible with one another. Muslims have beliefs, too. Unitarians. Jehovah’s Witnesses. The government wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. We are not technically a Christian country. So I see this separation of church and state as more protective than prohibitive or insulting. In other words, worse things could happen than gay marriage.

Gay marriage is an interesting topic. I’ve never really known what it feels like to be homosexual, but I’ve had many homosexual friends who were some of the kindest and most honest and authentic people I’ve known. I attribute this to almost injured aesthetic, to a humility attained through suffering. No one would ever choose that kind of suffering, in my opinion. They risk their lives, jobs, reputations, etc. It would be far easier to live as a heterosexual. Some do, and probably feel miserable, like they’re living a lie. I can only speculate.

Regarding homosexuality obliterating the human race due to their lack of procreative abilities, I strongly doubt it. Only about 10-20% of the population is homosexual, and not all will marry. Homosexuals would have to outnumber heterosexuals for humans to die out, and even if that were a real threat, I’m fairly certain homosexuals would remedy the situation. No one wants to be obliterated.

So should they marry? Will it hurt the Christian community? Is marriage sacred or merely a social institution?

I know what the Catechism says, but before Biblical records, when there were Neanderthals and the like, did they marry? Were Adam and Eve individuals or are we to take the Hebrew meaning of the names into account? That of “Mankind” and “Bearer of Life”? So when did marriage begin? And what was the custom? How was it officiated? Was love and opening/offering up that love to God enough? I don’t know.

Regarding natural law… In the animal kingdom, sexuality is quite fluid (the Bonobo monkeys are one of many thousands of examples). Sometimes I wonder whether humankind has evolved (or devolved in the opinion of some) and is slowly becoming as much of a sexual spectrum. Everything moves toward a greater state of entropy, so it would make sense, if that were the case. I’ve wondered the same thing about the rising prevalence of autism, whether this is just an unfortunate move toward chaos.

Anyway, back to marriage… I think all people deserve the same legal rights and protections, and if marriage provides rights and protections which are unavailable to homosexuals who by law cannot marry (those can may lose the right), I tend to see this as denying them rights. It no longer becomes a religious topic, but a legal one. Marriage provides rights otherwise denied (to visit a dying spouse or inherit property, etc.). So when I think of denying someone the right to marriage, I first think of what they lose as a result.

I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. Whether or not one acts on these urges might be a choice, but I can empathize, and I feel sad for those who feel they have to deny themselves the opportunity to marry someone they love. Love does indeed happen within homosexual unions. I’ve always wondered what God thinks about that, and why God would allow for such a deep love to arise despite these sexual differences/incompatibilities.

I recently heard Christopher West speak on the Theology of the Body, and something he said really stuck with me. He said, “The Devil has no clay. He can only reshape what God has made.” But if God creates a man or woman who are gay, or a baby with a parasitic head, or a two-headed person, or a baby with Down Syndrome, or a brilliant autistic savant who struggles in life, aren’t these creations His will? Does he have some mysterious plan in mind when these things happen? Is it to test the rest of us?

I realize this sounds like the beginning of multiple threads. I suppose it is and I’m sorry. Just stream of consciousness. I don’t expect an answer or response to so many thoughts/questions. Just sounding off here.

Thanks.
This was a really insightful, enjoyable read. Thank you!
 
None of us should have a personal take of gay marriage, to be honest. We have the word of God and this all the that we need on the subject.
 
…Anyway, back to marriage… I think all people deserve the same legal rights and protections, and if marriage provides rights and protections which are unavailable to homosexuals who by law cannot marry (those can may lose the right), I tend to see this as denying them rights.
One has to be eligible for benefits before they should be expected.
It no longer becomes a religious topic, but a legal one.
Why does it need to be viewed as a religious topic? It pre-dates religions. Religions saw something important in it.
Marriage provides rights otherwise denied (to visit a dying spouse or inherit property, etc.). So when I think of denying someone the right to marriage, I first think of what they lose as a result.
Poppycock. If pairs (or groups) of persons feel they are in need of certain rights (that may also be conferred via civil marriage) then that deserves consideration. The first step would be to explain why the rights can’t be accessed by other than persons in sexual unions - eg. why not a pair of elderly sisters?
Love does indeed happen within homosexual unions. I’ve always wondered what God thinks about that, and why God would allow for such a deep love to arise despite these sexual differences/incompatibilities.
Is it a love that can survive without sexual acts? Perhaps it should?
But if God creates a man or woman who are gay, or a baby with a parasitic head, or a two-headed person, or a baby with Down Syndrome, or a brilliant autistic savant who struggles in life, aren’t these creations His will? Does he have some mysterious plan in mind when these things happen? Is it to test the rest of us?
I’m not sure why you see an analogy between a person who experiences same sex attraction and a person with Down Syndrome. Yes - you might assert that in both cases, something is amiss - a departure from the “blue print” so to speak. But how does this bear on whether or not those persons live well, and make decisions as God would wish? You’ve simply deflected attention away from the free will of those persons (or implied they have none) and onto everyone else.
 
That is a very good point; one can also make a scientific case against gay “marriage” because it is, quite literally, unnatural. However, that doesn’t resolve my belief that government should not legislate morality.
Recognizing gay marriage goes beyond refraining from legislating morality (although I don’t believe morality-based legislation is inherently bad). By granting legal recognition to gay marriage, the government is legislating immortality.
 
As the video says, there are different views about what marriage is. I don’t disagree with that. But this video doesn’t really prove in any way that one of those views is more correct than another. It’s still a matter of opinion about what things different people consider to be important in a marriage.
Let me propose the elephant in the room that you refuse to address:

Do you believe it is good to be alive, and that it is good that so many diverse and unique human beings are also alive? What other higher good and purpose could there be for human beings, than to be alive and participate in the giving of life?

What institution/relationship is the unique way in which that comes about?
(this is not a hard question)

Is there any other relationship that participates in the good of human existence in this unique way?

If not, why would we deceive ourselves that anything else can be equated with it?

(See, I didn’t even use the word “marriage” or invoke religious beliefs to observe the obvious)
 
What other higher good and purpose could there be for human beings, than to be alive and participate in the giving of life?
So why does the Catholic Church not allow its clergy to participate in this higher good and purpose of the giving of life? Not everyone is cut out to have children.
 
wonderful question.
thank you brave.
the constitution was written in 1787 and in that chronological period, there was no other religion except Christianity. whatever other practice might occur was called ‘witchcraft’ and was ‘heresy’, punishable by death.
how easily conned we were into giving up our interpretation of the constitution, and eliminating prayer and i mean our christian prayer, from our american way of life.

muslims build a giant mosque in washington d.c. which is like allowing the klu klux klan to erect a giant flaming cross in washington d.c. the black woman, and i say this lovingly, has the highest recordable levels of self esteem in this world.

huh?

no wonder they have their guy in the white house and their men wearing earrings.

but that is an insult to all women with self esteem.

my bigger point is, why did american male allow destruction to our christian country?

why are u so insecure?

this is so dumb because i’m so ugly you can’t even imagine. i have that really cruddy hair that everyone loathes, and the hairdressers love because it puts money in their pants while they fuss and never help me learn how to care for my hair…and it makes bald-y and you know who i mean, feel like a some body.

bald-y? don’t make fun of our catholic priest haridos.

ques: why even bother arguing a point if you don’t have hair??

they will take you apart in court anyway, so just go rub your scalp and shut up about gay marriage.

that said, you, black woman, you don’t have hair either, but you have esteem.

hmmmm, i don’t know what to say. either you have hair and you get what you want, or you have kegels that could destroy the mosque down in DC say, if you were out in L.A., or…you just marry your best same sex friend and shut up about this marriage opposite sex issue. marry your dog!!

i mean let obamacare take over this country!

you go over to china and learn where hair comes from, you baldy men who don’t even have a snowball’s chance in hell in a court of law!!

I AM about to get on a plane for china, because of my crummy hair, and because of gay marriage existing in this world, and because of…the fact that the jew-run courts took my kids from me, okay no they didn’t, the bald-y catholic realtives did, but they used the jew run courts to do their dirty work.

“hair is grown like grass in a field.”

enough said???

go study trichology and stop ruining our lives you bald queers.

i’m so sick of your uptight resolutions and bad conferences and so forth. i think i speak for all us catholic women and gay catholic men when i say that we need you to be strong.

oh, what’s the point in this rant…i don’t have the double d’s that a woman needs to push this thru.

look, if you hadn’t been afraid john p******i, we wouldn’t be in this mess now, would we??

i’d have those double d’s, you’d still have some hair i bet, and we’d still have prayer in schools catholics like us don’t even go to.

but no, you had to go and f** debbie the wasp, because she was already on birth control pills, didn’t you?? and i was just going to be…repressed until dad could get his jimmy straight.

oh, repressed catholics of the world, unite.

only you would allow yourselves to have zero self esteem, and forego hair and chests even and drug your women like they were old dart boards you were fixing up in the attic.

just objects for gaming purposes.

what are we going to do? my jewish friend from cornell would say, now she is so high in her field we aren’t even allowed in the same room, and i am relegated to support boards and earning a fraction of what she does…her dad with the jewish hair in his jewish food and my dad eating po boys and worrying about the fact that he has no hair.

next prostitute.

jewish prostitute. no, wasp prostititute.

no, you.

i am a hand maiden for my dad’s ****** self esteem and my mother the bisexual whore herself, rushing to apple tree no, wait, peach tree or wherever, to meet with her gay friends who once were nuns.

when are we going to be allowed to be openly hetero???

i’ll just sit here in their beachhouse, with my finger, well, we’ll skip that on a polite catholic board like this, and

wait.

or?

annemarie is looking kinda good now…

or tommy the bullied catholic guy with eczema and no hair?

to be continued
 
part two…

you just let another one of those jewish bisexual women into that concert down there in louisiana, or montreal, or…lemme think…cuba next, right??

us baldies will sit here and argue about gays in general…the appropriateness of hetero marriage, even though our priests are celibate and seen as pedophiles and queers. our nuns the same. and most of us don’t even know the doctrines of our faith…leave it to the mary’s and the mutes, even though we say we are catholics and don’t sacrifice others…

then we’ll allow the now commonplaced rape culture here in society (not the bald issue, real physical unwanted rape) to take hold and thru the same passivity, allow us to give on the right to life issue.

oh, but we’ll all be dead by then. cleansed by our poor esteem and our guillibity. (sp)

i agree with you on the stupidty of gay marriage.

but you see, we don’t even know how to care for our selves…evidently…so…our arugments will be drown out by the concerts of the jews whoring industry and the hindu curries, and the so forth, and pardon to any converts to our faith, but we don’t stand a chance against the way you all care/d for yourselves in an american court of law.

imagine a whole language based on numbers, alone.

so you better believe those jewish women know their numbers all right.

you all take care today and every day. wish i had some bible scripture to quote to you. i’m too busy cleaning up the wreckage from xxxxxxx and i mean that as compared to my more nurtured and nurutring friends who were enabled in college to get the affection a real human being needs, and so ,thrived and so were promoted as a result, and are doing just fine, albeit, watched closely by our jewish psych industry. (and for those of you who don’t know, freud was a jew who figured out a way to destroy our american christian country without lifting a gun.) interesting how they stayed under the radar.

good bye catholics.
 
So why does the Catholic Church not allow its clergy to participate in this higher good and purpose of the giving of life? Not everyone is cut out to have children.
Why do you deflect?
Of course not everyone has the vocation to marriage. 🤷

You know that is not the point. We know you know that is not the point.
So why do you avoid it? Who is that for?

Let me restate the question that you are avoiding:
Do you believe it is good to be alive, and that it is good that so many diverse and unique human beings are also alive? What other higher good and purpose could there be for human beings, than to be alive and participate in the giving of life?
What institution/relationship is the unique way in which that comes about?
(this is not a hard question)
Is there any other relationship that participates in the good of human existence in this unique way?
If not, why would we deceive ourselves that anything else can be equated with it?
(See, I didn’t even use the word “marriage” or invoke religious beliefs to observe the obvious)
 
I wish it were different.
So do I, my friend, so do I. I would love to see all people have a reasonable shot to live a good, fruitful life… not to die in infancy due to parasites, to malnutrition, to lack of clean water.

As the Bible said about Judas: “It would have been better for him not to be born”. Just like the millions of children in Africa, or Bangladesh, or in other innumerable places. If we, good-willing humans had the opportunity, the ability, the power to give them a happy life, we would.

No, it is NOT good for everyone to be alive. It is NOT good for the victims of senseless violence to be alive. Even if there WOULD be an “afterlife”, with eternal bliss. But that is just a pipe dream, without any evidence.
 
…If we, good-willing humans had the opportunity, the ability, the power to give them a happy life, we would.
Would we? We do have the opportunity to improve the lot of others. How committed are we to do it?
 
Would we? We do have the opportunity to improve the lot of others. How committed are we to do it?
Yes, we would… and we do as much as we can. Just look at the actions of the people, who TRY to make a difference. Some are religious, others are not. But they all want to help. There is no difference between them. The problem is not the “will” or the “desire”, the problem is the ability, the power to make a significant difference. Just visualize yourself… if you had the power to stop the drought in Africa, would you not do it? If you had the power to stop the senseless violence… would you NOT do it? Of course you would…

We are impotent… God is (supposedly) omnipotent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top