Question about Gay Marriage

[sedonaman]

Why can we not simply admit that the #1 reason to oppose this all is because of what the Church teaches?

And what, pray tell, would this accomplish?

Still, I stand by my position that it is not the Church’s prerogative to control other people’s lives through the state-apparatus against their free will.

What a laugh. I love this argument because it is never made against organizations like the ACLU. Why not?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Okay, first off, I don’t know what you mean by “you” as I am not gay. And secondly, how do you know what gay people “know.” How do you know that they feel what they do is degrading.

I don’t know whether you’re a homosexual and don’t care, but you certainly have an avid interest in it.

I was an actor in NY and Hollywood for 30 years and knew many homosexuals. Believe me, the overwhelming majority are anything but ‘gay.’

Or more importantly, what to you is degrading about it.

Well, that’s part of the normalization process, isn’t it. Repeat the lie that it’s normal often enough and it becomes ‘normal’ by default, right?

And I totally don’t get your argument about how they ought to all just go to Massachusetts and not let people decide what they want their society to “look like.” If a divorced woman was able to get a job in one state and not the other, I assume that would upset you?

That is unintelligible. I have no idea what you mean. Care to rephrease it?

 

[edwest2]

The goal is to legalize gay sex and have everyone think it’s OK. But Gay Marriage is only the Beginning. Plans are being made for what happens Beyond Gay Marriage:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

You’ll note that anti-family radical Gloria Steinem is one of the signers of the document referenced. What gays, bisexuals, and transgendered want is approval of their sex acts.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dale_M]

By asking me to “see it as morally acceptable”, you are asking me to alter my moral beliefs. This is asking for my soul. No one has a right to do that, no matter how trivial it is made to sound.

There is nothing in the Corvino article which suggests that he is demanding you change your moral beliefs. He is asking for acceptance in the same way a person might ask someone else here for friendship. We are perfectly free to say “no”.

 

[mackbrislawn]

***Quote from apromiseismade: "*It’s not about having “the same rights that are granted to a married couple.” The right to marry is the topic, the issue is **equal treatment. **** It wouldn’t matter if the buses were of the same size and quality, the simple fact the two groups of people were seperated because someone favored one over the other is, to quote the famous court case, “inherently unequal.”

I say, if it is legal for the KKK to publicly assemble in a public space and preach their beliefs of hate and intolerance with a loud microphone in broad daylight on Martin Luther King day, then it should be legal for gay people to marry." Unquote.

*“It should be legal for gay people to marry.” *However, is legal for gay people to marry. That is, being gay does not preclude one from getting a marriage license. I knew a gay person that was married and even had kids. So, there is no legal prohibition against gays getting married. Hence, it is not an issue of unequal treatment.

*“The right to marry is the topic.” *No, it isn’t. Because marriage is not a right, it is a privilege, and always has been, both in respect to the state, and to the Church.

There are indeed prohibitions and impedimets as to whom you may marry, but that is a different issue that was not addressed.**

 

[apromisemade]

You saw it on television. Wow. Hollywood is a major pusher of the homosexual agenda. It brainwashes people by doing exactly what it did to you with that ‘cute’ little film you saw: create a bleeding-heart story about true and innocent love and oppose the lovers with the moral values of society, thereby making morality evil and bestiality the victim. That greases the slippery slope you and millions of others are on and causes you to believe lies. If it wasn’t so pathetic, it’d be a joke.

F.Y.I, it was a true story.

 

[sedonaman]

There is nothing in the Corvino article which suggests that he is demanding you change your moral beliefs.

You didn’t read the article. Its opening line is, “The problem with you people,” my critic scolded, “is that you’re no longer happy with merely being left alone. You don’t just want us to tolerate homosexuality. You want us to think it’s RIGHT.”

If that isn’t asking me to change my beliefs, what is?

He is asking for acceptance in the same way a person might ask someone else here for friendship. We are perfectly free to say “no”.

This is so much bean dip that I cannot believe anyone would make such an absurd statement. You don’t go to court and ask a judge to force someone to be your friend.

 

[apromisemade]

That is unintelligible. I have no idea what you mean. Care to rephrease it?

I was simply making the point I don’t think we should not say to gay people “you have Massachusetts, why can’t you just be satisfied with that.” That to me is the same as the whole “seperate but equal” compromise, which was, as I am sure you know, struck down by the court a long time ago.

 

[apromisemade]

*“It should be legal for gay people to marry.” *However, is legal for gay people to marry. That is, being gay does not preclude one from getting a marriage license. I knew a gay person that was married and even had kids. So, there is no legal prohibition against gays getting married. Hence, it is not an issue of unequal treatment.

I don’t know what country you live in. But here in America, only two of the fifty states permit gay people to marry. Perhaps you are reffering to civil unions?

No, it isn’t. Because marriage is not a right, it is a privilege, and always has been, both in respect to the state, and to the Church.

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that marriage is the topic and equality is the issue in the same way that, say… if my mother yells at me for not cleaning my room, the topic is my room, the issue is respect and responsibility.

There are indeed prohibitions and impedimets as to whom you may marry, but that is a different issue that was not addressed.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. As the issue is in fact that certain people (the gay community) are being prohibited from marrying the person of their choice.

 

[LittleDeb]

I don’t know what country you live in. But here in America, only two of the fifty states permit gay people to marry. Perhaps you are reffering to civil unions?

He or she was saying that people with SSA (same sex attraction) can marry someone of the opposite sex. They are not excluded from marriage because of attraction. Your argument is that they are excluded from marriage. The PP is pointing out that is not so. Which leads to my own comment on this second part…

I’m not sure what you mean by this. As the issue is in fact that certain people (the gay community) are being prohibited from marrying the person of their choice.

You yourself have included the operative words in this sentence. You said “person” singular, and “choice.”

You haven’t addressed the reality that marriage involves only 2 people. And you are arguing that a person has the “choice” to marry. No one is forcing someone with SSA to marry. You are suggesting a redefinition of marriage, yet you show a lack of understanding on the nature of marriage.

As has already been asked: Why does marriage have 2 and only 2 people? For that matter why does a civil union involve 2 and only 2 people? Your line is arbitrary in including 2 people of the same sex.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

SO much is written about men and women and marriage in the Bible.

Leviticus 18: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Gen 2:18 IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE MAN TO BE ALONE. I WILL MAKE A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM

A man is permitted one wife. A woman is permitted one husband. It is written, ONE WIFE-1 Tim 3:2; ONE WIFE-1 Tim 3:12; ONE WIFE-Titus 1:6; HER OWN HUSBAND-1 Cor 7:2.

1 Tim 3:2-A BISHOP THEN MUST BE BLAMELESS, THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, VIGILANT, SOBER, OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR, GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY, APT TO TEACH.

1 Tim 3:12-LET THE DEACONS BE THE HUSBANDS OF** ONE WIFE**, RULING THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR OWN HOUSES WELL.

Titus 1:6-IF ANY BE BLAMELESS, THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, HAVING FAITHFUL CHILDREN NOT ACCUSED OF RIOT OR UNRULY.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Ephesians 5:33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2*… It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.* (A CALL TO SPIRITUAL LIFE FIRST)

 

[apromisemade]

He or she was saying that people with SSA (same sex attraction) can marry someone of the opposite sex. They are not excluded from marriage because of attraction. Your argument is that they are excluded from marriage. The PP is pointing out that is not so. Which leads to my own comment on this second part…

You are absolutely right. There is nothing to prohibit gay people from having a heterosexual marriage:shrug: . And if gay people were allowed to marry someone of the same gender there would nothing to prohibit straight people from continuing to marry someone of the opposite gender. So what’s the problem?

You yourself have included the operative words in this sentence. You said “person” singular, and “choice.”

You haven’t addressed the reality that marriage involves only 2 people. And you are arguing that a person has the “choice” to marry. No one is forcing someone with SSA to marry. You are suggesting a redefinition of marriage, yet you show a lack of understanding on the nature of marriage.

As has already been asked: Why does marriage have 2 and only 2 people? For that matter why does a civil union involve 2 and only 2 people? Your line is arbitrary in including 2 people of the same sex.

Most (emphasis on most) sects of Christianity teach that marriage involves only two people, this is true. But if you were to speak of marriage in a much more general sense, not just Christian marriage, your statement would be faulty. There are multiple faiths and cultures out there in which polygamy is perfectly acceptable. There are lots of women out there who make the conciouss decision to participate in it who are fully capable and aware that there are other options out there, polygamy is simply something that speaks to them.
This, to me, is where the argument against gay marriage really falls apart; when opponents of same sex marriage start preaching the twisted notion that a gay couple getting married and having a stable relationship somehow affects a straight persons ability to get married and have a stable relationship. So many people talk about “changing the definition of marriage for everyone else.” They make it sound like allowing gay people this simple right (or privelige, it makes no difference to me) is somehow forcing everyone else to become gay. I am compelled to wonder if perhaps these people are insecure about their own sexuality.

 

[LittleDeb]

Most (emphasis on most) sects of Christianity teach that marriage involves only two people, this is true. But if you were to speak of marriage in a much more general sense, not just Christian marriage, your statement would be faulty. There are multiple faiths and cultures out there in which polygamy is perfectly acceptable. There are lots of women out there who make the conciouss decision to participate in it who are fully capable and aware that there are other options out there, polygamy is simply something that speaks to them.
This, to me, is where the argument against gay marriage really falls apart; when opponents of same sex marriage start preaching the twisted notion that a gay couple getting married and having a stable relationship somehow affects a straight persons ability to get married and have a stable relationship. So many people talk about “changing the definition of marriage for everyone else.” They make it sound like allowing gay people this simple right (or privelige, it makes no difference to me) is somehow forcing everyone else to become gay. I am compelled to wonder if perhaps these people are insecure about their own sexuality.

Oh there it is! The inevitable “you must be insecure about your own sexuality” accusation. Is it even possible for a debate on this subject to happen without that red herring thrown out? Please rise above that type of immature presentation. I am so confident in my sexuality that I have been propositioned many times by people of the same sex and I didn’t even get grossed out! (I am a theatre person. The number of people in theatre with SSA is high. It doesn’t phase me.)

I still note that you won’t answer the question about why marriage has 2, and only 2 people. You aren’t thinking it through if you try to argue this only on polygamous grounds. Actually polygamy is an altered form of one man, one woman marriage. Polygamy has more in common with serial marriage and fornication. It is one man and one woman at a time.

What I asked you was why marriage has 2 and only 2 people. Are you for group marriage? Is there no end to how many people can be united? 2 men + 1 woman? 4 men? 6 women, 8? Wouldn’t that be a redefinition of marriage? Why do you draw your line arbitrarily at 2 men or 2 women? What IS marriage if the line is arbitrary? What is your reasoning in *excluding *all of the people who want 3 people in their marriage?

 

[apromisemade]

I still note that you won’t answer the question about why marriage has 2, and only 2 people.

Goodness… I seem to have touched quite a nerve with this whole subject.
I did answer the question by saying that your statement that marriage has only two people, is untrue. Marriage, in terms of all people, is not just involving two people. I said nothing in my last post to imply that I opposed polygamous marriages. I find it ironic that you have such a negtive opinion of polygamists considering 1 out of every four dollars donated to support Proposition 8 were given by Mormons. If people chose to take part in a polygamist family in which they respect, love, and care for eachother, then I have absolutely no problem with that.

What I just don’t understand is why people cannot have that same attitude toward the gay community. If it is a loving and committed relationship and they are not hurting eachother or anyone else, then what is the issue?

 

[LittleDeb]

Goodness… I seem to have touched quite a nerve with this whole subject.
I did answer the question by saying that your statement that marriage has only two people, is untrue. Marriage, in terms of all people, is not just involving two people. I said nothing in my last post to imply that I opposed polygamous marriages. I find it ironic that you have such a negtive opinion of polygamists considering 1 out of every four dollars donated to support Proposition 8 were given by Mormons. If people chose to take part in a polygamist family in which they respect, love, and care for eachother, then I have absolutely no problem with that.

What I just don’t understand is why people cannot have that same attitude toward the gay community. If it is a loving and committed relationship and they are not hurting eachother or anyone else, then what is the issue?

Another dodge. Where do you draw your arbitrary line? Polygamous marriage is only part of the equation. Also, please don’t misrepresent the main-line LDS as being polygamous. That is just another red herring.

Authentic marriage does in fact only have 2 people, one man + one woman. Everything else is NOT marriage. Marriage is the very foundation of life. One man + one woman make a baby. Each and every marriage has an act which is the act that makes babies. Whether subjectively fertile or infertile, the act, is the act, that makes babies. A post-menopausal husband and wife participate in the same act that makes babies. That is why it is called the marital act. “Having sex” is the euphemism. Sex is something you are, not just something you do. You draw your line saying “you are wrong. Marriage isn’t just 2 people.” By whose authority do I believe you? I can prove marriage is one man and one woman because that is all it takes to grow a society. Why do you force your personal definition of marriage on me? My definition is reasonable. Yours is arbitrary.

What you are proposing is to put any and all sex acts in one lump and call them all good, call them all marriage. Fornication, check. Homosexual acts, check. Polygamy, check. Group sex, check. Adultery, ch…wait a minute, adultery would cease to be a category since anything goes. How many wives may a polygamist have? At what arbitrary point is there harm to a child; 6 mothers? 25? How many husbands may a wife have? How do we know who is the father of her baby? Does that baby have any rights? Should that baby be raised calling one of them father or all of them?

Tell me how rampant sexual contact has been beneficial to society? Tell me how a society can grow and flourish if few children even know who their natural parents are? Tell me how that isn’t already threatening to authentic marriage? All of these sperm bank and in-vitro babies are going to have to undergo testing to make sure they aren’t marrying a half sibling. When a group marriage fails, as it inevitably will, who pays child support to whom? How many homes must that poor child visit every holiday? How many parents will that child have to claim to get a permission slip signed for school? Will they trade off and rotate parenting through the group? What future do you give children if you say that the very act that creates them is just the same as any other contact? Do you tell children that their three daddies went to lab and mixed everything together and rented a womb and bought eggs and made a baby?

Touched a nerve? Hardly. You have placed a cattle prod on my spinal cord with this idea for society.

 

[LittleDeb]

Welcome to CAF, apromisemade. I say welcome in all honesty and charity. I forgot to say hi before I dove in. I hope your stay here at CAF is fruitful and good.

 

[apromisemade]

Also, please don’t misrepresent the main-line LDS as being polygamous. That is just another red herring.

You are correct in saying LDS and polygamy are not interchangable. I apologize if it sounded as if I was suggesting such.

Authentic marriage does in fact only have 2 people, one man + one woman. Everything else is NOT marriage.

Perhaps I am being unclear. One need only google the word polygamy and you will see it is not only perfectly legal but encouraged in African countries such as South African and Sudan. It is acceptable in modern Islam. It was historically acceptable in Judaism though in Israel today the law severly restricts it. And I imagine you heard about the polygamist compound that was raided in Texas. When you just say “marriage”, you are reffering to an institution that is present in cultures and religions around the world. I am invoking no ones authority when I say that. That is simply the facts. If a marriage is not valid to you unless it is performed within the Christian faith (at least that’s what I’m picking up) then that is your belief.

You draw your line saying “you are wrong. Marriage isn’t just 2 people.” By whose authority do I believe you? I can prove marriage is one man and one woman because that is all it takes to grow a society.

Again, I am invoking no ones authority when I say that, that is just the way the world is. This, again, is where there is just a fundamental disagreement. You seem to be stating that the “job” of marriage is to create the next generation. At one period in history you could argue that was the case. But in my view, in this day and age there is so much more to marriage than reproduction. There are many couples these days who marry with no intention of having children. I for one am open to the idea of marrying someday if I meet the right person, but have no desire to ever have children of my own.

Why do you force your personal definition of marriage on me? My definition is reasonable. Yours is arbitrary.

I am forcing nothing on you. You asked me the question and I gave you my answer.

What you are proposing is to put any and all sex acts in one lump and call them all good, call them all marriage. Fornication, check. Homosexual acts, check. Polygamy, check. Group sex, check. Adultery, ch…wait a minute, adultery would cease to be a category since anything goes. How many wives may a polygamist have? At what arbitrary point is there harm to a child; 6 mothers? 25? How many husbands may a wife have? How do we know who is the father of her baby? Does that baby have any rights? Should that baby be raised calling one of them father or all of them?

That is not at all what I am suggesting. You have every right to, in your heart, disapprove of someones sexual conduct if you so chose. I am not going to attempt to control the way you think and feel. I couldn’t if I tried. You are upset because you feel I am forcing my definition of marriage on you. What gives you the right to force your definition of marriage on someone else? Do you feel you have a right to tell me if I am going to get married I must also have children?

Tell me how rampant sexual contact has been beneficial to society? Tell me how a society can grow and flourish if few children even know who their natural parents are? Tell me how that isn’t already threatening to authentic marriage? All of these sperm bank and in-vitro babies are going to have to undergo testing to make sure they aren’t marrying a half sibling. When a group marriage fails, as it inevitably will, who pays child support to whom? How many homes must that poor child visit every holiday? How many parents will that child have to claim to get a permission slip signed for school? Will they trade off and rotate parenting through the group? What future do you give children if you say that the very act that creates them is just the same as any other contact? Do you tell children that their three daddies went to lab and mixed everything together and rented a womb and bought eggs and made a baby?

Once again, we come to a fundamental issue in this argument. There are a lot of problem already plagueing the institution of monogamous, same sex relationships. The problem is I do not feel you can blame the problems of a straight couple of the gay community. If two straight people get divorced and put the kids through a custody battle, that is *their *responsibility. I fail to see how you can equate “rampant sexual conduct” with homosexuality. There are a lot of problems plagueing same sex couples today, if these people who oppose gay marriage were so concerned about the “fabric of society.” They would be putting their efforts behind resolving those issues that you stated above rather than blaming it on a minority group.

Touched a nerve? Hardly. You have placed a cattle prod on my spinal cord with this idea for society.

Apparently so . However, I think we have gotten a little far afield. My initial intention in posting my opinion on this topic was to give the person who started it some insight into and empathy for what her Catholic friends who support gay marriage might be thinking and feeling. Hopefully I’ve acheived my goal. We’ve each made our positions clear and I think it’s safe to say neither of us are going to change the others view on this topic.

 

[apromisemade]

Welcome to CAF, apromisemade. I say welcome in all honesty and charity. I forgot to say hi before I dove in. I hope your stay here at CAF is fruitful and good.

Thank you very much. It’s good to be here. I definately plan to stick around and learn as much as I can. Thank you for the discussion and a very merry Christmas to you my friend:thumbsup:

 

[sedonaman]

And if gay people were allowed to marry someone of the same gender there would nothing to prohibit straight people from continuing to marry someone of the opposite gender. So what’s the problem?

Here is a major part of the problem:

virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650

This, to me, is where the argument against gay marriage really falls apart; when opponents of same sex marriage start preaching the twisted notion that a gay couple getting married and having a stable relationship somehow affects a straight persons ability to get married and have a stable relationship. So many people talk about “changing the definition of marriage for everyone else.”

I will agree that these arguments sound weak, but the twisted notion is sodomite “marriage”.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

F.Y.I, it was a true story.

I know it’s a true story. The couple are Germans. So what? The TV dramatization is still manipulation no matter how you slice it.