Question about Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter randomguy0187
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Why is that an issue in this discussion? I certainly never said it. I live in Massachusetts and am very much opposed to the decision of the Court and to homosexuals coming here to marry. The decision was illegal and should have been struck down, but can’t be. That’s why the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country are looking to constitutional amendments to save their society from rampant depravity, which you are championing.

“Don’t think we should not say…” is a double negative so your point is garbled.
 
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?
The reference is to a homosexual who pursued a traditional marriage. The message clearly said the couple had children. The point was, and is, that homosexuals can marry and there is equal treatment under the law. Perhaps you might consider reading a little more carefully.
 
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?
If “a loving and committed relataionship” is the standard, and a 34 year old man has a loving, committed relationship with an 11 year old girl (or boy, for that matter), what is the issue?

You’re not a clear thinker. You don’t understand you have no cogent argument, yet you persist in just throwing stuff out there.
 
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.
OUTSTANDING message, LittleDeb!! Don’t expect a direct response. Expect more ducking, dodging and flimsy flower-child sentiments.
 
That’s why the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country are looking to constitutional amendments to save their society from rampant depravity, which you are championing.
Once again, I fail to see how you can pin “rampant depravity” on homosexuals. If a man cheats on his wife, that is his choice. If a mother and father hit their children, that it the mother and fathers responsibility. If a woman gets involved in prostitution, that is her responsibility.
“Don’t think we should not say…” is a double negative so your point is garbled.
So I made a typo. Like you’ve never done that 🤷 .
 
If “a loving and committed relataionship” is the standard, and a 34 year old man has a loving, committed relationship with an 11 year old girl (or boy, for that matter), what is the issue?
This is why you guys get called bigots. If a child has (or perhaps is made to have would be a better choice of words), a relationship with an adult, it is called rape because a child, or in some states anyone under the age of 16, is not considered to have enough mental and emotional maturity and understanding to give proper consent. You simply cannot compare that to two fully grown, mature, consenting adults. That is like arguing the father of my then thirteen year old friend coming home from the bar, going to her bed, and having sex with her is the same as her father picking up a grown woman at the same bar, taking that woman to a hotel, and having sex with her (which would’ve been the prefferable alternative).
You’re not a clear thinker. You don’t understand you have no cogent argument, yet you persist in just throwing stuff out there
To the contrary, just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand. I’ve heard every concievable argument against gay marriage and I’m just simply not convinced there is anything inherently wrong with it. Like I told LittleDeb, you and I have both made our positions clear and it’s safe to say neither of us are going to change the other’s opinion no matter what we say.
 
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.
Words matter. Artificially calling some union a marraige does not change marriage because marriage has been and will always be only between one man and one woman.

What redefining marriage will do is change perception of objective truth. When that happens things deteriorate as we are already seeing in society.

Once we call homicide choice we devalue life. Once we call lust love we devalue love. Once we call confused same sex groupings marriage we change how people act and we teach people, especially youth, that evil actions are good.
 
Once again, I fail to see how you can pin “rampant depravity” on homosexuals.
When sodomites started “coming out” in the late ‘60s, they said all they wanted was to be left alone. We were lied to. Now we find the sodomite lifestyle being presented in schools as a desirable alternative, conservative students persecuted in higher ed for having the gall to express an honest opinion of homosexual acts, religious leaders in Canada being prosecuted for preaching the Bible, and are now engaged in a struggle to keep society from being re-defined down.

James A. Clifton wrote once about the concept of noble savagery in his book, The Invented Indian. Indians, as the myth goes, were spiritual, egalitarian, innocent people living in perfect harmony with the earth. They welcomed the white man, taught him the secrets of the wilderness, and shared with him the wisdom of their social institutions. In turn white men tried to destroy them. Like all myths, this one leaves certain things out: in this case, high infant mortality, low life-expectancy, human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, ritual torture, geronticide, slaughter of prisoners, slavery, and the like.

Homosexuals have had 40 years since the Stonewall Riots to create whatever kind of society they wanted in the places they carved out for themselves, but have created places only for locating new sex partners, not places where long-lasting relationships and a just society could flourish.

Male homosexuals are highly promiscuous. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent [that’s not just one or two cases; that’s 43 percent!] of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sex partners. Seventy-nine percent!] of their sex partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sex partners. Lesbians are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women. If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? Needless to say, sexually-transmitted diseases, drug abuse, and suicide are also disproportionately high among homosexuals, as they are in promiscuous straights. Stable people at peace with themselves do not do these things.

If gross promiscuity, drug abuse, and suicide are not indications of a disorder, I’d like to know what your idea of one is.

In view of this evidence, it is clear that homosexuals do not even want to establish monogamous relationships. New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan, a more conservative homosexual advocate of sodomite marriage, says that for them, “fidelity” does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity. In other words, they admit that marriage is not their wish. He also argues that marriage civilizes men, but he forgets it is the woman who civilizes the man. A man does need to be civilized, but that lesson is taught by women, mostly mothers, not by other men who need to learn it themselves.

So where does this idea come from that sodomites are interested in being married? Like the invented Indian, this is the noble homosexual who has also been invented to fool a gullible public into complicity in its own destruction. Just listen to what they are saying.

Ref: catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
If a man cheats on his wife, that is his choice. If a mother and father hit their children, that it the mother and fathers responsibility. If a woman gets involved in prostitution, that is her responsibility.
I suppose you don’t think individual actions like this affect society?

"What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a Leftist demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.”
 
Alright. The gloves are off.
James A. Clifton wrote once about the concept of noble savagery in his book, The Invented Indian. Indians, as the myth goes, were spiritual, egalitarian, innocent people living in perfect harmony with the earth. They welcomed the white man, taught him the secrets of the wilderness, and shared with him the wisdom of their social institutions. In turn white men tried to destroy them. Like all myths, this one leaves certain things out: in this case, high infant mortality, low life-expectancy, human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, ritual torture, geronticide, slaughter of prisoners, slavery, and the like.
If you flipped this analogy around and made gay people the indians and the religious fanatics the settlers, *then * it would be accurate. Gay people have every right to be angry about the way they are being treated. For years they have been lynched in the night, beaten to death in the street, stood by and watched while angry mobs waved signs saying, “BURN IN HELL FAGS” and “THANK GOD FOR AIDS.” The name ****** was actually pinned on them to reference the chunks of wood that were used to ignite the fires when alleged heretics were burned at stake. I’m sure you would like that, if all gay people were simply burned to death. Then all of society would just be hunky dory wouldn’t it. Give me one scenario in history where homosexuality has caused nearly as much misery and suffering as, say…the Marian persecutions, or perhaps the Spanish Inquisition. And the religious right have the gall to act like ***they *** are the victims in this situation.
Male homosexuals are highly promiscuous… Stable people at peace with themselves do not do these things…If gross promiscuity, drug abuse, and suicide are not indications of a disorder, I’d like to know what your idea of one is.
Well HELL YA they’re not at peace with themselves!!! If you lived in a country, in a WORLD for that matter, in which you were made to feel like you were less than human, that you were not worthy of being treated like everyone else, where the very word “gay” is now used by teens to describe anything that doesn’t function the way should, simply because you felt emotionally attracted to someone of the same sex, you’d have some self esteem issues to!
So where does this idea come from that sodomites are interested in being married?
Um…how about the 16,000 gay couples who got married after the court decision made it legal in California. That proof enough for ya they want to be married.
I suppose you don’t think individual actions like this affect society?
That is not AT ALL what I was saying. I was saying these are the actions of straight people and the gay community cannot be held responsible. For every gay person doing all the things you’ve cited above and; drug abuse, suicide, prostitution, free sex, etc, there are hundreds of straight people doing the exact same thing. My point had been if opponents of gay marriage were so concerned about society they’d be addressing these issues and not trying to make it look like the fault of gay people. If a man cheats on his wife in Florida, that is not the fault of a gay couple in Calafornia.

As I have stated before. My 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 so she(or he) could address it more easily with them. As I feel that purpose has been served I will speak no further on this thread. If you wish to argue with me further, feel free to e-mail me directly at knightronin1@gmail.com.
 
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…all fifty of the states permit gay people to marry. As previously stated a marriage license is not denied based upon a person’s being gay.
 
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.
It is good to get that cleared up, that rights are not the topic. Indeed, rights are not the topic. In view of that, we can stop talking about rights.
 
Originally Posted by LittleDeb
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
Excellent post, LittleDeb. I have only one thing to add:
An authentic marriage consists of one woman, one man & God. Catholics stand before Him & pledge to both HIM & their partner to love & respect the other partner, in sickness & in health, in richer & in poorer, until DEATH do them part. If God chooses, He endows this perfect union of bodies, **mutual supplying each other’s lack
**, this complementary union…ordered in both the physical & the emotional… with a child. To compare either sodomy or the “shacking up” of heterosexual couples, to the marriage act, is an excercise in self-deception.
 
Alright. The gloves are off.
sevonaman posted facts. Your response is to change the subject to persecution, which no one here defends. Obviously you have no response to the facts except to say some heterosexuals are as depraved as homosexuals are. Well, DUH!
Um…how about the 16,000 gay couples who got married after the court decision made it legal in California. That proof enough for ya they want to be married.
Um…no. It’s proof they want to normalize the abnormal.

The homosexual agenda, which includes brainwashing children into thinking it’s a normal condition, is destroying sexual morality all over the western world. They’re doing it to try to normalize what is abnormal and immoral. In the process they will destroy this society. They’re doing it aided and abetted with unthinking flower children like you. It may take fifty of a hundred years, but it will happen. Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day, you know.
 
The definition is not arbitrary or plastic.

Like saying 2+2=4 is forcing one’s “opinion” on someone.
Exactly. apromisemade obviously doesn’t know, in order to write her opinion in the Massachusetts case, the judge had to change the definition of marriage. She couldn’t have written the decision without changing the only definition marriage ever had. As a result, it is the homosexual lobby, led by this judge, who is forcing their opinion on the majority of society. Turning the facts around and using them against their opponents is the modern version of “Animal Farm.”
 
Exactly. apromisemade obviously doesn’t know, in order to write her opinion in the Massachusetts case, the judge had to change the definition of marriage. She couldn’t have written the decision without changing the only definition marriage ever had. As a result, it is the homosexual lobby, led by this judge, who is forcing their opinion on the majority of society. Turning the facts around and using them against their opponents is the modern version of “Animal Farm.”
Yes, and imo it all hinges on moral relativism.
 
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.
No, the explicit issue of being prohibited from marrying the person of their choice was not the issue. The notions of rights and discrimination were the issues, which were dealt with.

But now, we have started addressing the issue, the one I said had not been addressed. That of certain people being prohibitied from marrying the person of their choice, that issue now clear of the false issues of rights and inequality.

Okay. As far as being prohibited from marrying the person of one’s choice, we might point out that it is not only the gay community this applies to. A guy who wants to marry his mother, or sister, comes under this prohibition as well. Or someone who wants to marry someone who is already married is also prohibited from marrying the person of his choice.

Maybe the prohibition against marrying someone of the same sex should be removed. And, maybe the prohibitions against marrying someone too closely related, of the wrong age, or already married, should be removed too. Maybe so.
 
Perhaps, in regard to terminology, it should be pointed out that all marriages are prohibited until a license to marry is granted.

The license is granted when the applicants meet certain eligibility conditions. Conditions that the state has decided are best for society as a whole. So, what should those conditions be? And, what is the effect on society of a change to those conditions?
 
sevonaman posted facts. Your response is to change the subject to persecution, which no one here defends. Obviously you have no response to the facts except to say some heterosexuals are as depraved as homosexuals are. Well, DUH!
Thank you for your kind words.

Contrary to apromisemade’s statements that sodomites have been treated badly and denied their rights, the courts have defined what it means for a minority group to be the victim of discrimination:
  1. the group has to have suffered economic deprivation;
  2. the group has to have been denied educational opportunities;
    and,
  3. the group has to have been denied the right to vote.
These statements, of course apply to the aggregate. Apromisemade would quickly turn the discussion to the specific, like Mathew Sheppard case.

The facts are they have higher than average incomes; they are more highly educated than average; and they aren’t complaining they were kept from voting.
The homosexual agenda, which includes brainwashing children into thinking it’s a normal condition, is destroying sexual morality all over the western world. They’re doing it to try to normalize what is abnormal and immoral. In the process they will destroy this society. They’re doing it aided and abetted with unthinking flower children like you. It may take fifty of a hundred years, but it will happen. Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day, you know.
In fact, if there is any persecution going on, it’s the sodomites who are doing it, as you described. It’s so diabolical that I see the hand of Satan at work.

"What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a Leftist demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.”
 
But now, we have started addressing the issue, the one I said had not been addressed. That of certain people being prohibitied from marrying the person of their choice, that issue now clear of the false issues of rights and inequality.
A counter-culture ‘60s activist once said, “The issue is not the issue; the revolution is the issue.”

For example, this is how Leftist debate works: “[Leftist ex-priest] McNeill reinterprets the story of Sodom, claiming that it does not condemn homosexuality, but gang rape. Orthodox theologians respond, in a commendable but naïve attempt to rebut him, naïve because these theologians presume that McNeill believes his own arguments, and is writing as a scholar, not as a propagandist. McNeill ignores the arguments of his critics, dismissing their objections as based on homophobia, and repeats his original position. The orthodox respond again as if they were really dealing with a theologian. And back and forth for a few more rounds. Until finally McNeill or someone like him stands up and announces, ‘You know, this is getting us nowhere. We have our exegesis and our theology. You have yours. Why can’t we just agree to disagree?’ That sounds so reasonable, so ecumenical. And if the orthodox buy into it, they have lost, because the gay rights apologists have earned a place at the table from which they will never be dislodged. Getting at the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, or correctly parsing the sexual ethics of St. Thomas, was never really the issue. Winning admittance to Holy Communion was the issue.”

Ref: “The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement,” by Ronald G. Lee, New Oxford Review, February 2006
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650

If you analyze how debate goes these days, you can see this pattern in probably every one; only the players and the pseudo issue of the debate differ. This is why we must never concede anything to them – not even to agree to disagree.

"The indispensable condition of any conservative or traditionalist movement, as well as of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying no.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top