Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[Benadam]

Bonds between persons form according to the environments relationships occur. For instance, soldiers form unique and powerful bonds in the environment of combat. This bond cannot happen without the environment that it forms in. So, Bonds between persons are distinct in so much as the environment they form in is distinct.

The marital bond is natural to human life as is the pair bond is natural to other mammals. Other mammals form pair bonds in order to create a safe environment for reproduction and or raising young. The purpose of the signaling that occurs is to form the bond. A kind of consent. Without the pair bond the male and female may be competitors who would kill each other. The bond creates a safe environment to reproduce.

The human pair bond is different in as much as humans are different. The bond is natural to human life as it is natural for other animals. It’s purpose is the same and that is to perpetuate the species. The marital bond forms when the man and woman commit to the maternal environment. If the maternal environment is impossible or rejected the marital bond can’t form. It’s not a matter of human decision that this is so but a matter of human nature. Two people can live together and behave as if they are married and the emotions characteristic of a marital bond can manifest. This can happen to any two people. Single parents and their children often form a quasi marital bond. But it’s not a marital bond. The marital bond forms when man and woman commit to the maternal environment. The life dynamic between them that forms the bond is based on the expectation of producing and raising offspring. The family they expect to produce .is the environment that provides the life necessary for them to become one. Their oneness provide their children a microcosm of all humanity. The children become familiar with the whole of human life.

Two same sex people cannot produce the environment necessary for the marital bond to form. No decision about marriage can change the natural law.

 

[PetraG]

What makes you think that people who support same-sex marriage have been brainwashed or are ignorant? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they genuinely believe that gay men and lesbians should be allowed to marry members of their own sex and that forbidding this has been an injustice?

That’s why–that is, because they genuinely believe that two persons of the same sex can enter into a union that is exactly the same as a union of a man and a woman and ought to be treated as exactly the same as a marriage. You can pass laws that require people to treat the two as the same thing, but that doesn’t make them the same thing, just like you can pass a law saying that an eagle is a duck without actually making the two birds the same.

They think that, they have been taught to think that, and it is not true. If you are saying this is not literally the result of brainwashing because that is a psychological term that has some technical definition we are not aware of here, that could be fair. The people in question have not been subjected to “thought reform.”

The change in attitude concerning what is and what in not a marriage, however, is the result of very heavy and deliberate social influence aimed at making the injustice of establishing a false equivalence into some kind of a righting of an age-old wrong. Yes! An injustice and the enshrinement of falsehood into law is being treated as if it is the only fair thing to do!

You say “well, I wouldn’t say people who believe marriage is not something that is possible between two persons of the same sex have been brainwashed,” implying it is only fair to allow that the converse might be true. This works with matters of opinion. It doesn’t work with matters of fact. It is a plain fact that marriage and the unions formed by homosexuals are not the same thing but differ in obvious and substantial ways. It took serious cultural gymnastics to get people to believe that they are the same, starting with the divorce of marriage and procreation. Society had to be taught to accept that procreation and marriage need not have any necessary connection before the premise of homosexual marriage became plausible.

We actually have a poster here who expressed surprise that sex was considered an essential part of marriage! If that is so, I’m not sure if anyone is allowed to put a necessary condition on the definition of marriage any more!!

If you don’t believe me, use a search engine and look for “woman marries herself.” You’ll see what I mean.

 

[Rozellelily]

I think many people do genuinely believe it but then I then that other people unconsciously follow what their society does so as not to be ostracised etc.
I think if those same people lived in a country that was culturally not for gay marriage that they would then believe according to that culture.
I think a lot of people are sheep-whether they see this or not.
I don’t mean brain washed like literally but as in society influence.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

What makes you think that people who support same-sex marriage have been brainwashed or are ignorant? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they genuinely believe that gay men and lesbians should be allowed to marry members of their own sex and that forbidding this has been an injustice?

That’s why–that is, because they genuinely believe that two persons of the same sex can enter into a union that is exactly the same as a union of a man and a woman and ought to be treated as exactly the same as a marriage. You can pass laws that require people to treat the two as the same thing, but that doesn’t make them the same thing, just like you can pass a law saying that an eagle is a duck without actually making the two birds the same.

It all depends on what what a marriage is. According to Wikipedia:

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage).

If that’s the definition of marriage that is used, that it’s just a “socially recognized union” that involves “rights and obligations,” then that can apply to both heterosexual couples and gay couples. If the definition of marriage is that it is by it’s very nature a “union of man and woman” which is “indissoluble,” an institution of which “God himself is the author,” and that one of its main purposes is “the procreation and education of offspring,” well, that would indeed preclude gay couples from marriage. But the second definition is a very religious definition of marriage and it’s also a very Catholic one. Most Protestants wouldn’t necessarily believe that it’s an “indissoluble” union, and atheists wouldn’t believe that it’s an institution established by God.

 

[Thorolfr]

They think that, they have been taught to think that, and it is not true. If you are saying this is not literally the result of brainwashing because that is a psychological term that has some technical definition we are not aware of here, that could be fair. The people in question have not been subjected to “thought reform.”

And, of course, Catholics have been taught to think that marriage is whatever the Catechism and the teachings of the Catholic Church say it is. And a lot of people disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches on this issue.

The change in attitude concerning what is and what in not a marriage, however, is the result of very heavy and deliberate social influence aimed at making the injustice of establishing a false equivalence into some kind of a righting of an age-old wrong. Yes! An injustice and the enshrinement of falsehood into law is being treated as if it is the only fair thing to do!

There were a lot of unjust laws against gay people which were enshrined into law. It was only in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas that the Supreme Court struck down laws like the one that resulted in the arrest of John Geddes Lawrence. In that case, someone called the police and made a false report that there was “a black male going crazy with a gun” in Mr. Lawrence’s apartment. The police entered the apartment and did not find a black man with a gun, but two of the police officers reported that they found Mr. Lawrence in his own bedroom having sex with another man. As a result, he was charged under Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law which made it a Class C misdemeanor if someone “engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex”.

Back in the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy and his allies carried out a campaign not only against a perceived Community threat, but also a campaign against “sex perverts” who had supposedly infiltrated government agencies. It was claimed that homosexuals were a threat to national security and thousands of gay people were fired from their jobs in the Federal government. Many committed suicide.

Why do you think that laws and policies like the ones I described existed? Because there was very heavy and deliberate social influence aimed at insuring that homosexual activity, even in private, be punished. And a lot that heavy social influence came from conservative Christians.

I don’t believe that allowing gay people to marry others of the same sex is an injustice and after the real injustices that we’ve experienced as a community, I’m glad that the tide has turned in our country towards more tolerance.

 

[Benadam]

But the second definition is a very religious definition of marriage and it’s also a very Catholic one. Most Protestants wouldn’t necessarily believe that it’s an “indissoluble” union, and atheists wouldn’t believe that it’s an institution established by God.

It’s not a religious definition.any more than the definition of a baseball is. The pair bond is a well understood characteristic of nature.

 

[Alex337]

Bonds between persons form according to the environments relationships occur. For instance, soldiers form unique and powerful bonds in the environment of combat. This bond cannot happen without the environment that it forms in. So, Bonds between persons are distinct in so much as the environment they form in is distinct.

The marital bond is natural to human life as is the pair bond is natural to other mammals. Other mammals form pair bonds in order to create a safe environment for reproduction and or raising young. The purpose of the signaling that occurs is to form the bond. A kind of consent. Without the pair bond the male and female may be competitors who would kill each other. The bond creates a safe environment to reproduce.

The human pair bond is different in as much as humans are different. The bond is natural to human life as it is natural for other animals. It’s purpose is the same and that is to perpetuate the species. The marital bond forms when the man and woman commit to the maternal environment. If the maternal environment is impossible or rejected the marital bond can’t form. It’s not a matter of human decision that this is so but a matter of human nature. Two people can live together and behave as if they are married and the emotions characteristic of a marital bond can manifest. This can happen to any two people. Single parents and their children often form a quasi marital bond. But it’s not a marital bond. The marital bond forms when man and woman commit to the maternal environment. The life dynamic between them that forms the bond is based on the expectation of producing and raising offspring. The family they expect to produce .is the environment that provides the life necessary for them to become one. Their oneness provide their children a microcosm of all humanity. The children become familiar with the whole of human life.

Two same sex people cannot produce the environment necessary for the marital bond to form. No decision about marriage can change the natural law.

A lot of that follows, given homosexual pair bonding is seen in the natural world rather often. Then it just seems to lose logic in the land two sentences.

 

[PetraG]

Oh, please. It is not McCarthyism to hold that the definition of marriage cannot be expanded beyond its obvious intention. It is one thing to say that homosexuals have been unjustly persecuted and quite another to say that a homosexual union is exactly the same as a marriage.

Do you not see that little sleight of hand…how one step is automatically presumed to imply the next step? No, it is unjust to persecute homosexuals. No, it is not unjust to recognize the obvious truth that these are different kinds of unions. Secular law is going in the direction, however, that it will be people who are willing to say the Emperor has no clothes who are going to be brought to trial. Dare to say that a homosexual union isn’t the same as a marriage, and you are automatically branded a bigot and…well, a persecutor like Joseph McCarthy.

 

[Alex337]

Thorolfr:

What makes you think that people who support same-sex marriage have been brainwashed or are ignorant? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they genuinely believe that gay men and lesbians should be allowed to marry members of their own sex and that forbidding this has been an injustice?

That’s why–that is, because they genuinely believe that two persons of the same sex can enter into a union that is exactly the same as a union of a man and a woman and ought to be treated as exactly the same as a marriage. You can pass laws that require people to treat the two as the same thing, but that doesn’t make them the same thing, just like you can pass a law saying that an eagle is a duck without actually making the two birds the same.

They think that, they have been taught to think that, and it is not true. If you are saying this is not literally the result of brainwashing because that is a psychological term that has some technical definition we are not aware of here, that could be fair. The people in question have not been subjected to “thought reform.”

The change in attitude concerning what is and what in not a marriage, however, is the result of very heavy and deliberate social influence aimed at making the injustice of establishing a false equivalence into some kind of a righting of an age-old wrong. Yes! An injustice and the enshrinement of falsehood into law is being treated as if it is the only fair thing to do!

You say “well, I wouldn’t say people who believe marriage is not something that is possible between two persons of the same sex have been brainwashed,” implying it is only fair to allow that the converse might be true. This works with matters of opinion. It doesn’t work with matters of fact. It is a plain fact that marriage and the unions formed by homosexuals are not the same thing but differ in obvious and substantial ways. It took serious cultural gymnastics to get people to believe that they are the same, starting with the divorce of marriage and procreation. Society had to be taught to accept that procreation and marriage need not have any necessary connection before the premise of homosexual marriage became plausible.

We actually have a poster here who expressed surprise that sex was considered an essential part of marriage! If that is so, I’m not sure if anyone is allowed to put a necessary condition on the definition of marriage any more!!

If you don’t believe me, use a search engine and look for “woman marries herself.” You’ll see what I mean.

Sorry I’m not obsessed with sex and neither is my partner? If you find sex to be the defining aspect of marriage I do wonder what would happen if your partner were rendered incapable of sex. Surely you would still consider your marriage valid? Maybe not?

 

[SeriousQuestion]

As you said that ancedote about McCarthy is quite different from not recognizing SSM.

 

[Nacho45]

Yes, it is.

 

[Benadam]

There are same sex pair bonding in the animal kingdom. The interesting thing about it is it’s always about reproductionj. There is a pairbonding between two male ducks ,I forget the species, but these males pairbond and then go about steeling eggs from nests. They end up with a lot of eggs to take care of. It’s a behavior to ensure a good breeding season/ Two males can protect a lot more eggs than a male and a female. All the sexual behaviors in animals in some way are for reproduction. Male giraffes engage in same sex behavior but giraffes have a kind of pecking order and a male giraffe is engaging in sexual behavior towards other males to aquire a position among them that will allow him to actually breed.

Animal behavior doesn’t prove one way or another that a behavior is or is not sin. The other animals are shaped by their environment humans shape their environment.

Animals in zoo’s have the same kind of hangups humans in cities do..

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

But the second definition is a very religious definition of marriage and it’s also a very Catholic one. Most Protestants wouldn’t necessarily believe that it’s an “indissoluble” union, and atheists wouldn’t believe that it’s an institution established by God.

It’s not a religious definition.any more than the definition of a baseball is. The pair bond is a well understood characteristic of nature.

Pair bonding might be found in nature, but lifelong, monogamous pair bonding is quite rare. And of more than 5000 species of mammals, only 3-5% are known for lifelong pair bonds, and humans are less monogamous than some animal species. There are also homosexual pair bonds including some penguin species where male penguins are known to mate for life. There is both social and sexual pair bonding, and according to Wikipedia:

the sexual pair bond is a behavioral and physiological bond between two individuals with a strong sexual attraction component. In this bond the participants in the sexual pair bond prefer to have sex with each other over other options…In humans and other mammals, these pair bonds are created by a combination of social interaction and biological factors including neurotransmitters like oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond

And there’s no doubt that neurotransmitters play a part in homosexual bonds as well as in heterosexual ones.

 

[Nacho45]

People want to be loved. For many, if not most, long-term intimate relationships are an integral part of that.

Get a dog. What we want (feelings) in our sinful nature doesn’t matter when applied to how God tells us we are to live our lives.

 

[Thorolfr]

Oh, please. It is not McCarthyism to hold that the definition of marriage cannot be expanded beyond its obvious intention. It is one thing to say that homosexuals have been unjustly persecuted and quite another to say that a homosexual union is exactly the same as a marriage.

Like I said, it all depends on what the definition of a marriage is and there has not been one definition of marriage throughout history which happens to be the Catholic definition.

 

[Alex337]

See that just sounds like homosexuals should definitely be allowed to marry and adopt given how natural it is

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

Thorolfr:

But the second definition is a very religious definition of marriage and it’s also a very Catholic one. Most Protestants wouldn’t necessarily believe that it’s an “indissoluble” union, and atheists wouldn’t believe that it’s an institution established by God.

It’s not a religious definition.any more than the definition of a baseball is. The pair bond is a well understood characteristic of nature.

Pair bonding might be found in nature, but lifelong, monogamous pair bonding is quite rare. And of more than 5000 species of mammals, only 3-5% are known for lifelong pair bonds, and humans are less monogamous than some animal species. There are also homosexual pair bonds including some penguin species where male penguins are known to mate for life. There is both social and sexual pair bonding, and according to Wikipedia:

the sexual pair bond is a behavioral and physiological bond between two individuals with a strong sexual attraction component. In this bond the participants in the sexual pair bond prefer to have sex with each other over other options…In humans and other mammals, these pair bonds are created by a combination of social interaction and biological factors including neurotransmitters like oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond

And there’s no doubt that neurotransmitters play a part in homosexual bonds as well as in heterosexual ones.

There is a social environment that is unique and exclusive to a man and a woman when they decide to begin the task of producing and raising offspring together. The children are their personal creation of man. This is an activity exclusive to men and women. Their bodies respond to the environment in a way no other two bodies are able to… The physical and spiritual dynamics of this environment is the only environment the marital bond forms.

Any two people who for whatever reason adopt the roles of a husband and wife, accidentally even, no sex involved, can easily begin to experience the dynamics of a marriage. Codependency, jealousy, demand of exclusivity,and so one. Single mom’s with an only boy are especially vulnerable. It obviously is not a marital bond. But thios does show how3 ingrained in our nature the bond is.

 

[Thorolfr]

All the sexual behaviors in animals in some way are for reproduction. Male giraffes engage in same sex behavior but giraffes have a kind of pecking order and a male giraffe is engaging in sexual behavior towards other males to aquire a position among them that will allow him to actually breed.

Quite a number of scientists believe that there is also a social function to sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) for the purpose of strengthening alliances and social ties. Harvard University professor Edward O. Wilson is one of them. And if sex is all about reproduction, how do you account for this:

Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

How is the sexual behavior of male-oriented rams related to reproduction?

 

[Thorolfr]

There is a social environment that is unique and exclusive to a man and a woman when they decide to begin the task of producing and raising offspring together. The children are their personal creation of man. This is an activity exclusive to men and women. Their bodies respond to the environment in a way no other two bodies are able to… The physical and spiritual dynamics of this environment is the only environment the marital bond forms.

What you’re saying here is a religious argument, not a scientific one.

 

[Benadam]

Quite a number of scientists believe that there is also a social function to sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) for the purpose of strengthening alliances and social ties. Harvard University professor Edward O. Wilson is one of them. And if sex is all about reproduction, how do you account for this:

Yes among animals. Humans are fundamentally different. Think of the environment that shape animals and form bonds between them. Not the same for human life. The animalsare subject to the environments that form bonds. humans are not. Human life is not subjected to environments like animals but change their environments to suit them. I bring this up to establish that humans are not subject to the environments they find themselves in. It follows that our life has a dignity that doesn’t allow for it to be subject to the bonds that form within them either.

Intellect is a sublime and powefull thing that distinguishes human life from the other animals. The reason. There is no reason for humans to have to resort to the survival mechanisms that the other animals do. There is a social function to homosexual behavior that’s appropriate in the animal kingdom. They resort to them because they can’t shape their environment to suit their needs. Humans deny their own nature when we succumb to behaviors that are unsuitable to an animal bestowed with intellect.