Poll: California Catholics strongly support homosexual unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
You have totally obliterated every argument you have attempted. I explained that the intrinsic procreative nature of heterosexual marriage is the primary value to society and the reason for maintaining that model of marriage. The only response anyone could come up with is the childrearing by homosexual couples. I exposed the fallacy of that reasoning by explaining that anyone can raise a child. It appears that you are the one without an argument and simply stating a claim.

Since all you have to counter my well-reasoned arguments with is emotion, you have lost the argument.
Click to expand...
You’re not giving “reasoning,” you are repeating dogma. There is no rational reasoning that biology (the ability to procreate) should be the primary (and exclusionary) basis for defining who can marry. I am obliterating nothing. I am simply describing the limitation of your claims. This is your reasoning: “Same genders cannot marry each other because my God states that it is immoral and because my God made men and women to procreate.” These are statements of faith, not rational arguments. You have not established ANY RATIONAL REASON why marriage MUST BE (without exception) ordered to the gender symmetry that produces children. You claim it, but you in no way *establish it rationally. *
 
rlg94086 said:
What in the world? Homophobia? Again? That is all you’ve got?
Click to expand...
No, I’ve got numbers, and time. The sea change in public opinion is away from hostility and toward the integration of LGBT people into society.
 
larkin31 said:
You’re not giving “reasoning,” you are repeating dogma. There is no rational reasoning that biology (the ability to procreate) should be the primary (and exclusionary) basis for defining who can marry.
Click to expand...
You obviously haven’t been paying any attention whatsoever. It is rational for society to support and maintain an institution that fosters the growth and development of society. Procreation is the method by which growth occurs. That is very reasoned. No one has yet put forth a reasoned argument in favor of extending marriage to intrinsically non-procreative relationships. All I get from your side is emotion and fallacy.
40.png
Larkin31:
This is your reasoning: “Same genders cannot marry each other because my God states that it is immoral and because my God made men and women to procreate.” These are statements of faith, not rational arguments. You have not established ANY RATIONAL REASON why marriage MUST BE (without exception) ordered to the gender symmetry that produces children. You claim it, but you in no way *establish it rationally. *
Click to expand...
I have established it several times. I didn’t bring Church teaching into the equation until you complained about the lack of “spiritual” in my argument. Your charges against me are as false as your arguments are weak.
 
StAnastasia said:
No, I’ve got numbers, and time. The sea change in public opinion is away from hostility and toward the integration of LGBT people into society.
Click to expand...
And, I have the Lord and His Church. You can follow the wide road in pursuit of your secular idols. I will continue to pray for you and all who have been led astray.
 
rlg94086 said:
You obviously haven’t been paying any attention whatsoever. It is rational for society to support and maintain an institution that fosters the growth and development of society. Procreation is the method by which growth occurs. That is very reasoned. No one has yet put forth a reasoned argument in favor of extending marriage to intrinsically non-procreative relationships. All I get from your side is emotion and fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, Larkin31 doesn’t argue on the basis of emotion, and you seem unable to comprehend the logic of Larkin’s argument. Of course it is “rational for society to support and maintain an institution that fosters the growth and development of society” – no one is arguing against that.

I know of no one in favor of gay marriage who is at the same time in favor of abolishing heterosexual marriage. That is your red herring, false and pointless. Opening up marriage to non-heterosexuals does not mean that heterosexuals would abandon the institution, or would “convert” to homosexuality. It simply means that more couples and their children would be protected by the same laws that protect heterosexual couples and their children.

StAnastasia
 
rlg94086 said:
And, I have the Lord and His Church. You can follow the wide road in pursuit of your secular idols. I will continue to pray for you and all who have been led astray.
Click to expand...
Ah, “secular idols” – more emotion without argument!
 
StAnastasia said:
No, Larkin31 doesn’t argue on the basis of emotion, and you seem unable to comprehend the logic of Larkin’s argument. Of course it is “rational for society to support and maintain an institution that fosters the growth and development of society” – no one is arguing against that.

I know of no one in favor of gay marriage who is at the same time in favor of abolishing heterosexual marriage. That is your red herring, false and pointless. Opening up marriage to non-heterosexuals does not mean that heterosexuals would abandon the institution, or would “convert” to homosexuality. It simply means that more couples and their children would be protected by the same laws that protect heterosexual couples and their children.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Neither you nor Larkin31 have give a reason to open up marriage to homosexuals. That is where the emotion comes in. Your arguments can be summed as:

Larkin31: NO YOUR WRONG!! I FIND YOUR ARGUMENTS TIRESOME!!!

StAnastasia: You are a bigot. You are a homophobe. I won’t comment on what I think of the Bishops who posit the same argument. It doesn’t matter because numbers are on my side.

It is homosexual activists who wish to change the institution of marriage. It would be nice If just one of them could put together a solid reason that such a change would benefit society.
 
StAnastasia said:
Ah, “secular idols” – more emotion without argument!
Click to expand...
I was replying to your post. It didn’t prove any reasoned argument, so it didn’t require an argument in response. My statement is just as valid as your statement.

You have yet to counter any of my arguments…
 
rlg94086 said:
You obviously haven’t been paying any attention whatsoever. It is rational for society to support and maintain an institution that fosters the growth and development of society. Procreation is the method by which growth occurs. That is very reasoned.
Click to expand...
Allowing a gay couple to marry in NO WAY effects the fertility rate of any other couple on the planet. There is NO EFFECT on the ability of anyone to reproduce, nor would it in ANY WAY effect the ability of a town, state, or country to sustain its population. This is a total red herring based on poor logic and no evidence.
No one has yet put forth a reasoned argument in favor of extending marriage to intrinsically non-procreative relationships. All I get from your side is emotion and fallacy.
Click to expand...
Name one fallacy and identify where I committed, please. I care about logic. And I want you to back up your charges with specifics.

The reason to extend this in America is that we have this basic understanding in our country: that unless there is clear and present evidence that a behavior is injurious or harmful either to the self or to others, that in the name of freedom and individual liberties we permit the behavior. And in the case of legal benefits/privileges/rights, in America we also extend them as far as reason dictates, following the same limitations of harm or injury, and also within the parameters of the 14th amendment, that justice must be distributed equally and fairly (in other words, not withheld simply for prejudicial reasons).
I didn’t bring Church teaching into the equation until you complained about the lack of “spiritual” in my argument. Your charges against me are as false as your arguments are weak.
Click to expand...
Are you denying that you are basing your argument on Church doctrine? Don’t dissemble.
 
rlg94086 said:
Neither you nor Larkin31 have give a reason to open up marriage to homosexuals. That is where the emotion comes in. Your arguments can be summed as:

Larkin31: NO YOUR WRONG!! I FIND YOUR ARGUMENTS TIRESOME!!!
Click to expand...
See above.

And please respond to my specific points. I respond to yours every time you actually make one.
 
Larkin31,

I’m done here. Go back and read my posts. My argument has been from a non-religious standpoint. Late in the thread, I quote the Bishops for you, because you complained that I left out the spiritual, and for Catholics, because this is a Catholic forum and the thread is about Catholic opinion. You obviously don’t get it.

As far as your fallacies, I’m not going to rehash the whole thread, but I will point out your latest straw man - I never claimed that gay marriage will effect fertility rates.

I feel sad for you that you’ve been unable to come up with an argument in favor of homosexual marriage. If I see a worthwhile post from you, I will respond. I will pray for you.
 
StAnastasia said:
You would probably not find our diocese congenial. We are a peace-loving people, a diverse and integrated society. Our liturgies are vibrant, our churches thronged with children.

I imagine that when your generation dies off, homophobia will largely die with it. There will be remote intercoastal pockets of resistance, of course, in towns far from colleges, universities and institutions of music, art, theatre, dance, cuisine, etc.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
What a ridiculously offensive and elitist comment. Are you suggesting the Pope, or official Catholic teaching on this issue are “homophobic”?? I suppose only the enlightened, coastal dwelling, self aggrandizing elite are the ones capable of accepting same sex marriage? The rest are boorish flyover slobs with no argument but homophobia?

Your hubris will be the cause of your loss on this issue. You heard it from me first.
 
rlg94086 said:
Neither you nor Larkin31 have give a reason to open up marriage to homosexuals. That is where the emotion comes in. Your arguments can be summed as:

Larkin31: NO YOUR WRONG!! I FIND YOUR ARGUMENTS TIRESOME!!!

StAnastasia: You are a bigot. You are a homophobe. I won’t comment on what I think of the Bishops who posit the same argument. It doesn’t matter because numbers are on my side.

It is homosexual activists who wish to change the institution of marriage. It would be nice If just one of them could put together a solid reason that such a change would benefit society.
Click to expand...
I think we have trouble listing a logical reason why gays should be allowed to marry as a list of benefits because we see it as a simple right that has no legal reason not to exist.

Look at it this way. You want some sort of “benefit to society”. We don’t ask you to list a “benefit to society” to get married. Or Catholics. Or Jews. How about this. It used to be illegal for a white to marry a black. As an exercise, list the “benefits to society” that you can use to make a case that blacks and whites can marry. Now, copy and paste that list under the heading “Gay Marriage” and it would probably be a pretty good list. This is NOT to say they are the same issues, but the many of the core reasons a white and a black have no legal reason to not be allowed to marry will apply to homosexuals. I think it is more a case of society is running out of LEGAL reasons to deny marriage to same sex couples. Which is why supporters of the ban on gay marriage are the ones being asked to defend their position.
 
rlg94086 said:
Larkin31,

I’m done here.
Click to expand...
You’ve gotta be kidding. You ask me for reasoning, and then when I give it you quit? Wow.
Go back and read my posts. My argument has been from a non-religious standpoint. Late in the thread, I quote the Bishops for you, because you complained that I left out the spiritual, and for Catholics, because this is a Catholic forum and the thread is about Catholic opinion. You obviously don’t get it.
Click to expand...
You have provided all the Catholic talking points. It is readily apparent that doctrine is your basis. It is not shameful. It is just limited in rational effectiveness.
As far as your fallacies, I’m not going to rehash the whole thread, but I will point out your latest straw man - I never claimed that gay marriage will effect fertility rates.
Click to expand...
Yes, you clearly suggested this. Two posts above this!
I feel sad for you that you’ve been unable to come up with an argument in favor of homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
I just gave you the reasoning! I discussed personal liberties and issues around harm and injury. I discussed the 14th Amendment and the requirement that treatment under the law be non-prejudicial at its heart. This is all AFTER YOU REQUEST me to give a r"reason to extend marriage" to gays.

And then you don’t address a single one of these points and you quit the discussion.

What a disingenuous poster you are.
 
rlg94086 said:
And, I have the Lord and His Church. You can follow the wide road in pursuit of your secular idols. I will continue to pray for you and all who have been led astray.
Click to expand...
This is how we know that you base your arguments on Church doctrine. Because you said so.
 
PassingThru said:
I think we have trouble listing a logical reason why gays should be allowed to marry as a list of benefits because we see it as a simple right that has no legal reason not to exist.

Look at it this way. You want some sort of “benefit to society”. We don’t ask you to list a “benefit to society” to get married. Or Catholics. Or Jews. How about this. It used to be illegal for a white to marry a black. As an exercise, list the “benefits to society” that you can use to make a case that blacks and whites can marry. Now, copy and paste that list under the heading “Gay Marriage” and it would probably be a pretty good list. This is NOT to say they are the same issues, but the many of the core reasons a white and a black have no legal reason to not be allowed to marry will apply to homosexuals. I think it is more a case of society is running out of LEGAL reasons to deny marriage to same sex couples. Which is why supporters of the ban on gay marriage are the ones being asked to defend their position.
Click to expand...
Really? So, what is your reason that incestuous and polyamorous marriages don’t have that legal right? And, please, try to avoid the larkin31 emotional response to the question. Provide a logical reason. The only bar I’ve seen set for homosexual rights is that no harm is done…surely these two groups can make the same claim. What of a 40yo man and 16yo boy who truly love each other? What harm would their marriage have?
 
rlg94086 said:
…Procreation is the method by which growth occurs. That is very reasoned. No one has yet put forth a reasoned argument in favor of extending marriage to intrinsically non-procreative relationships. All I get from your side is emotion and fallacy.
Click to expand...
And here, in bold, is one of three places where you challenged me for my reasoning to extend marriage to gays.

And then, when I do, you quit the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top