Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

[Prodigal_Son]

We live in a world in which there are hateful statements that are often communicated in very subtle statements and I don’t know how it would be separated from those.

I wonder why people stare at these subtle statements long enough to detect hate. Personally, I am happy to assume people don’t hate me, and address their arguments, unless I’m given very clear evidence they hate me. Assuming otherwise would compromise my mental health.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Can anyone explain to me why people who are attracted to the same sex but believe that acting on it is harmful to them are portrayed as homophobes?

They are portrayed as homophobes because their comments conflict with the LGBTQ community’s agenda

 

[Prodigal_Son]

They are portrayed as homophobes because their comments conflict with the LGBTQ community’s agenda

Perhaps, though I find talking about the gay “agenda” to be oversimplifying. In my personal experience, friends that I have who are gay are LESS likely to call people like myself homophobes than other liberal “allies”. One friend of mine is quite prominent in the gay rights movement, but he is also sympathetic to gay or bisexual Christians who oppose homosexual sex for moral reasons. I actually think a lot of the danger comes from people trying to be nice to gay people, not gay people themselves. Many gay people can understand that same-sex attracted people have a variety of complicated motivations, and that it is hypocritical to say “we should be allowed to live our lives the way we want” and then criticize Christians for choosing to follow Christ instead of their inclinations.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Perhaps, though I find talking about the gay “agenda” to be oversimplifying. In my personal experience, friends that I have who are gay are LESS likely to call people like myself homophobes than other liberal “allies”. One friend of mine is quite prominent in the gay rights movement, but he is also sympathetic to gay or bisexual Christians who oppose homosexual sex for moral reasons. I actually think a lot of the danger comes from people trying to be nice to gay people, not gay people themselves. Many gay people can understand that same-sex attracted people have a variety of complicated motivations, and that it is hypocritical to say “we should be allowed to live our lives the way we want” and then criticize Christians for choosing to follow Christ instead of their inclinations.

Really? That’s interesting. I can see people who are trying to be nice to gays label us Christians as homophobes. Perhaps they think they have to “protect” people with same sex attraction from the Church, though that could just be my opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Really? That’s interesting. I can see people who are trying to be nice to gays label us Christians as homophobes. Perhaps they think they have to “protect” people with same sex attraction from the Church, though that could just be my opinion.

Well, I have the weird view that a lot of guys like us DO need to be protected from certain teachings you will sometimes hear in Christian churches: that God is likely to take the attraction away if we just have faith, that guys like us should avoid close friendships with other men, that merely being attracted to the same sex is sinful, that a person who truly loved Jesus would never fall into a “gay” sin. These teachings aren’t all that common in Catholic churches, but they’re not unheard of either. I can understand the LGBT “allies” worrying about you getting influenced by such teachings, and setting yourself up for self-hatred and failure.

But there are also very life-giving teachings available to people with same-sex attraction, especially among Catholics. And the idea that gay, lesbian or bisexual people should just go out and “live their sexuality” is potentially a very harmful teaching, among other reasons because living out your sexuality is just not associated with particularly good outcomes in terms of physical and psychological health.

 

[Intrigued]

Rau,
Thank you very much for your reply, I genuinely appreciate it
Thank you for defining ‘partner’, however, you left my question un answered. Would you volunteer yourself to marry someone who does not feel sexually attracted to you? You you believe that gay people should be made to have straight sex? If so, which straight people should be forced to have sex with someone who doesn’t find themattractive?

I don’t agree with you on what marriage means I’m afraid. It institution is there because women were properly to be sold. CofE exists so divorce is possible.
If you think that marriage has to be spelled out by catholic law, does that mean you do not recognise other marriages which are performed under the multitude of religions? There are around 1.2 billion catholics- that’s a minority!

Lives are absolutely up for discussion when debating the rights of SS couples. Tax law, inheritance regulations, children’s legal guardianship… and, please excuse me, but if marriage is only about love as prescribed by your god then it has no place in law, and if marriage is a legal contract, then god, by definition, should have no place in it. That is my view.

I’m afraid I am to disagree on your next point also. How do you teach children what not to do, without teaching them what homosexuality is? Either a child is raised to not care what others do, or they are raised being taught that it is bad- either way, if the topic is raised, it needs some acknowledgment. For example, my daughters have never seen a murder. I have never talked in depth about a murder to her. But I am obligated to make sure she knows it’s wrong to kill.
Service providers may be obligated to ‘contribute’ the same way vegetarian chefs cook meet. They do not have to eat it. When Christians help drug addicts at soup kitchens, do they feel that the are advocating their situation or removing judgment from things that are not their business?

Joe,
May I clarify- is being homosexual a sin? Or just a homosexual act?

Because gay people cannot help their sexuality any more than you can.

So you wish laws were passed to allow sex with 12 year old children as in the bible? Do you believe that people are hell bound for wearing fabrics of mixed materials? I don’t believe you do. It strikes me as incredibly odd that your god is omnipotent, but would wilfully force his children to never enjoy sex, as sex as you see it, is only there to procreate.

Thank you both sincerely for your replies.

I do wonder though, how powerful do you think your opinions could be? If you tell an atheist that they are honing to hell because they love their spouse, you realise that by definition they don’t believe you? And therefore cannot be guilty of any wrong doing. If I told you the shirt you were wearing was a sin, and you absolutely did not believe that, would you have actually done anything wrong? Like breaking the speed limit when you didn’t think that you were.

I think you would be happier to follow the bible’s teachings on unconditional love, and ask yourself if it is anything to do with you. Let go and let god!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Joe,

May I clarify- is being homosexual a sin? Or just a homosexual act?

Because gay people cannot help their sexuality any more than you can.

This is the funniest thing I’ve read all day. FYI, Intrigued, one aspect of Joe’s “sexuality” is that he is attracted to other men. So yeah, I’m just gonna take a wild guess and say that he doesn’t think those with homosexual attractions choose to have them.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Joe,

May I clarify- is being homosexual a sin? Or just a homosexual act?

Because gay people cannot help their sexuality any more than you can.

So you wish laws were passed to allow sex with 12 year old children as in the bible?

Homosexual acts are a sin, not the attraction. Read the Catechesism for more info.

Where in the Bible does it say God allowed sex with 12 year old children?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Where in the Bible does it say God allowed sex with 12 year old children?

It must be right after it says that “God helps those who helps themselves.”

 

[edwest211]

This is usually the case, especially when reading LGBT news online. There is an official list of “hate groups,” and it has gotten to the point where I’m sitting in my doctor’s office and watching CNN. An out athlete is telling everyone watching to “stop being homophobic.” He says this more than once. That was grossly unfair to all viewers. There is no way he could know who was for or against anything.

 

[Rau]

Thank you for defining ‘partner’, however, you left my question un answered. Would you volunteer yourself to marry someone who does not feel sexually attracted to you? You you believe that gay people should be made to have straight sex? If so, which straight people should be forced to have sex with someone who doesn’t find themattractive?

Well, I didn’t so much ‘define’ partner as question what you might have meant by the term. I also explained the Catholic belief as to the proper circumstances for a sexual relationship. Your further questions above seem quite strange, as no one has proposed anybody should be forced to marry anyone, or have sex with anyone.

I don’t agree with you on what marriage means I’m afraid.

You won’t be the only one!

If you think that marriage has to be spelled out by catholic law, does that mean you do not recognise other marriages which are performed under the multitude of religions? There are around 1.2 billion catholics- that’s a minority!

Heavens no! But as a publicly proclaimed institution, marriage has to be spelled out. In civil matters, the State takes it as it role to define it, and the State is beholden to the citizenry - the majority typically. Thus we all get a say - a vote even, in some jurisdictions. People of all faiths, and of no faith, get to vote, and the evidence is that the way they vote is quite individualistic: there are people of all faiths and of no faiths on both sides of the argument.

Lives are absolutely up for discussion when debating the rights of SS couples. Tax law, inheritance regulations, children’s legal guardianship… and, please excuse me, but if marriage is only about love as prescribed by your god then it has no place in law, and if marriage is a legal contract, then god, by definition, should have no place in it. That is my view.

What is or was up for discussion is the meaning of marriage, and whether it is something we understand can exist between other than man+woman. There may well be implications of that decision. In most jurisdictions, the matters you list are all treatable with the same effect as marriage without there being a marriage.

I agree there is no need to bring God into the legal framework of Marriage. That’s a framework that exists to support the mutual commitment between man and woman which is the foundation through which the society builds itself. It’s a rather unique relationship with unique characteristics. Certainly there is a clear pragmatism in extending the same legal arrangement to same sex couples, if the State feels so inclined, though it does represent a departure from the prior basis for State support of Marriage.

 

[Rau]

How do you teach children what not to do, without teaching them what homosexuality is?

Those seeking to introduce or broaden sex education to cover same sex sexual relationships are not seeking to simply identify the “wrong” in those relationship. The goal is altogether different. The reality of SSM seems to provide a prima facie justification for such programs. You can understand that with, perhaps 40% of the population believing SSM is wrong, there is considerable parental interest in being able to spare their children from compulsory attendance at a program which takes a completely different premise.

 

[Rau]

as sex as you see it, is only there to procreate.

Actually, that’s not true, nor is it even the belief of any faith or organised group that I’ve heard about. Did you have a particular group in mind?

What is commonly recognised is that sexual relations are by their nature centred on our procreative capacity, regardless of whether that is the wish of, or within the realm of possibility for, the participants.

If you tell an atheist that they are honing to hell because they love their spouse,…

But who is saying this? Who is even employing an argument that a sexual relationship between 2 men will send them to hell? The discussion has been about whether the State should broaden the set of relationships it recognises as marriage.

I think you would be happier to follow the bible’s teachings on unconditional love, and ask yourself if it is anything to do with you. Let go and let god!

What is it that you believe Love demands? We are asked to express our view on what kinds of relationships can constitute marriage. Does Love require that we say it is whatever any other person wishes it to be?

 

[edwest211]

Thank you for posting this.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Who is even employing an argument that a sexual relationship between 2 men will send them to hell?

Perhaps I did? I said Sodomy could send someone to hell because it’s a mortal sin. Was I wrong to say that?

 

[Rau]

Perhaps I did? I said Sodomy could send someone to hell because it’s a mortal sin. Was I wrong to say that?

The OP claimed that the charge is that Love sends them to hell - a false representation. That is not what you said. As to the sex, it’s probably not productive to use God as motivator too early in a conversation with an atheist.

 

[theCardinalbird]

True

(16 characters)

 

[Intrigued]

Hi,

How old was Mary?

So, homosexuals will go to heaven as long as they never have homosexual sex?

 

[Rau]

So, homosexuals will go to heaven as long as they never have homosexual sex?

The entry conditions to heaven are the same for all of us - turn away from Sin and toward God. This presents different challenges for all of us.

 

[Intrigued]

So it is ok to be gay, as long as you don’t do anything gay? Is that right? Because being gay isn’t an option. It just seems cruel the way god would make someone not attracted to the opposite sex, but insist that they must sleep with them anyway or remain celibate. Do you see my confusion? Again, thanks for your reply.