Question for those who argue for so-called "same-sex marriage"

[stewstew03]

No, but there is an eternal antagonism between the sexes that makes co-habitation extremely difficult.

An eternal antagonism between the sexes? Come on, this is not a serious argument…

 

[bri89]

Bria,

Ok. Let us discuss the Animal Kingdom and your understanding of what you call natural and unnatural.

So, is it fair to say that you are comparing mammals in the Kingdom to Human behavior?

I don’t take animal behavior as my standard of conduct, but those who oppose homosexuality appeal to nature, and I am similiarly appealing to nature and drawing a different conclusion.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t take animal behavior as my standard of conduct, but those who oppose homosexuality appeal to nature, and I am similiarly appealing to nature and drawing a different conclusion.

Bria,

Explain to me from your perspective how someone that opposes homosexuality appeals to nature. I am not aware of this. Help me understand how you have understood this.

 

[bri89]

Bria,

Explain to me from your perspective how someone that opposes homosexuality appeals to nature. I am not aware of this. Help me understand how you have understood this.

They refer to natural law which, as another poster stated, is tantamount to biological determinism. Because my body is “ordered” toward procreation and I have an instinct to reproduce, this must be my fate. The way I see it is the man-woman-child unit may be believed to be divinely ordained, but it is not natural as a living arrangement.

 

[fix]

They refer to natural law which, as another poster stated, is tantamount to biological determinism. Because my body is “ordered” toward procreation and I have an instinct to reproduce, this must be my fate. The way I see it is the man-woman-child unit may be believed to be divinely ordained, but it is not natural as a living arrangement.

I cannot imagine what is more natural than the family unit. You have to deny reality, right reason, history, experience, and pretty much everything to come up with your argument.

BTW, the natural moral law is not mere physicalism, nor fate, nor biologic determinism.

 

[bri89]

I cannot imagine what is more natural than the family unit. You have to deny reality, right reason, history, experience, and pretty much everything to come up with your argument.

BTW, the natural moral law is not mere physicalism, nor fate, nor biologic determinism.

My original point is that the nuclear family is not the natural order, but a modern arrangement, and it is ok for families to be diverse.

 

[stewstew03]

My original point is that the nuclear family is not the natural order, but a modern arrangement, and it is ok for families to be diverse.

You are responding as if an appeal to biology is the same as an appeal to primitiveness.

 

[bri89]

My objection is to those who object to homosexuals having a part in raising children, they likely object because they uphold the nuclear family as the ideal arrangment. Many of us are not products of that structure, even including the ones who defend it. I come out of a joint family, that is, I was raised by, and at times lived with, my aunt, uncle, grandmother, cousin, as well as my mother and siblings. If I had a gay uncle co-parenting me I don’t see how that would have been detrimental to my development. I am of the opinion that it takes a village to raise a child which is why I am in favor of family diversity.

 

[livingwordunity]

My objection is to those who object to homosexuals having a part in raising children, they likely object because they uphold the nuclear family as the ideal arrangment. Many of us are not products of that structure.

Many children are sexually abused by their parents, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the best of circumstances for a child. A bad circumstance doesn’t make the ideal any less ideal.

 

[RiverTam51]

River,

What is the non-Catholic teachings you are teaching or sharing?

I am sharing my beliefs on gay marriage. I support gay marriage, and as a gay, I can help to clear up the misunderstandings the OP has- namely, the strange ideas that homosexuals are in denial about how sexual reproduction works, or that lesbeans consider themselves men, and gays, women. So, what I have been posting is directly relevant to this thread.

You imposed theory and theory and whatever nonsense you have in your head to justify your homosexuality. This is a CAF and the question is about procreation. You could have answered that in one post. You do not. You argue to promote your insane notion of a theory based on a theory. Is this what you are teaching?

There are exactly two beliefs I used in the statement you quoted. The first says that most homosexuals do not believe we are another gender. I assume that you, I, and the OP all agree on this.
The other belief is belief in evolution, when I say that there is not a conflict between our minds and the evolutionary purpose of our bodies. Yes, evolution is a theory. Yes, a reasonable person could object to it. But the OP has not objected to my reference to evolution, so I assume we agree on that. If you personally disagree with my reliance on this theory, well OK then. I really don’t feel the need to argue with you on it.

CC, for the past several days you have viciously attacked my posts here for tiny issues nobody else seems to object to. I have done nothing but try to clarify my points for you. Frankly, I’m getting bored with this. Any responses to my posts which do not clearly point out issues relevant to the OP will be ignored.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am sharing my beliefs on gay marriage. I support gay marriage, and as a gay, I can help to clear up the misunderstandings the OP has- namely, the strange ideas that homosexuals are in denial about how sexual reproduction works, or that lesbeans consider themselves men, and gays, women. So, what I have been posting is directly relevant to this thread.

There are exactly two beliefs I used in the statement you quoted. The first says that most homosexuals do not believe we are another gender. I assume that you, I, and the OP all agree on this.
The other belief is belief in evolution, when I say that there is not a conflict between our minds and the evolutionary purpose of our bodies. Yes, evolution is a theory. Yes, a reasonable person could object to it. But the OP has not objected to my reference to evolution, so I assume we agree on that. If you personally disagree with my reliance on this theory, well OK then. I really don’t feel the need to argue with you on it.

CC, for the past several days you have viciously attacked my posts here for tiny issues nobody else seems to object to. I have done nothing but try to clarify my points for you. Frankly, I’m getting bored with this. Any responses to my posts which do not clearly point out issues relevant to the OP will be ignored.

River,

I understand your point of view. You neglect to understand that there are 2700 viewing this site. It is not between you and the OP or you and other posters. What you do not understand is that what you feel is inconsequential demands clarification. Those viewing are learning and asking questions. Many do not post for whatever reason. Experience has been that those viewing are gracious for the clarification.

Please do not respond to any of my posts. Those viewing will understand your weak point of view as noted by your inability to respond. Thank you for helping me prove my points.

 

[SuperLuigi]

My objection is to those who object to homosexuals having a part in raising children, they likely object because they uphold the nuclear family as the ideal arrangment. Many of us are not products of that structure, even including the ones who defend it. I come out of a joint family, that is, I was raised by, and at times lived with, my aunt, uncle, grandmother, cousin, as well as my mother and siblings. If I had a gay uncle co-parenting me I don’t see how that would have been detrimental to my development. I am of the opinion that it takes a village to raise a child which is why I am in favor of family diversity.

The reason “many of us” are not products of that structure is because of the unfortunate secular influence of society and big government policies thanks in large part to the democrat party. The damage done to the African-American community is considerable.

Your assertions about being raised by someone other than your biological parents would be no different fly in the face of factual study and hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

The fact is that by and large people have a strong tendency to care about those who share the most genetic material, that would be family members. That is why you would be sad to lose a sibling and wouldn’t have the same feeling for someone who drowned in a typhoon in Bangladesh. That’s the cold equation and also probably child sex abuse rates are higher in step-families.

The quote that “it takes a village to raise a child” does imply that children should be rotated among villagers. It simply means that raising children is a large responsibility that should not be underestimated but often is.

There is no substitute for the nuclear family and changing the definition of a word or promoting your desired sexual lifestyle will not change that.

Homosexuality and gay rights, like so many other “progressive” causes is selfish at its core and proponents of it want everyone else to mainstream its marginal behavior.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Many children are sexually abused by their parents, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the best of circumstances for a child. A bad circumstance doesn’t make the ideal any less ideal.

The rates are even higher in step-families.

There is no substitute for the nuclear family even if it’s not always perfect .

 

[CopticChristian]

The reason “many of us” are not products of that structure is because of the unfortunate secular influence of society and big government policies thanks in large part to the democrat party. The damage done to the African-American community is considerable.

Your assertions about being raised by someone other than your biological parents would be no different fly in the face of factual study and hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

The fact is that by and large people have a strong tendency to care about those who share the most genetic material, that would be family members. That is why you would be sad to lose a sibling and wouldn’t have the same feeling for someone who drowned in a typhoon in Bangladesh. That’s the cold equation and also probably child sex abuse rates are higher in step-families.

The quote that “it takes a village to raise a child” does imply that children should be rotated among villagers. It simply means that raising children is a large responsibility that should not be underestimated but often is.

There is no substitute for the nuclear family and changing the definition of a word or promoting your desired sexual lifestyle will not change that.

Homosexuality and gay rights, like so many other “progressive” causes is selfish at its core and proponents of it want everyone else to mainstream its marginal behavior.

Luigi,

It is called “what is in the best interest of the child”…not the best interest of the homosexual.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Because a sperm cell needs to be able to fertilise an egg cell, so the sex cells can fuse and a babby can be formed.

What’s your point?

 

[Bradski]

I think gay marriage becomes an issue because people become afraid that it change marriage in general and, that churches will be forced to perform such marriages. Nothing can be farther from the truth on either account.

I don’t want to quote the whole post, but it was all well written. You’ve kissed the Blarney Stone perhaps.

I’m married, but I if we hadn’t gone through the process it wouldn’t really have bothered me. But I went to a relative’s wedding two weeks ago and to be honest, it was a bit of a farce.

I’m not sure that the couple had been in a church before and neither had most of the congregation. Except maybe for other marriages and funerals etc. It was a meaningless ceremony in all respects and I thought a little disrespectful to the faith under whose auspices it was carried out.

I’m not sure why anyone needs to get married, although I do appreciate that there are legal benefits. As far as I’m concerned, a commitment that I make to my wife doesn’t have to be authorised by anyone else to make it more valid. It’s an insulting concept to me.

I also am not the slightest bit interested in anyone’s view on my wife and I having children or not and whether that is part of their idea of what marriage means. Likewise, the type of sex I have is no-one’s business except me and Mrs Bradski.

But if a gay couple down the road want to go through the same process of marriage as I did and they don’t (obviously can’t) have children and they indulge in non-procreational sex, then, to be honest, I could care less. It won’t affect me, or my wife, or my children, or anyone that I know in any negative way at all. If I personally knew them, then I’d be happy that they were happy, but otherwise…

…unless someone can see an actual direct effect on their personal lives, I fail to see the argument against it.