Poll saying white Catholics embrace same-sex marriage than other Americans

[Angels84]

I am guessing your definition of marriage is something like “a societally sanctioned sexual relationship between two committed people who love each other”. Can I ask why the government should invest its resources in that? I mean, what does society have to gain from “subsidizing” a private sexual relationship, whether straight or gay? In other words, what’s the “return on investment” which society gains by facilitating a couple’s sexual relationship, and not other relationships? Why should romantic relationships be of public concern at all?

Again, why is this argument only brought up with gay marriage is brought into the mix? Never heard anyone complaining when it was limited to heterosexual couples. As for what the government gains for legalizing same sex marriage…well, as has been shown in States that have legalized it, money first and foremost. Secondly, a more stable environment for children to be adopted into. More people willing to fight for their country since they no longer have to hide who they are, or their marriage.

The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, of which I have yet to hear any.

 

[Angels84]

Is gender makeup of a child’s parents irrelevant? Your honest opinion - does it make any difference at all, generally speaking?

You’re asking if I think it matters whether a child is raised by a single mom, a single dad, a mom and a dad, two dads or two moms? I think i’ve made it clear that no, I do not think that necessarily matters. It depends on the parent. There are single parents, male and female, who aren’t good parents. There are mother-father parents who are not good parents. there are two mothers/two fathers parents who are not good parents.

No, gender doesn’t decide the quality of ones parenting skills.

 

[ltravis]

Again, why is this argument only brought up with gay marriage is brought into the mix? Never heard anyone complaining when it was limited to heterosexual couples. As for what the government gains for legalizing same sex marriage…well, as has been shown in States that have legalized it, money first and foremost. Secondly, a more stable environment for children to be adopted into. More people willing to fight for their country since they no longer have to hide who they are, or their marriage.

The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, of which I have yet to hear any.

Except for the last one, I am not sure how these benefits are exclusive to sexual relationships. Regarding the last one, I don’t see where they are forced to hide anything. Everyone is free to choose what types of relationships they have, aren’t they?

 

[Path_Finder]

I am guessing your definition of marriage is something like “a societally sanctioned sexual relationship between two committed people who love each other”. Can I ask why the government should invest its resources in that? I mean, what does society have to gain from “subsidizing” a private sexual relationship, whether straight or gay? In other words, what’s the “return on investment” which society gains by facilitating a couple’s sexual relationship, and not other relationships? Why should romantic relationships be of public concern at all?

Though I’m not vouching for the reasoning, I’ve heard in the olden days, couples started getting a break from the government because of guess what? They provide citizens and all nations need citizens so it’s not really about subsidizing a private sexual relationship.

Why did marriage come about? It became a contract because I guess, a family could be formed through marriage.

 

[Angels84]

Except for the last one, I am not sure how these benefits are exclusive to sexual relationships. Regarding the last one, I don’t see where they are forced to hide anything. Everyone is free to choose what types of relationships they have, aren’t they?

Yes, now. I was referring to DADT. I guess I should have made that clear.

And you keep saying “sexual relationship”. I don’t know of anybody who has entered into their marriage for purely sexual reasons, at least not seriously. They get married because of the love they share. I’m sure they have sex, but why is that any of your business?

 

[ltravis]

You’re asking if I think it matters whether a child is raised by a single mom, a single dad, a mom and a dad, two dads or two moms? I think i’ve made it clear that no, I do not think that necessarily matters. It depends on the parent. There are single parents, male and female, who aren’t good parents. There are mother-father parents who are not good parents. there are two mothers/two fathers parents who are not good parents.

No, gender doesn’t decide the quality of ones parenting skills.

So in your opinion the gender makeup makes no difference at all??? If so, that’s all I need to know. Thanks for your honesty.

 

[ltravis]

Though I’m not vouching for the reasoning, I’ve heard in the olden days, couples started getting a break from the government because of guess what? They provide citizens and all nations need citizens so it’s not really about subsidizing a private sexual relationship.

Why did marriage come about? It became a contract because I guess, a family could be formed through marriage.

Yep, thanks - that’s where I was going with this.

 

[Angels84]

So in your opinion the gender makeup makes no difference at all??? If so, that’s all I need to know. Thanks for you honesty.

Correct. I do not believe ones parenting skills is dependent on their genatalia.

 

[Havard]

Again, why is this argument only brought up with gay marriage is brought into the mix? Never heard anyone complaining when it was limited to heterosexual couples. As for what the government gains for legalizing same sex marriage…well, as has been shown in States that have legalized it, money first and foremost. Secondly, a more stable environment for children to be adopted into. More people willing to fight for their country since they no longer have to hide who they are, or their marriage.

The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, of which I have yet to hear any.

There’s a lot of discussions that are coming up at the same time. That doesn’t mean any particular discussion isn’t worth having.

Governments don’t make such broad policy decisions based on exceptions. It’s not just that same-sex couples don’t naturally produce children, it’s that most gay couples don’t have children by any means. The states with the highest proportion of gay couples raising children are conservative states, often where same-sex marriage isn’t legal:

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/lgbt-parenting-in-the-united-states/

 

[ltravis]

Correct. I do not believe ones parenting skills is dependent on their genatalia.

It’s interesting your focus here is simply on “skills”. Something doesn’t sit quite right with me there. I can’t put my finger on it, but something just seems missing…

 

[ltravis]

Yes, now. I was referring to DADT. I guess I should have made that clear.

And you keep saying “sexual relationship”. I don’t know of anybody who has entered into their marriage for purely sexual reasons, at least not seriously. They get married because of the love they share. I’m sure they have sex, but why is that any of your business?

Would “romantic” be a better term? I figured gay relationships included sexual attraction. That was my meaning of the term. Is that ok? Or should marriages include non-romantic relationships?

 

[Havard]

Would “romantic” be a better term? I figured gay relationships included sexual attraction. That was my meaning of the term. Is that ok? Or should marriages include non-romantic relationships?

They already do.

 

[phil19034]

Now whose sounding like Westboro?

Why must you insist these families aren’t “real”? They’re not telling you that yours aren’t real. Again, whose imposing again?

I did NOT say they are not a real family. I’m implying that it’s not ideal. The ideal family is for mom and dad to raise the children. When that doesn’t happen it doesn’t make the child’s situation any less family. It’s just not ideal.

The problem is when we stray from the ideal as a society, then society moves further off course.

 

[phil19034]

That works both ways you know.

There are those who believe that masturbation is perfectly healthy. I can assure you it is. That doesn’t stem from religion either. Or course you are free to disagree with that biological fact of your life, but your disagreement will not suddenly make masturbation an evil sin, even if you think it is. Not living by the truth will indeed hurt us, such as those who attempt to vilify a normal healthy fact of life. Doctors, health care practioners, even surgeon generals have said masturbation is normal and healthy.

It doesn’t matter if doctors say its healthy or not, it’s a mortal sin.

I suffer from temptations to masturbate and when I give into this temptation, I always feel “physically relieved” but emotionally EMPTY. I also feel my self losing God’s Grace. So I then go to Confession and work to keep from falling to temptation.

Whenever, I feel the pray several Hail Marys, the urge goes away. But sometimes I’m week and don’t resist temptation.

Masturbation is an evil act because it objectifies sex and removes sexual orgasm from the Act of Love making. There is a reason it’s called making love. If orgasm outside of love making, you hurt the living making process.

 

[Eternal_One]

Your family isn’t better than anyone else’s, and it certainly isn’t any of your business if a family isn’t what you would consider “traditional”. I had a friend growing up whose parents were financially irresponsible and put their addiction before their child. It was so bad sometimes that my parents would buy clothes for her, or would give me extra lunch money to give to her just in case her parents “forgot”.

My parents weren’t any better because they are gay. They were better because they were simply better parents. There are bad parents everywhere, straight or gay, but for you to imply that a same sex couple is automatically not totally fit to BE parents…it just shows how small your world really is.

You havent completed the other half of the comparison, youve only compared a homosexual couples’ ideal vs a heterosexual couple’s exception to the rule. When you finish the full comparison, which is the homosexual couple’s ideal vs a heterosexual couple’s ideal, the heterosexual ideal is preferrable every time. The heterosexual ideal is a loving father and mother.

So a homosexual couple might be capable of raising children, but I still cant agree they can fulfill it to its full potential. Balance is still lacking. Ironically, I feel that homosexuals who adopt children are putting their “addiction” ahead of the child’s well being, in that they are treating the child as a commodity to achieve happiness for themselves, and the needs of the child come second. A child who could have otherwise been adopted by a loving father and mother, in a stable and well balanced environment, raised to the full potential.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Whose redefining what you consider marriage? If you get married, it’s your marriage.

If you get “married” under the law, it’s the government’s marriage.

Remember we are talking about changing laws, not religions.

I understand the State’s interest, going back as far as civilization has existed, in creating incentives to form families, bear and nurture children, and perpetuate society.

If we look at - for an example - the Romans we see that the father of the extended family was the “pater familias”. He had complete control of all family members. This was the building block of Roman society.

Thanks to liberalized divorce laws the family is no longer the building block of society. Promoting the formation of families, the bearing and nurturing of children, itself seems to be a questionable goal to many people.

The solution, if that’s the case, is not to be “fair” to same-sex couples, or triples, or whatever, but to get the government out of the marriage business.

It strikes me that passing a law should solve a problem.

Certainly “same sex” marriage ordered at Federal gunpoint by unelected judges with life tenure, doesn’t serve any legitimate governmental purpose.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Of course gay couples are capable of raising children.

And bears can ride bicycles.

Exceptions shouldn’t be the rule for making laws.

.

 

[Tigg]

What do you say to the Gay couples that have been together for years in a monogamous relationship who are now raising children? You would honestly tell them, and their children, that they aren’t a real family?

My (name removed by moderator)atience stems from the fact that I never get real answers to questions like these. I only get quotes from the Bible or the catechism.

We get that you support evolutionary humanistic, even atheistic philosophy so there’s not really much common ground to stand on. Some would like God’s absolutes gone from the earth and His principles to be silenced. We have been accused of bigotry and judgment, but from where I stand, my view clearly sees a hatred for God and a rebellion that seeks to free itself from any godly influence on society. (That is especially evident on this very thread and by one poster in particular.) Of course we were told by Christ that as the world hates Him, so shall we be hated. So be it.

But even those who hate us should be able to see the beauty and wisdom in the words of a retired pope who said family is the little church where we learn the meaning of life. “The family is fundamental because it is the place where there germinates in the human soul the first perception of the meaning of life." ~Benedict XVI~

Can you perceive the word “soul?” That what is before us here and now is fleeting and as we rant and rave against Goodness itself and espouse ideas that have nothing to do with the authentic meaning of life, there really is something much greater that brings real substinence and happiness rather than the hedonistic pleasure of masturbation and homosexual behavior? Can we possibly perceive there might be something more beautiful than indulging in our own selfish satisfactions? That the very meaning of family denotes a life of sacrifice and good intentions toward its members and not just for oneself? The notion of families came from God and flows from the natural law. Fundamentally rejecting that doesn’t leave much room for discussion.

 

[Tigg]

Most gay couples do not care if you “endorse” their relationship. But the government has an obligation to.

I find this to be blatantly false. If true, then why are professional lobbyists paid to legislate same sex marriage laws? Why the agenda, why wave flags in public parades, why the aggression to make the ideology socially acceptable and why the need, even on this forum to constantly tell others “I am gay!”

 

[estesbob]

It’s interesting your focus here is simply on “skills”. Something doesn’t sit quite right with me there. I can’t put my finger on it, but something just seems missing…

From the very few people I have encountered who were raised by a homosexual parents they seem to be angry, resentful, defensive and totally lacking any religious faith. When you hear them vigorously defending homosexual marriage you wonder who they are trying to convince it is normal-you or themselves.