question regarding marriage

[KarenNC]

I would also recommend that you truly observe exactly what it is your friends wish from their “marriage” arrangements. All the homosexual friends I have are not interested in “monogamy” as a part of their “marriages”. Even those who have been together for many, many years still entertain outside relationships within their primary couplings.

The ones I know are monogamous with all intentions to stay that way (unfortunately the same cannot be said of all the heterosexual married couples with whom I am or have been acquainted).

** Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, multiple partners, and any other variety of arrangement will only serve to continue to tear down what is left of our understanding and respect for traditional marrige.**

Sorry, don’t buy it. I see rather that forcing those who do desire the legal commitment of marriage and its responsibilities to remain in relationships outside of the law actually promotes a culture that devalues marriage by saying that it doesn’t really matter, you are doing just fine without it.

 

[shadow_fire]

Thank you!

People use the word “natural” in different ways. Sometimes we use it to mean “It comes naturally to me.” Other times we use it to mean, “It’s as it is in the world of nature.” Still other times we use it to mean, “It is in accordance with my nature as a male human person.” And it’s this last sense that’s important (just because something comes naturally to you doesn’t mean it is good and there are many things in the world of nature that aren’t good like diseases for example) Did you mean what you wrote in this last sense?

I must admit it does seem somewhat reasonable to conclude from the fact that one has an attraction to be with other men that it is therefore in harmony with who I am as a man to pursue that attraction. I mean, why would the Powers that Govern the Universe give me this attraction if I wasn’t meant to have it and having it, pursue it? I admit that’s a powerful argument to be made.

However, we also know that there are many people attracted to prepubescent children yet you and I would probably consider this attraction to be “unnatural.” Same for the few people who are attracted to animals – I’m sure you, just as I, would consider this attraction to be “unnatural” as well. (I don’t mean to morally equate you with those who act on these attractions, please understand; I also don’t mean to say that these attractions are all equally unnatural). So, just because someone is attracted to something, doesn’t make that attraction natural. Do you agree?

But then why (in the cosmic sense of “why?”) do some people have these unnatural attractions? I don’t think reason alone gives us an adequate answer (In Christianity it’s because man was cast out of paradise and left to live in a chaotic world).

And is same sex attraction like attraction to prepubescent children and attraction to animals unnatural or is it natural? Maybe the latter two attractions come as a result of the environment and the former (same sex attraction) comes as a result of some genetic influence. But does that prove that the former (same sex attraction) is natural while the latter two are not? No it doesn’t. Because, we find ourselves in a world that is imperfect, chaotic. If there’s reason to say that our development in our enviroment can be imperfect resulting in some unnatural feelings then we should be open to the possibility that our genetics can be imperfect too. No one has a perfect body and likewise no one may have perfect genes. Since we live in this imperfect, chaotic, Christians would say “fallen”, world, we can’t employ the logic, "It is, therefore it is right"

You make a good point. Can anyone answer this satisfactorily? Why would God make the male human body in this way (i.e. able to receive pleasure through anal sex) if males’ receiving anal sex were not part of His design?

Maybe it’s like the appendix – a body feature that has no purpose. Or maybe it’s just another instance of the “chaos” in this world. (I guess these two musings are not mutually exclusive)

To be frank, your bringing it up (and my reading more about it on other websites) does introduces a slight difficulty in my belief that homosexuality is unnatural.

Thank you for answering so intelligently and respectfully.

You are correct that it may seem unnatural for men to be attracted to children but that could just be classified as a fetish or a deep perversion. But then you could say that homosexuality is just a fetish but I don’t believe this is true due to the large numbers of homosexuals compared to other fetishes. I for example have a nature fetish and I can distinctly tell the difference between my nature fetish and my attraction to men. The nature fetish is more like a sexy idea that I would like to do (have sex outside particularly on a cliff) but the attraction to men is more like a sheer…attraction to men. Its hard to explain but believe me there is a difference.

But one thing about it being like the apendix is that the anal susceptibility to stimulation is almost entirely exclusive to the male gender (although woman can feel some pleasure they just can’t feel nearly as much pleasure as a man can) this doesn’t make too much sense in fact you would think that it would be the other way around and that the woman would feel more pleasure if homosexuality was indeed unnatural.

O and responding to the guy who was saying how much damage anal sex does those are kind of rare cases as long as you practice it safely it is pretty safe. I know a guy (not going to say who…he would kill me if I said his name) that has slept with over 50 men and hes absolutely fine and healthy.

 

[blessedtoo]

The ones I know are monogamous with all intentions to stay that way (unfortunately the same cannot be said of all the heterosexual married couples with whom I am or have been acquainted).

Yes, I thought this as well about three couples with whom I had been very close for years. Only after I inadvertantly stumbled upon some incriminating information did I discover how very wrong I was. It certainly isn’t something that a homosexual couple wants to advertise to their straight friends. I am not saying this is the case with your associations, just that it is more prevalent than you may think.

Sorry, don’t buy it. I see rather that forcing those who do desire the legal commitment of marriage and its responsibilities to remain in relationships outside of the law actually promotes a culture that devalues marriage by saying that it doesn’t really matter, you are doing just fine without it.

I guess you are not reading the information I have been providing and I assume you are not interested in stats and research. How can you not “buy” something you haven’t thoroughly investigated? Are you simply going on “feelings” and personal experience or is the truth important to you as well?

Again, read the book I suggested. Visit some of the websites I posted. If you are really seeking the truth, you must first divorce yourself from your emotions about the issue. I have had to separate the deep love I have for my homosexual sister and countless homosexual friends from my quest for the truth. It doesn’t mean I love them any less.

 

[shadow_fire]

Homosexual couples can be just as monogamous as any heterosexual couples. Saying anything other is just a slap in the face to people like myself. I’ve seen tons of cheating heterosexual couples and every homosexual couple I’ve seen has stayed true. In fact my cousin is getting married to his boyfriend next year and I’m going to be his best man and I know they love each other and will stay true to each other.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

my old boss she was gay and her mate was always going off with other women at the club they went to weekends. It drove her nuts, and she kept taking her back. But yet they had parties at their place and those ended up with everyone participating. But the boss was still jealous.

I remember her saying to my husband one time “well Im gay and I tell you it has nothing to do with the fact I was raped when I was young.” He just smiled and said ok. Thats why I love him, didnt get me fired.

 

[St_Violet]

Thank you for answering so intelligently and respectfully.

You are correct that it may seem unnatural for men to be attracted to children but that could just be classified as a fetish or a deep perversion. But then you could say that homosexuality is just a fetish but I don’t believe this is true due to the large numbers of homosexuals compared to other fetishes. I for example have a nature fetish and I can distinctly tell the difference between my nature fetish and my attraction to men. The nature fetish is more like a sexy idea that I would like to do (have sex outside particularly on a cliff) but the attraction to men is more like a sheer…attraction to men. Its hard to explain but believe me there is a difference.

But one thing about it being like the apendix is that the anal susceptibility to stimulation is almost entirely exclusive to the male gender (although woman can feel some pleasure they just can’t feel nearly as much pleasure as a man can) this doesn’t make too much sense in fact you would think that it would be the other way around and that the woman would feel more pleasure if homosexuality was indeed unnatural.

O and responding to the guy who was saying how much damage anal sex does those are kind of rare cases as long as you practice it safely it is pretty safe. I know a guy (not going to say who…he would kill me if I said his name) that has slept with over 50 men and hes absolutely fine and healthy.

Of course that’s what he’d say

 

[St_Violet]

Even though Church and State are seperate, you still cannot seperate Marriage from religon.

allowing two people of the same-sex will no doubt redefine the meaning and the intent of marriage.

I suggest that those who are in support of destroying the meaning of marriage, to look at their stance from a different angle, as I did.

Homosexual practices is unnatural there should be no doubt. our bodies were designed to pro create, A woman’s body is designed specifically to perform intercourse with a male and a male for a woman. And intercourse was intended to be performed after marriage.

I don’t really think it takes a scientist to even know that our rear ends were not designed for prenetation. but it’s a fact.

 

[KarenNC]

I suggest that those who are in support of destroying the meaning of marriage, to look at their stance from a different angle, as I did.

Homosexual practices is unnatural there should be no doubt. our bodies were designed to pro create, A woman’s body is designed specifically to perform intercourse with a male and a male for a woman. And intercourse was intended to be performed after marriage.

I don’t really think it takes a scientist to even know that our rear ends were not designed for prenetation. but it’s a fact.

And if the state allowed civil marriage only to those who practice a certain type of sexual behavior or who only practiced sexual behavior that would/could lead to procreation, then I might see this as a valid argument to prohibit same sex marriage. However, unlike the Catholic Church, the state does not demand that a heterosexual couple be able to perform sexually or that the possibility of procreation exist as a test for who should and should not be allowed to marry. If form of intercourse or lack thereof is not a criteria for a heterosexual civil marriage, I see no reason it should be for a same sex couple.

There is no legal barrier to a woman who is past menopause marrying.
There is no legal barrier to a man who is permanently impotent or a woman who is medically determined to be barren marrying.
There is no legal barrier to a man or woman who has been permanently sterilized marrying.
There is no legal barrier to a couple who has cohabited or engaged in sexual behavior prior to marriage marrying.
There is no legal barrier to a couple who declare their intent not to procreate marrying
Laws regarding the specific sexual behavior of two consenting adults in private are not enforced or enforcable and, in many cases, have been declared unconstitutional, so there is not a criteria for the type of sexual behavior in which a heterosexual married couple may engage (which may well include acts considered more usual for same sex couples).

Why should a same sex couple be held to a standard different than that to which a heterosexual couple is held for the purposes of a civil marriage? A religious marriage is an entirely different matter. There any religious body is able and welcome to determine their own criteria, as they already do.

 

[KarenNC]

I know a guy (not going to say who…he would kill me if I said his name) that has slept with over 50 men and hes absolutely fine and healthy.

I would have to question whether he was emotionally healthy, however, if he is engaging in sexual behavior in such a casual way (and, yes, I would and do say the same thing about someone who claims to have engaged in sexual behavior with that many partners).

 

[HelenRose]

When I’m older I’m going to marry a man and I’m wondering can you have a non religous marriage? because I often see religion grouped with marriage and I’m wondering if you can get a non religous wedding since I’m both agnostic and gay. Also if religion is essential to marriage then what religion do you suggest?

If you say that you are not religious then going through a religious ceremony would simply be a show and would not reflect your core beliefs.

The Church has made it clear that marriage is a sacrament and as such should not be entered into lightly or defiantly.

We could argue about the definition of marriage forever. You no doubt know that marriage defined by the Catholic Church is a restricted to one man married to one woman.

There are many reasons that individuals are called to chastity. There are many reasons that many individuals never marry. God calls each one of us to his Kingdom. Sometimes that call is very difficult and hard to understand.

You could shop around and find a “religion” that suits your purpose. Be careful though that you are not just trying to have the benefits of faith without having to give any part of yourself for that faith.

 

[shadow_fire]

If you say that you are not religious then going through a religious ceremony would simply be a show and would not reflect your core beliefs.

The Church has made it clear that marriage is a sacrament and as such should not be entered into lightly or defiantly.

We could argue about the definition of marriage forever. You no doubt know that marriage defined by the Catholic Church is a restricted to one man married to one woman.

There are many reasons that individuals are called to chastity. There are many reasons that many individuals never marry. God calls each one of us to his Kingdom. Sometimes that call is very difficult and hard to understand.

You could shop around and find a “religion” that suits your purpose. Be careful though that you are not just trying to have the benefits of faith without having to give any part of yourself for that faith.

Through talking on here I’ve found you don’t need to have any religion in your marriage I was just confused about that point. So I don’t want a religious marriage anyway.

O and I know the person that people keep on quoting that has slept around a bit is healthy both emotionally and physically I know him very well and I would of heard about it if he was suffering through any ruptures or anything resulting from sex.

Ps: Thanks KarenNC for helping me get some points across. I would never be able to respond to so many people on my own

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Ps: Thanks KarenNC for helping me get some points across. I would never be able to respond to so many people on my own

So in conclusion you found a person (Karen) who agreed with you, and you justified your thoughts rather than challenged them???

Just because you know of a person who is ok as far as you know, doesnt mean its true for all. Brushing all of a group the same. Also, you are close to what was it your cousin, (dont know if thats the same person) but you are basing decisions on a small amount of information, it isnt entirely researched.

Youve just reached the tip, you still have to ask yourself why you would need marriage? Even if its not religious why do you need the comfort of knowing you have one partner? And you feel assured of the health of that person. Is it because you know that the usual way of a gay lifestyle (why it also has that term) is not to have one partner and is unhealthy. Just as straight people having many partners is also unhealthy. And that is the usual way of actually both lifestyles.

And if you are to get married or attatched young, say in a few yrs when you complete high school then gay or not you join the unlikely odds of staying together to a ripe old age, Not that marriage is bad but too young and marriage is, especially in a gay lifestyle designed for fun its harder. Its hard enough for a young married couple to stay settled down.

You really should research this more its not like you need to be in a hurry at 16, I know that doesnt make sense right now, but when your 20 it will start to.

 

[KarenNC]

So in conclusion you found a person (Karen) who agreed with you, and you justified your thoughts rather than challenged them???

Well, you’re jumping the gun if you think I agree with all of his points of discussion.

I do agree that I see no logical reason to deny civil same sex marriage. However, I also believe that marriage and sex are best reserved for committed, monogamous and lifelong relationships and that sex is not something to be used lightly or casually. I do not know of anyone who can truly escape emotional scars from multiple casual partners, ones that blunt the possibilities inherent in a longterm monogamous relationship, even if they escape the possible physical repercussions.

I abhor the concept of infidelity in any such interpersonal relationship as it is dishonorable and deceitful (that does beg the question of whether those in an “open” relationship would consider it infidelity, but I have yet to see such a relationship where both partners were truly equally in favor of the “openness,” though I suppose they might exist in theory).

 

[shadow_fire]

So in conclusion you found a person (Karen) who agreed with you, and you justified your thoughts rather than challenged them???

Just because you know of a person who is ok as far as you know, doesnt mean its true for all. Brushing all of a group the same. Also, you are close to what was it your cousin, (dont know if thats the same person) but you are basing decisions on a small amount of information, it isnt entirely researched.

Youve just reached the tip, you still have to ask yourself why you would need marriage? Even if its not religious why do you need the comfort of knowing you have one partner? And you feel assured of the health of that person. Is it because you know that the usual way of a gay lifestyle (why it also has that term) is not to have one partner and is unhealthy. Just as straight people having many partners is also unhealthy. And that is the usual way of actually both lifestyles.

And if you are to get married or attatched young, say in a few yrs when you complete high school then gay or not you join the unlikely odds of staying together to a ripe old age, Not that marriage is bad but too young and marriage is, especially in a gay lifestyle designed for fun its harder. Its hard enough for a young married couple to stay settled down.

You really should research this more its not like you need to be in a hurry at 16, I know that doesnt make sense right now, but when your 20 it will start to.

I know I don’t have too much information to back up anal sex just all the homosexuals I know being healthy but on the other side of things I didn’t see any factual evidence that anal sex is bad for you.

I would want to be married for the same reasons a heterosexual couple would want to get married. Not to assure myself that the homosexual lifestyle stereotype is incorrect.

Also I’m not planning on getting married young so thats not a problem.

I also have read and researched a lot more then a teenager of my age does. Depends whats on my mind for what I research.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Well, you’re jumping the gun if you think I agree with all of his points of discussion.

I abhor the concept of infidelity in any such interpersonal relationship as it is dishonorable and deceitful (that does beg the question of whether those in an “open” relationship would consider it infidelity, but I have yet to see such a relationship where both partners were truly equally in favor of the “openness,” though I suppose they might exist in theory).

Why do you abhor infidelity? If your liberal and incredulous enough to ignore Gods design for sexual union of spouses what difference does that little commandment make? Are you only partially liberal? I guess were all in seperate degrees of apostacy. You can rationalize disorder but not concupiscence. If I am attracted to women why shouldnt I get to have as many as I want if some guy attracted to men gets to sodomize his bf. I think you have an issue differentiating lust with the procreative and unative faculty. You speak about emotional health, do you really think that lust is healthy? Take it from an victim (me) it is not and sodomy is a sin of death no matter who the recipient is - male, female, married or single. Ever hear of Sodom and Gamorah? Burnt down don’t cha know. You might want to read about it. Do yourself a favor and don’t look back, you might be re-frozen into a pillar of incredulity.

 

[shadow_fire]

Well, you’re jumping the gun if you think I agree with all of his points of discussion.

I do agree that I see no logical reason to deny civil same sex marriage. However, I also believe that marriage and sex are best reserved for committed, monogamous and lifelong relationships and that sex is not something to be used lightly or casually. I do not know of anyone who can truly escape emotional scars from multiple casual partners, ones that blunt the possibilities inherent in a longterm monogamous relationship, even if they escape the possible physical repercussions.

I abhor the concept of infidelity in any such interpersonal relationship as it is dishonorable and deceitful (that does beg the question of whether those in an “open” relationship would consider it infidelity, but I have yet to see such a relationship where both partners were truly equally in favor of the “openness,” though I suppose they might exist in theory).

When did I say that I don’t agree with monogamous life long relationships? sounds like your putting words in my mouth or stereotyping me with that blasted “gay lifestyle” B.S

 

[shadow_fire]

Bump.

 

[KarenNC]

When did I say that I don’t agree with monogamous life long relationships? sounds like your putting words in my mouth or stereotyping me with that blasted “gay lifestyle” B.S

Sorry, my computer has been down for several days, so I am just getting these.

I referred to points of discussion" which"included the person with the 50 sexual partners.

To KatholikosMercy,

I abhor infidelity as it is at its root dishonest and dishonorable and therefore violates several of the virtues that I strive to follow. Infidelity is not about lust or attraction or any other emotion, it is about one’s actions in response to those emotions. If one has made a vow to be faithful to one partner, breaking that vow is dishonorable. If one has made no such vow or if the additional relationships are done with full knowledge and consent of the other adults involved, then that is between those consenting adults involved. I may not understand it or wish to practice such, it is between them.

I am well familiar with Sodom and Gomorrah and you may want to visit any of several threads in which I have participated in discussions regarding it. My posts may be found by clicking on my name, then the my posts link.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

To KatholikosMercy,

I abhor infidelity (sodomy/fornication) as it is at its root dishonest and dishonorable and therefore violates several of the virtues that I strive to follow.

Infidelity (sodomy/fornication) IS about lust or attraction (appetites and concupiscence) or any other emotion, it is about one’s actions in response to those emotions. If one has made a vow to be faithful to one partner, breaking that vow is dishonorable. If one has made no such vow or if the additional relationships are done with full knowledge and consent of the other adults involved, then that is IMMORAL between those consenting adults involved. I may not understand it or wish to practice such, it is between them. LIBERAL COP-OUT!

My posts may be found by clicking on my name, then the my posts link.

I could really care less what else you post at this point because your wrong here and disobediently wrong big time!

In your above reply you can replace the words infidelity with sodomy and or fornication and you have your reply. Otherwise your incredulous to what scripture and the church says about fornication irregardless of your personal orientation, comitments or opinions about lack of such.

 

[KarenNC]

I could really care less what else you post at this point because your wrong here and disobediently wrong big time!

In your above reply you can replace the words infidelity with sodomy and or fornication and you have your reply. Otherwise your incredulous to what scripture and the church says about fornication irregardless of your personal orientation, comitments or opinions about lack of such.

So that we are using the same meanings for terms, I will explain the sense in which I am using some of the terms above:

From Merriam-Webster
infidelity: 2 a : unfaithfulness to a moral obligation : DISLOYALTY b : marital unfaithfulness or an instance of it
Infidelity may take many forms, which may or may not include sodomy. It is the unfaithfulness to a moral obligation that I find objectionable.

Sodomy is a specific sexual act which may or may not be engaged in by persons who have taken a vow of fidelity to one another, be they heterosexual or homosexual (and yes, some heterosexual couples engage in this practice, including married ones). If it is engaged in between persons who have taken a vow of fidelity to each other, it is neither infidelity nor fornication.

Fornication is, by definition, sexual intercourse between two persons who have not taken a vow of fidelity to one another. It may or may not include sodomy.

Therefore, infidelity, fornication and sodomy are not equivalent, interchangable terms. Infidelity is not limited to sodomy and if one has not take a vow of fidelity, sexual intercourse with another person is not a breach of that vow.

You are absolutely correct, I do not consider myself bound by what the Catholic Church says or what the Christian Scripture says about the matter, as I am not Christian. Similarly, I doubt you consider yourself bound to Hindu or Buddhist (or other religious) teaching on the subject or consider yourself “disobedient” to a tradition to which you do not subscribe.