B
BlindSheep
Guest
Did you or did you not say:
- Status
D
Digger71
Guest
Yes, but I also agree with point 1, the institution can evolve. By analogy, green houses are not just good for growing tomatos.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I take a stand and it is against homosexuals.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
“Evolve” or “disintegrate”? And why should your idea of “evolution” be forced upon marriage? Especially since doing so obliterates any societal recognition of the potential for procreation as being at all significant in the structure of society or as placing any additional responsibilities upon a couple (where there are responsibilities, there are rights attached to them).
D
Digger71
Guest
BlindSheep said:
They are not forced upon marriage. You have a partial view of marriage which is very much ‘my way or no way’. I understand, but I have been doing some additional reading.
Have a read:
simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1a.html
simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1b.html
simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1c.html
simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1d.html
In addition, this paper is very long but directly answers charges of ‘disintergration’ with empirical data from denmark.
freedomtomarry.org/pdf/scandinaviaBEPressArticle.pdf
It notes marriage went up, divorce went down and more children where born in wedlock after same-sex unions came in to being.
In anycase, marriage comes with the responsibility of mutual care. Do you really have no concept of what marriage duties are beyond producing children? That, my dear lady, is what I consider a debased understanding of marriage.
D
Digger71
Guest
Thus demonstrating “love the sinner, hate the sin”?
D
Digger71
Guest
I think you have misunderstood. I think there is nothing unhealthy about homosexuality in itself. I argue that discrimination has created a sub-culture with some unfortunate cultural artifacts. But those artifacts are not intrinsic to homosexuality, but to exclusion.
The negative effects of social exclusion is well known. Take gangsta rap, would you argue that the violence and disrepect for women in that cultural artifact are because black people are like that?
Exclusion is always going to do this. And those who support exclusion must admit that they do not care (and indeed, can enjoy a good moan about it).
R
Ray777
Guest
correct. (I believe). It’s like an other mortal sin, if you defeat the temptation, then sin is defeated and glory is given to God.
Though I’m not homosexual (thank God for that) unfortunately, I am not sinless either and thus, I certainly don’t want to cast stones. Though I will say, I am very sad to see that hollywood is “glamorizing” and promoting the homosexual lifestyle since it IS a serios sin. It’s not only as the tread starter mentioned in Brokeback mountain, it seems to be everywhere in the media. Now even Ford is as well… afa.net/ford0323.asp
The American Family Association is a great resourse against secular evils. They keep us informed of bad things and send many petitions that work against these secular groups.
It’s great. www.afa.net
I say, may we all live in God’s grace. In that way, we do have hope to be sinless and thus truly be of great service to God.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
It amounts to this. Marriage is not just a commited relationship, it is by definition a sexual relationship. Do we agree on that?
There are basically two ways of looking at sexual relationships - one sees pleasure as primary (this includes not only physical pleasure, but emotional, romantic feelings) and sees procreation as secondary. The other sees procreation as primary, and pleasure as secondary, not a bad thing, mind you, but not to be made a goal in itself.
“Gay marriage” is a part of the first view of sexuality I listed, and the movement towards it is both a product of this attitude and would be a reinforcement of it, if successful. You seem to think I’m saying that marriage consists only of procreation. I am not. I am saying that it is the procreative aspect which makes legal recognition important.
Are homosexual and heterosexual relationships really equal? What would happen if all the straight people in the world stopped having sex? Would would happen if all the gay people stopped having sex?
D
Digger71
Guest
No, I dont think we can agree on that.
Many marriages become virtually sexless, and many start that way. I think marriage is by definition public, committed and legalistic.
Well, no. I think you are obsessing over the sex, I see marriage as much more than a sexual relationship, it is a deep and emotional committment and longing/love, and sex springs as a natural expression of that.
Children are the natural outcome for most of those relationships, but childlessness is the natural outcome for some…and not just same-sex relationships.
BlindSheep said:
No it’s recognising that marriage floes from deep emotional feelings, not genital arrangements.
But you started by talkig about a sexual relationship. I pity you if your marriage is just about sex and babies. I hope you give your husband more, and receive more.
D
Digger71
Guest
Just a blog entry…
I had been resolutely labeled a “homophobe”, an epithet which — with the help of its pseudo-scientific Greek suffix — conveniently renders pathological all deviations from the orthodox.
Now why does this sound sooooo familiar? Not the labeling part, the conveniently renders pathological all deviations from the orthodox
I had been resolutely labeled a “homophobe”, an epithet which — with the help of its pseudo-scientific Greek suffix — conveniently renders pathological all deviations from the orthodox.
Now why does this sound sooooo familiar? Not the labeling part, the conveniently renders pathological all deviations from the orthodox
D
Digger71
Guest
B
BlindSheep
Guest
So you do not even agree that sexuality is a normal aspect of marriage? You have a definition of marriage which is so broad it is meaningless. Apparently you think that any commited, loving relationship can and should be considered a marriage? Doesn’t this include good friends, parents and children, even possibly people and their pets?
Actually, you see marriage as less than I do, and you are the one diminishing it. You see any loving relationship as a marriage. I see only loving, monogamous, permanant sexual relationships between one man and one woman and open to life as marriages. You talk as though I think people who hate each other, or who have no intention of being faithful, should get married - I do not think any such thing. Your logic as faulty, as I understand you, you are saying:
- Blindsheep says that marriage is not **only **about love.
- Therefore, she thinks that love is not important in marriage.
This makes about as much sense as saying: - Blindsheep says that you should not eat only protein.
- Therefore, Blindsheep thinks that eating protein is unneccessary.
Get it?
D
Digger71
Guest
Your emphasis on sex was simply too great. Most marriages have sex, but the sex flows from emotional attachment, committment, luuuuuurve…whatever. But sex while important need not be definitive.
I would say a committment to mutual caring is a massive part of marriage…but not part of your description, nor has it ever been in this thread.
So I have to ask you, who here is debasing marriage? The gal who is talking about sexual aspects, or the guy talking about ‘emotional’ aspects?
This may simply be a language barrier, it may be that the parts I think count are taken as obviously present by yourself, but that is not how it reads to me.
Whoah!!! Given that one of us has reduced marriage to sex and sex alone, I think that is a completely inappropriate comment. I might theorise that perhaps that some people are married just so they can have sex and still be Catholic.
Obviously not. Not until the public committment has been made and the state recognises it, and both rights and responsibilities fall on the couple. That is when it becomes marriage.
Good friends can get married, as long as they are of the opposite sex. Companiable marriages exist.
Of course, if marriage is JUST about sex, then perhaps you might think children and animals qualify, but some of us understand ‘informed adult consent’ and realise this aspect is also a part, and that children and animals cannot give this consent.
I’m shocked!
B
BlindSheep
Guest
I suggest you read a post before you respond to it. You continue to falsely portray my position. I have already addressed these assertions in my last post.
D
Digger71
Guest
Your list is entirely sexualised.
Monogamous = sex with each other only
permanent sexual relationship = explicitly sexual
one man + one woman = genital based/ or XX/XY
open to life = babies, one outcome of sex.
Once again, I have to point out that these things flow from the relationship and the quality of the emotions between the members of the couple. They are not usually the reason the couple formed:
Jane: “I want to have babies with a monogamous life-long sexually active man. What do you think about that?”
Joe: “I don’t love you, I think you’re ugly but I’m a real stud-muffin and want babies…lets do it! But don’t expect emotional support, I’m a stud, not a counsellor.”
The complete de-emphasis of the quality of the emotional relationship certainly does come from you. If you really value these, they seem diminished in what you have written.
Further, you deliberately conflate strong committed relationships with the peculiar (by quality and quantity) set of emotions that lead people to want to publicly commit to a permannent convenant and contract of mutual care. These feelings usually have a strong sexual component but not always.
Again we return to what you are writing. If you really cannot see falling in love and wanting to make a public legal committment is different to ‘just friends’ then we are seeing a pattern here:
- Over empahsis on sex
- Reversal of causative flow of emotions
- Conflation of relationship types
Now I do think gay relationships embody a deeper and more elevated form of friendship than ‘just friends’, note the adjectives ‘deeper’ ‘evelated’, these are used to distinguish the qualities from your pupative stereotypical friendship. So when you are talking about ‘freindship’, I am acutely aware that we are again talking about different things.
D
Digger71
Guest
Not at all. I am merely reflecting back to you the implications of your post.
Well, this will just lead to circular arguments about ‘definitions’ of marriage. Needless to say, there is no legal requirement to have children; there is no legal requirement to anul marriages that are child free; there is no legal barring of post-menopausal women or impotent men from marrying; there is no legal requirements against severely disabled people marrying.
They may not count as religious marriages, but certainly they have legal status. Where are the interminable threads about these groups? Where are your demands to end these sham marriages?
So I am not convinced.
And, though I do not feel compelled to progress the adoption argument, the responsibilities of child rearing certainly can fall on the shoulders of same sex couples. Thus fulfilling your criteria.
Not universally, as you well know.
It’s not funny, it is one outcome of sex.
Well, you amply demonstrate your argument is just another version of “what if everyone turned gay?”
And, as I understand it if everyone became chaste/celibate for the right reasons, this would be a good outcome according to the church. The end of the human race through spiritual enlightenment.
Oh, and simplistic, gay people have always been parents.
oh, and worse still, we know of species with near 100% homosexality that breed perfectly well.
And again, we are very, very clever, we dont need sex to produce embryos anymore.
while homosexual sex isn’t - all it results in is some momentary pleasure and the spread of STD’s, really
Again, all you do it focus on sex. “momentary pleasure”…as part of a committed long term relationship based on love.
I have to assume you know the only real difference between gay relationships and straight relationships is one and only one, single, specific, outcome. Children. You know that is the only difference, and you also know aht this difference is not insurmountable.
F
fix
Guest
Do you mean that emotions define the institution of marriage?
D
Digger71
Guest
No, laws define the institution of marriage in a civil society. Those who wish to get married choose to activate those laws based (usually) on the emotioal content of a pre-existing relationship.
I am including forced or arranged marriages, marriages of conveniences with the word ‘usually’ in the above paragraph because people can get legally married without emotioal content of a pre-existing relationship.
F
fix
Guest
The laws must not contradict reason and the natural law. If they do, they are not just laws.
Emotions are not reason and are no basis for law or perceiving reality correctly. Marriage is not simply about “feeling” a certain way, if that were true then when one stopped “feeling” that way the marriage would be no longer be a marriage. Such nonsense happens all the time and we see the results of such a poor understanding of marriage.
- Status