Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[blong2014]

A Child needs role models, which are the parents to mimic, whether you want them to or not, they will mimic you and your lifestyle if they are homosexual or hetrosexual, because it’s all they know, there is no magical choice that they can make, because their choice is bias, with hetrosexual parents their choice will be bias towards hetrosexuality, regardless if they are homosexual or hetrosexual, same with homosexual parents, their choice will be bias towards homosexuality regardless if they are homosexual or hetrosexual, they mimic their parents in how to live their life by what they do, kids are very observant.

While i agree with most of your essay, and by no means am i trying to push my opinion on anyone here. but i do not agree with this statement because i was raised with a mom and a dad and i turned out to be gay.

 

[seakelp]

I think that assuming that latter fact will be a wrong assumption. When marriage becomes meaningless, people refrain from marriage. I think that is inevitable. I don’t have the article at hand but I recall reading that in one nation that had legalized gay marriage, marriage itself began to decline, with fewer people getting married.

Not only that, but when a man and women pledge themselves to each other in marriage, then suddenly find that the word can encompass something the opposite of what it has always meant, their own marriage is devalued. And why will the next generation wish to enter into a meaningless, devalued institution?

Fair point. But I think the number of divorces, the tremendous rise of which pre-date the emergence of the same-sex marriage movement, has done far more to eviscerate the value of marriage.

Plus, I think most people view the purpose of marriage as a celebration of love - not just a vehicle for procreation. As one priest at a wedding I attended put it, it’s like the “holy spirit.” Marriage as a sacrament is the consecration of the love that already exists between husband and wife.

I guess I don’t see how that rationale doesn’t apply to homosexual marriages (at least, in a non-religious sense of a “celebration of love” - obviously our Catholic faith adds some other significance to marriage). If the law wishes to recognize this, why shouldn’t it?

Same sex ‘marriage’ is like saying that henceforth, glove manufacturers must include a certain number of gloves which are not right and left handed pairs. Some pairs will be both right handed, some will be both left handed, some will be both, and all pairings must be treated equally. Soon you will find that no one wears gloves because they don’t know what they are getting.

I don’t think this is an apt analogy.

 

[josh987654321]

While i agree with most of your essay, and by no means am i trying to push my opinion on anyone here. but i do not agree with this statement because i was raised with a mom and a dad and i turned out to be gay.

But did you contemplate hetrosexuality or act on hetrosexual desires in any way before you decided that you were gay?

I thought my essay would be met with much more citicisim

You have made my day, Im very happy that you understand alot of what I have written, because I want to find a way to oppose same sex marriage being law, in a way that everyone can understand hetrosexuals and homosexuals.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[blong2014]

But did you contemplate hetrosexuality or act on hetrosexual desires in any way before you decide that you were gay?

Thank you for reading
Josh

i did, but in my experience. people who were raised in a homosexual household did not automatically assume they were gay. they went through the time when they thought they were straight

 

[josh987654321]

i did, but in my experience. people who were raised in a homosexual household did not automatically assume they were gay. they went through the time when they thought they were straight

The other thing is that, if they see that your desires of homosexuality are normal and okay behaviours to act on, what sort of hetrosexual or homosexual behaviours will they see as disordered or immoral? will they have an understanding of what desires are okay to act on and which ones are immoral and disorderd?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Same sex ‘marriage’ is like saying that henceforth, glove manufacturers must include a certain number of gloves which are not right and left handed pairs. Some pairs will be both right handed, some will be both left handed, some will be both, and all pairings must be treated equally. Soon you will find that no one wears gloves because they don’t know what they are getting.

I like that analogy, because it’s true, if you change the definition of marriage by law, than people wont know what constitutes a marriage, because it can mean so many different unions, I don’t understand why people want to give the same word ‘marriage’ to two different unions, it will only cause confusion, just like JimG is pointing out with this analogy.

People will say “Im married” and we will need more information, because the word ‘marriage’ will be too vague.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JimG]

seakelp:

Fair point. But I think the number of divorces, the tremendous rise of which pre-date the emergence of the same-sex marriage movement, has done far more to eviscerate the value of marriage.

I agree. Marriage began to be eviscerated with the widespread acceptance of contraception which attempts to rip it from its procreative meaning, followed by divorce, which rips it from even its unitive meaning, and gives either party the right to declare the vows null and void at will. Children are helpless to stop the destruction of their families. Same sex ‘marriage’ would not even be thinkable had not the institution been largely dismantled by contraception, divorce, cohabitation, fornication and adultery. I just don’t think that because the patient is gravely ill, that is a sufficient reason to kill him off entirely.

Plus, I think most people view the purpose of marriage as a celebration of love - not just a vehicle for procreation. As one priest at a wedding I attended put it, it’s like the “holy spirit.” Marriage as a sacrament is the consecration of the love that already exists between husband and wife.

I guess I don’t see how that rationale doesn’t apply to homosexual marriages (at least, in a non-religious sense of a “celebration of love” - obviously our Catholic faith adds some other significance to marriage). If the law wishes to recognize this, why shouldn’t it?

But marriage is not merely a celebration of love. Birthday parties are a celebration of love, baby showers are a celebration of love. Marriages are the joining of a man and woman in a union so intimate that they are no longer two, but one flesh—a union which is both unitive and procreative, always open to life. Sexual complementarity is so essential to it that the Catholic Church cannot marry a couple if one or both of them is incapable of sexual relations—i.e., permanently and antecedently impotent.

I don’t think this is an apt analogy.

It is difficult for me to come up with a proper analogy for something which seems so inherently impossible as same sex ‘marriage.’ I thought of using the analogy of an equipment manufacturer making heavy duty machines, some of which were fastened together with all bolts, and others with all nuts. It just would fall apart. But I expect you might not find that one apt either.

 

[JimG]

I like that analogy, because it’s true, if you change the definition of marriage by law, than people wont know what constitutes a marriage, because it can mean so many different unions, I don’t understand why people want to give the same word ‘marriage’ to two different unions, it will only cause confusion, just like JimG is pointing out with this analogy.

People will say “Im married” and we will need more information, because the word ‘marriage’ will be too vague.

Thank you for reading
Josh

The thing that is hard for analogies to capture with respect to same sex ‘marriage’, is that it really does devalue what marriage is. That’s because when something entirely opposite, tries to pretend that it is something else, the result is that the language as well as the subject of the description is made meaningless. Pretend marriage does no one any good.

 

[seakelp]

I agree. Marriage began to be eviscerated with the widespread acceptance of contraception which attempts to rip it from its procreative meaning, followed by divorce, which rips it from even its unitive meaning, and gives either party the right to declare the vows null and void at will. Children are helpless to stop the destruction of their families. Same sex ‘marriage’ would not even be thinkable had not the institution been largely dismantled by contraception, divorce, cohabitation, fornication and adultery. I just don’t think that because the patient is gravely ill, that is a sufficient reason to kill him off entirely.

Okay, I can see the internal logic of that.

But marriage is not merely a celebration of love. Birthday parties are a celebration of love, baby showers are a celebration of love. Marriages are the joining of a man and woman in a union so intimate that they are no longer two, but one flesh—a union which is both unitive and procreative, always open to life. Sexual complementarity is so essential to it that the Catholic Church cannot marry a couple if one or both of them is incapable of sexual relations—i.e., permanently and antecedently impotent.

Again, I see the logic of that. But that’s a particular (and admittedly well-articulated) view of marriage. Not all people see it the same way. Why shouldn’t a different definition of marriage be as valid in the eyes of the law as a Christian one?

It is difficult for me to come up with a proper analogy for something which seems so inherently impossible as same sex ‘marriage.’ I thought of using the analogy of an equipment manufacturer making heavy duty machines, some of which were fastened together with all bolts, and others with all nuts. It just would fall apart. But I expect you might not find that one apt either.

Haha, probably not.

 

[josh987654321]

The thing that is hard for analogies to capture with respect to same sex ‘marriage’, is that it really does devalue what marriage is. That’s because when something entirely opposite, tries to pretend that it is something else, the result is that the language as well as the subject of the description is made meaningless. Pretend marriage does no one any good.

Yup your right, but pretend marriage is no longer pretend if people view it as reality.

It devalues our meaning of the word marriage, and by doing that devalues marriage altogether, but they already have a devalued view of marriage, otherwise same sex marriage wouldn’t even be up for discussion, people would need to see the value of marriage, because if they don’t, than they are not devaluing anything as it was already devalued according to them.

So I gave up on the devalued marriage argument, because it’s true but they don’t see it like that, Instead I try the two different unions under the same word is illogical argument.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JimG]

Yup your right, but pretend marriage is no longer pretend if people view it as reality.

It devalues our meaning of the word marriage, and by doing that devalues marriage altogether, but they already have a devalued view of marriage, otherwise same sex marriage wouldn’t even be up for discussion, people would need to see the value of marriage, because if they don’t, than they are not devaluing anything as it was already devalued according to them.

So I gave up on the devalued marriage argument, because it’s true but they don’t see it like that, Instead I try the two different unions under the same word is illogical argument.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Even if they view it as reality, it still is pretend marriage. That IS the reality. The trouble is, there are a lot of pretend marriages now, even of the heterosexual variety. So many people have forgotten what marriage is. And if that forgetfulness becomes permanent, then the family is doomed to collapse, and with it, civilization. That may sound too apocalyptic, but that’s where we’re headed.

 

[epan]

I am leaving CAF for a while. The typical post on social issues is just too uncharitable for me to read every day. It is all so negative. I have way to much negative stuff to deal with daily, and would prefer to spend my off time in a more positive environment than CAF.

 

[seakelp]

I am leaving CAF for a while. The typical post on social issues is just too uncharitable for me to read every day. It is all so negative. I have way to much negative stuff to deal with daily, and would prefer to spend my off time in a more positive environment than CAF.

Why? Don’t bail. 90% of this board disagrees with me on most things, but I think people are generally respectful (tremendously respectful compared to the rest of the internet!).

 

[epan]

Why? Don’t bail. 90% of this board disagrees with me on most things, but I think people are generally respectful (tremendously respectful compared to the rest of the internet!).

Well, I deal with pain and suffering as part of my job. I choose to do that. I have performed six limb amputations on outstanding young men since I arrived here. I deal with trauma of various sorts with some frequency, ranging from serious burns, to venomous snake bites, to concussions and injuries which result in brain trauma. I don’t need the negativity of CAF in addition to that, during my off time.

 

[seakelp]

Well, I deal with pain and suffering as part of my job. I choose to do that. I have performed six limb amputations on outstanding young men since I arrived here. I deal with trauma of various sorts with some frequency, ranging from serious burns, to venomous snake bites, to concussions and injuries which result in brain trauma. I don’t need the negativity of CAF in addition to that, during my off time.

I know - you probably see more suffering than most, but you’re not alone.

But if you feel that it’s not worth your time, of course that’s up to you. People on here can be frustrating at times, but I’ve found that at least a few posters are kind enough that it makes it worth my while. Even if they don’t agree with me, they explain themselves well, they do it in a gentle way - and that makes me feel good.

I don’t see a lot of physical suffering in my day to day (though I used to). But I do see a lot of angry incoherent yelling that somehow qualifies as “debate.” Most of CAF is refreshingly patient and at least *tries *to be generous and charitable in the discussion.

Anyway, no pressure. Just saying I’ll miss your posts if you do leave!

 

[_Abyssinia]

Marriage and the Supreme Court

The Justices should not pre-empt an evolving cultural debate best settled democratically.

A speech from the Trafalgar Square Rally for Marriage

 

[josh987654321]

Marriage and the Supreme Court

A speech from the Trafalgar Square Rally for Marriage

Thanks _Abyssinia, he is dead right when it comes to same sex marriage, because this is the one thing, that if implemented by law will cause God’s laws and Man’s laws to clash, because it will require participation of some kind from everyone, and as Christians marriage will always be between a man and a women, we cannot change it, therefore we will never recognise a homosexual union as a marriage nor will we treat homosexuality equal to hetrosexuality, we will have no choice but to rebel against the law or turn our back on our faith, on the church’s teachings of marriage.

If homosexual marriage is past by law, it will only be a matter of time before heretics will try and force us through the law to be a party to, or a participant to heresy.

By enforcing such laws as homosexual marriage and equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality, they are being incredibly Ignorant to religion, and they cannot afford to be ignorant to religion, because that’s exactly how the Roman Empire fell.

I like where he say’s:

Are you a teacher? You will have to explain same-sex marriage to children. Do you work in a school or a care home? Do you receive charitable status or accreditation from the government? You will have to comply. You will not be given reasonable accommodation. Roman Catholic adoption agencies were not given reasonable accommodation – neither will you. Legal challenges will pursue anyone who does anything else than accept same-sex behaviour and same-sex marriage as anything else but a societal norm.

Once it is ruled discrimination to treat homosexuality differently to hetrosexuality, I don’t think “freedom of religion” will last long as an acceptable excuse to refuse such laws.

I will always say that the acts of homosexuality are disordered and immoral desires to act on, and I would hate to think of kids being taught a lie in schools about marriage or homosexuality and for teachers to be forced to teach such a lie, if this false equality gets passed through law, it means they can legally persecute all of those like me who speak the truth of homosexuality, it will lead to outlawing the church’s teachings.

And I also liked this one -

We are protesting today in the name of liberty. We must protest today to preserve the liberties that hundreds of thousands in our two nations have died to save. Join us in protesting today. For if not, in a few months time, you will not be allowed to express the view at all in public that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am leaving CAF for a while. The typical post on social issues is just too uncharitable for me to read every day. It is all so negative. I have way to much negative stuff to deal with daily, and would prefer to spend my off time in a more positive environment than CAF.

Noted; reflects my own thinking. My apology. Its easy to become inundated with the daily drama of topic issues and its frustration. Have a peaceful Holy Week.

 

[rossum]

The question is, are they able to engage in marital relations? Sterility or infertility does not prevent marital relations from occuring.

Failure of the penis to develop, paralysis causing erectile dysfunction, a severe shrapnel wound in the wrong place. There are a number of possible causes of an inability to consummate. I am not aware of many places that would prevent a severely wounded war veteran marrying.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

Failure of the penis to develop, paralysis causing erectile dysfunction, a severe shrapnel wound in the wrong place. There are a number of possible causes of an inability to consummate. I am not aware of many places that would prevent a severely wounded war veteran marrying.

rossum

Rossum I think that’s a bit too much imagery there, could you be less descriptive next time please.

And the difference is that when they marry with an inability to consummate, they are not trying to use their organs in a manner that they are not designed to be used for, (a way of putting it without being as descriptive )

It’s the nature of homosexuality in using organs in a manner that they are not designed to be used for, that makes it disordered and immoral, and why it should never be recognised as a marriage, because it isn’t one, it should not be encouraged at all.

And it really comes down to the fact that as Christians, marriage is the union of a man and a women, we cannot change that even if the law tries to force us to, so therefore one of us has to budge on this issue of same sex marriage, and it isn’t going to be the church, so there’s no point in trying to make homosexual unions recognised as marriage by law, because we will never accept a homosexual union as a marriage, because it goes against our religious beliefs, so it’s foolish to try and force us to submit to such a law, because we wont, instead you will be outlawing the teachings of the church, and that’s exactly how Rome fell, because people will either submit to the law and turn their backs on the teachings of the church on marriage, or they will rebel against the law, that’s why by viewing a homosexual union as marriage by law, you will be creating civil disobedeance, because we cannot obey or accept such a law, so please don’t try it, because you will create alot of hardships for alot of good people who hold true to the truth of marriage.

And besides the physical human anatomy of a male and a female dictate that a homosexual union and a hetrosexual union are two very different unions so why would you want to give the same word (marriage) or equality to two very different unions? it’s illogical.

Thank you for reading
Josh