Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[Elizabeth502]

Marital relations is a euphemism for sexual intercourse with the intended anatomical parts which, by differentiated sex, fit together. (Traditional sexual intercourse, not merely “sexual practices.”)

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t know what you mean by “marital relations” but homosexuals are indeed capable of engaging in relations whether they be marital or not.

Marital relations is a euphemism for sexual intercourse with the intended anatomical parts which, by differentiated sex, fit together. (Traditional sexual intercourse, not merely “sexual practices.”)

 

[epan]

Marital relations is a euphemism for sexual intercourse with the intended anatomical parts which, by differentiated sex, fit together. (Traditional sexual intercourse, not merely “sexual practices.”)

Would you then exclude foreplay which include practices other than intercourse from the definition of the euphemistic term?

 

[JimG]

Marital relations is a euphemism for sexual intercourse with the intended anatomical parts which, by differentiated sex, fit together. (Traditional sexual intercourse, not merely “sexual practices.”)

Something that used to be obvious to all prior generations. When one has to explain the obvious, it becomes apparent that we live in a non-rational society.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Would you then exclude foreplay which include practices other than intercourse from the definition of the euphemistic term?

Please read JimG’s recent reply. Marital relations in its standard definition means one thing: traditional sexual intercourse between two different sexes. (I hear ya’, Jim, I hear ya’. )

Note: Nobody “excluded” foreplay. (As in before.)

 

[BigBlueCane]

Homosexuals try to compare their crusade with that of blacks or other ethnic minorities. However they are equating a behavior pattern which is neither fixed nor determined at birth to inherent characteristics.

I have encountered many homosexuals, have some as good friends, and the reality is that some practiced heterosexuality before, during or after coming out. It is a behavior, not an inherent characteristic. It may well be a very compulsive behavior that is quite unchangeable, but it is not the same as being born with black skin, growing up with black skin and dying with black skin.

This is your opinion however and not fact. There are plenty more cases that I know personally where the individual had always known they were gay. Sure there are situations like you mentioned where they practiced heterosexuality out of fear of being who they were. I know a guy born and raised into a catholic italian family. Ended up getting married and when he came out was forced to leave the state due to threats. He had always been gay even when he was pretending to be straight. Either way at the very least what can be said is that there is NO conclusion as to whether it is inherent in a person genetically, biologically or otherwise. For you to say its behavioral would be an incorrect statement and there is plenty of evidence that says otherwise.

Afterall I always use the personal test as to whether orientation is inherent or not. If it isn’t inherent that means any one of us can “learn” to be gay and enjoy it. Well I can only speak for myself in that it would be an impossibility for me. I don’t find men attractive. No amount of convincing or “trying” can change my feeling on that. Attraction isn’t a conscience choice.

Private businesses, churches, and individuals should have the right to accommodate or not accommodate the wishes of specific customers, congregants or parishioners, particularly if there are religious or ethical objections.

That would be discrimination and against federal law. They can’t do that and they shouldn’t do that. Again these arguments were made during the civil rights movement in favor of letting business owners pick and choose who they wanted to serve.

Please address the proposed “discrimination” examples. Do you think a doctor should be forced to perform abortions if he does not believe in allowing the murder of unborn babies? Must a priest be forced to “marry” two men or two women? Does the hair stylist who does not work with ethnic hair have to cut the hair of anyone who walks in the door? Must an accountant prepare the tax return of anyone who walks in the door on April 15th? Must a business accommodate an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit if they disagree with non law enforcement persons carrying guns? Or to pull in Publisher here…should Quakers be forced to take up arms?

1). Not all doctors can perform abortions. Its a specialized procedure that needs to be learned. Thus you can’t force people to go into specific professions. Just because you are a doctor doesn’t mean you are a specialist in every anatomical area.

2).NO. Gay marriage should ONLY be in terms of secular marriage. As you know everyone that gets married must file papers with the court system. For some people that is enough. For the law that is enough. Churches of any kind should not and would not be asked to recognize or perform gay marriages.

3). As far as the hair stylist its just like the doctor example. Its a specialized skill. You can’t force people to learn different skills and the customer also wouldn’t want someone that doesn’t know how to cut their hair to mess with their hair.

As far as the other examples they also are not valid comparisons because there is no instance of discrimination there. If the accountant says he won’t prepare returns for people of X group then yes thats discrimination. If he is just too busy and doesn’t have any more appointment slots that is not discrimination. If a gun owner is following the law then he gets served. If a quaker gets drafted he can file as a conscientious objector.

It’s so funny how Leftists claim that people should be free do do as they wish but that only means they should be free to engage in Leftist approved behaviors.

Do you like living in a free country BBC? Or do you want to decree what is or is now allowed for the rest of us?

Lisa

Leftists claim that people should be free to engage in consentual behaviors that are allowable under the law without the threat of government intrusion. It is only conservatives that have a history of wanting to legislate personal behaviors based on what they feel everyone should be doing. Which to leftists is fine. Go ahead and knock yourselves out trying to legislate what people do behind closed doors. It will for sure guarantee a permanent minority status that conservatism enjoys in the country now.

 

[JimG]

I do think that it makes sense to distinguish morally and biologically. I see the social value.

My point was that gender distinction in heterosexual marriage has been eliminated legally. There is absolutely no distinction in gender rights, obligations or duties in marriage currently under the law. Since that is the case, then legally speaking, there is no point in distinguishing by gender who may be married. This is known as legal equality, which has been a driving force in the civil rights movement for decades. This is why the legal definition of civil rights has steadily expanded over the past decades.

Also, there is much talk about the rights of children. This argument is compelling. But consider this. Only 50% of adults now choose to marry. Of those marriages, more than 50% will result in divorce. Children are being born out of wedlock and into single parent homes. It actually might be of some social benefit to increase the number of gay couples who will adopt parentless kids. It is well established that a two partner same sex home can better raise a child than any single parent home, on average. It is a simple time and money calculation.

As I have stated. I believe that the best solution is the roll things back to the broad standards of the Catholic Church. Repeal no fault divorce. Restore gender roles in marriage and in society. Restore adultery laws. Under these conditions, there is no legal equivalency between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage.

The ability to procreate is a biological distinction, and not a legal one. The ability to raise children competently is not related to the ability to procreate. Only a minority of children are raised under ideal conditions.

Hmm, does the law consider that a man and women are equal in the matter of pregnancy and in the ability to give birth? Or does the law simply dismiss that as a biological but not a legal distinction?

Now I realize that in some places the law would like to erase the distinction between mother and father. But that’s just another sign of the law on a collision course with reality.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Leftists claim that people should be free to engage in consentual behaviors that are allowable under the law without the threat of government intrusion.

That’s what they’re free to do now: engage in consensual sex. It’s not necessary to be married to engage in consensual sex, including kinky sex, group sex, etc., with however many people of however many genders.

 

[LisaA]

I think this post shows the confusion that surrounds the difference between sexual orientation, and sexual behavior.

Sexual orientation is not volitional.

Sexual behavior is volitional.

If the goal is to stop gay marriage, then heterosexual marriage needs to be redefined back to where it once was. Legal gender roles need to be restored. No fault divorce repealed. Adultery laws passed. Once this happens, then gay marriage will make no sense legally. As long as the current legal definition of the heterosexual marriage gender rights and duties are in place, then it makes no legal sense to distinguish between genders to grant a marriage license.

Your premise of turning back the clock is probably the most effective but least likely course of action. How you can then decide that “it makes no legal sense to distinguish between genders…”? We distinguish between genders all of the time and it’s perfectly legal to do so. You are apparently in the military or working for the military (else why would you be in Hell-istan?) Tell me that males and females in the military are not distinguished…in housing, in duties, in standards. Further what do you mean about “legal gender roles.” So you can legally decide you are a woman today even if you have an XY chromosome pattern and outdoor plumbing?

I agree that traditional marriage does not have the societal support it once had and thus marriage becomes weaker as these underpinnings disappear. However what is the advantage to society, to children, to our country’s strength to re-define marriage? It is simply the selfish desires of adults who want to play let’s pretend…that two men equal a man and a woman…that we can have a normal parental relationship with children…that we don’t need to resort to dehumanizing methods to breed or buy children so we can pretend we are a mommy and a daddy.

Quite honestly it’s their souls at stake and if they don’t care, neither do I. But the homosexual agenda is destructive to my Church and to its mission. The activists (which I believe are the minority but they are a LOUD minority) want to force this lifestyle choice upon those who vehemently disagree. If they simply wanted to live and let live,…go for it. but when they sue private businesses for ginned up charges, when they want to force the Church to accommodate them, well I can’t agree to live and let live.

As to your first two statements I have absolutely no confusion. I don’t believe you choose sexual orientation but that is totally irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage. The protection is not for the orientation. Those with same sex attraction (orientation) have married the opposite sex, had children and lived relatively ordinary lives like any other married couple. Whatever went on privately between them was kept private (as EVERYONE’S sex life should be). OTOH you have activists who have chosen to behave in a certain way, who have chosen to engage in certain sexual activities that they think defines them and as a result demand that we accommodate their behavior to the point of upturning an established social norm. They aren’t trying to protect what they are as for example with blacks, they are trying to protect what they DO. Thus it is not an equivalent crusade.

Lisa

 

[BigBlueCane]

Marital relations is a euphemism for sexual intercourse with the intended anatomical parts which, by differentiated sex, fit together. (Traditional sexual intercourse, not merely “sexual practices.”)

Well that depends on who you ask because the sexual intercourse that occurs between homosexuals is exactly the same intercourse that can be practiced between a heterosexual couple as well. In strict medical terms sexual intercourse encompasses more than “traditional sexual intercourse.”

 

[LisaA]

Well that depends on who you ask because the sexual intercourse that occurs between homosexuals is exactly the same intercourse that can be practiced between a heterosexual couple as well. In strict medical terms sexual intercourse encompasses more than “traditional sexual intercourse.”

You claim to be a Catholic so hopefully you have an understanding of what is referred to as the marital embrace. This is to be open to life (children) with the potential to create life even if a pregnancy does not result.

Two men or two women cannot engage in a marital embrace. They cannot create a new life between them. There is exactly ZERO potential for life when two men or two women engage in homosexual activity.

Despite all of the Leftist “equality” baloney you cannot put two men or two women together and have equivalence of a husband and wife. It’s not the same biologically, physically, emotionally or theologically.

Get the difference?

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well that depends on who you ask because the sexual intercourse that occurs between homosexuals is exactly the same intercourse that can be practiced between a heterosexual couple as well.

It “can” be practiced but it is not traditional sexual intercourse (which means different genders with the differentiated anatomical parts which most people learn in biology class).

What you’re speaking of is a sexual practice which involves penetration. Penetration of one object by another can be achieved in numerous ways, most of which do not fit the definition of sexual intercourse.

Intercourse is not just penetration.

And this is a family website and it should not be necessary to parse words.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Two men or two women cannot engage in a marital embrace. They cannot create a new life between them. There is exactly ZERO potential for life when two men or two women engage in homosexual activity.

So what? The law does not say you must create a child in order for your marriage to be valid. Otherwise there would be a lot of impotent married couples in trouble.

Despite all of the Leftist “equality” baloney you cannot put two men or two women together and have equivalence of a husband and wife. It’s not the same biologically, physically, emotionally or theologically.

Get the difference?

Lisa

Actually it is the same biologically, its 99% the same physically, its the same emotionally. The only place where its not the same is theologically which is not a concern of the law. Bottom line it is equality and its freedom. Freedom to love whoever you want to love and devote yourself to whoever you want to devote yourself to. Unlike righties, the left truly believes in limited government intrusion in personal lives.

 

[TEPO]

Catholics are called to uphold Catholic law above any other law. Whether you’re a ‘lefty’ or a ‘righty’.

 

[LisaA]

So what? The law does not say you must create a child in order for your marriage to be valid. Otherwise there would be a lot of impotent married couples in trouble.

Actually it is the same biologically, its 99% the same physically, its the same emotionally. The only place where its not the same is theologically which is not a concern of the law. Bottom line it is equality and its freedom. Freedom to love whoever you want to love and devote yourself to whoever you want to devote yourself to. Unlike righties, the left truly believes in limited government intrusion in personal lives.

Your lack of understanding of Catholic teaching is apparent. You must be OPEN TO LIFE through the marital embrace. If you had read my post you would have seen this statement and the specific that a pregnancy does not have to result. But the act must be open to life, thus the prohibition of ABC.

If you think normal male/female sex is the same biologically or physically, I sure can’t help you. That is beyond laughable to make that claim. Since you claim to have no homosexual inclinations, how do you know the equivalence of the physical and emotional result? Do you have any idea how these sexual practices can compromise physical health?

And we burned your strawman a few posts ago. He’s dead and you can’t bring him back to life. NO ONE SAYS YOU CANNOT LOVE WHOMEVER YOU WANT. When you find this quote please let us know. The point is we dont want to have anything to do with others personal lives. We do not care where they do as long as it’s legal, no minors or prostitution. You have to quit the strawman technique…it’s just so very useless here.

Lisa

 

[JimG]

Well that depends on who you ask because the sexual intercourse that occurs between homosexuals is exactly the same intercourse that can be practiced between a heterosexual couple as well. In strict medical terms sexual intercourse encompasses more than “traditional sexual intercourse.”

No doubt medical professionals are puzzling over those startling anatomical differences between men and women. What could they possibly mean? Someone will have to do a study, preferably a Harvard anthropologist, to figure out what it’s all about. Such matters are beyond us ordinary folk. In the meantime, let’s just ignore them.

 

[epan]

Please read JimG’s recent reply. Marital relations in its standard definition means one thing: traditional sexual intercourse between two different sexes. (I hear ya’, Jim, I hear ya’. )

Note: Nobody “excluded” foreplay. (As in before.)

standard definition.

you contradict yourself. it was a euphemism. now, it’s a standard.

but i should apologize. i was just trying to inject some humor. i think we all have a sense of what “marital relations” means.

 

[LisaA]

No doubt medical professionals are puzzling over those startling anatomical differences between men and women. What could they possibly mean? Someone will have to do a study, preferably a Harvard anthropologist, to figure out what it’s all about. Such matters are beyond us ordinary folk. In the meantime, let’s just ignore them.

I think BBC jumped the shark with that one!

Lisa

 

[epan]

Hmm, does the law consider that a man and women are equal in the matter of pregnancy and in the ability to give birth? Or does the law simply dismiss that as a biological but not a legal distinction?

Now I realize that in some places the law would like to erase the distinction between mother and father. But that’s just another sign of the law on a collision course with reality.

I think that the law does not concern itself with that.

But I am no lawyer. Are you making a point that I am missing?

 

[BigBlueCane]

Your lack of understanding of Catholic teaching is apparent. You must be OPEN TO LIFE through the marital embrace. If you had read my post you would have seen this statement and the specific that a pregnancy does not have to result. But the act must be open to life, thus the prohibition of ABC.

A sterile couple is not open to life biologically.

If you think normal male/female sex is the same biologically or physically, I sure can’t help you. That is beyond laughable to make that claim. Since you claim to have no homosexual inclinations, how do you know the equivalence of the physical and emotional result? Do you have any idea how these sexual practices can compromise physical health?

Heterosexual sex compromises physical health all the time and I don’t mean STD’s. As far as how I know is because I know homosexuals and I have seen how they act with one another. The only difference is that they are of the same sex. Other than that everything else is the same. Same problems, same joy, same love.

And we burned your strawman a few posts ago. He’s dead and you can’t bring him back to life. NO ONE SAYS YOU CANNOT LOVE WHOMEVER YOU WANT. When you find this quote please let us know. The point is we dont want to have anything to do with others personal lives. We do not care where they do as long as it’s legal, no minors or prostitution. You have to quit the strawman technique…it’s just so very useless here.

Lisa

So if you don’t care then why do you care so much about secular gay marriage? No one is asking the church to accept it. They just want to be legally married and recognized under the law like anyone else. Why does it bother you so much to see that happen? How does that affect you at all?