Response to gay marriage video?

[neat62]

Genesian;

Yes, I am lucky. Your point is moot. I’m not a Boy Scout, and I live in the United States in 2008.

My point is moot? LOL Hardly. You just brushed it off. You should have a little respect for the societal institutions that allow you be free to practice your religion.

The basic tenets of the Faith have not, but its attitudes and practices have. They do not evolve on their own, no, but they do evolve through Divine revelation.

In what context are you defining: Progressive

Don’t twist the Catechism to fit your personal politics. By CCC 2267, capital punishment is NOT moral in the United States, nor in any industrialized country.

Sorry?

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

No kidding. The Conservative political engine couldn’t care less for the CCC or Catholicism at all. All it’s interested in is votes and money.

I don’t think so. And even if that were 100% true, it goes just as much for the Liberals as well. But the Iraq war did concur with CCC 2309

So what?

A party is known by it’s majority beliefs. And the majority beliefs are what define the party and it’s members. Not everyone in a party agree 100% with the planks of their platforms, but the majority opinions are what define it. Liberals support abortions.(not all, but most) Conservative do not support abortions.(Not all, but most) So that is why painting with a broad brush is legitimate.

Repeating this does not make it applicable. And not all Nazis were German. Some of them were Austrian, like Hitler.

Since you do not like to generalize, I guess in WW2 we were at war with Nazis, not Germany, even though the entire planet agrees with that generalization. I guess when fighting the Germans, we should have asked if they were Nazis before we bombed them. Generalizing when based on a majority, is 100% applicable.

 

[rpp]

I saw the video and I thought it was biased. "The Bible also says shell fish is an abominaI mean its not like Christianity cannot justify why shell fish is okay but sodomy isn’t…

Anyway I thought it was funny in general.

As for the politics involved here is my standard responce:

It’s easy to make passionate claims on here without any evidence to back it up so for all you U.S. citizens out their who wish to read scholarly peer-reviewed findings related to the issue of gay-marriage, parenting, relationships, ect. I suggest marriagedebate.com, familyfacts.org, as well as heritage.org

The link below directs you to a 39 page argument from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal which argues for why gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage. I HIGHLY suggest reading it.

marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf

The above is actually critiquing the majority opinion in the Massachusettes case that allowed same-sex marriage; for something that gets to the point try…
What is Marriage For? The Public Purpose of Marriage Law

For all you people out their who believe that gay and lesbian relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships I suggest reading…http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/353528.pdf

**“Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence from Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting, and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples” **

Source:** Kurdek, Lawrence A. Journal of Marriage and the Family Vol. 60, Number . August, 1998. Page(s) 553-568.**

Findings: Compared with heterosexual cohabiting or married couples, male homosexual couples and lesbian couples were more likely to experience the dissolution of a cohabiting relationship.
Sample or Data Description: 236 married, 66 gay cohabiting, and 51 lesbian cohabiting couples from two separate longitudinal studies.
**
Gay Parenting?**

I suggest reading Do Mothers and Fathers Matter?

The HTML link is located Here for copy and paste.

As well as** No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting**

Can you trust the Studies relating to gay parenting?
**
** Report on Homosexual Parenting Shown to be Biased

The link to Dr. Quick’s analyses in the article is broken **here **is the proper link.
I understand its a lot of reading but this is what separates the educated from the ignorant. Its your choice but if you support or oppose gay marriage you will benefit greatly from reading the links I have posted.

If you want specific studies for a particular concern just PM me and I’ll see if I have it saved on my computer somewhere. And if the links don’t work PM me your e-mail and I’ll attach the file for you to read.

This might also interest you…

**[Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex „Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden](http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Divorce-Risk+Patterns+in+Same-Sex+Marriages+in+Norway+and+Sweden%22Andersson%2C+Gunnar&fr=ffds1&u=www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-)**

Based on data from legally registered same-sex partnerships in Sweden, homosexual male couples were 1.5 times as likely (50 percent more likely) to “divorce” as married opposite-sex couples. Lesbian couples were 2.67 times as likely (167 percent more likely) to “divorce” as heterosexual married couples over a similar period of time. When controls for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce were added to the analysis, male homosexual couples were 1.35 times as likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as heterosexual married couples were.
**
Sample or Data Description:** Longitudinal information from population registers in Norway and Sweden
**
Source: **Andersson, Gunnar, Noack, Turid, Seierstad, Ane, and Weedon-Fekjaer, Harald Working Paper Vol. Presented at Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Number . April 1-3, 2004. Page(s) 1-28.

Thank you! Lots of good information here. Not just assertions with no facts.

 

[pathia]

Thank you! Lots of good information here. Not just assertions with no facts.

Most of these are in pay-for-publish journals, so…I’m not sure what to say to that. They generally aren’t considered reputable sources of science.

Meanwhile I’ll continue to live with my partner of 9years, with our roommates who have been together for 25 and regularly socialize with our friends down the street who are in their 70’s and been together for about 50years

 

[neat62]

Most of these are in pay-for-publish journals, so…I’m not sure what to say to that. They generally aren’t considered reputable sources of science.

Meanwhile I’ll continue to live with my partner of 9years, with our roommates who have been together for 25 and regularly socialize with our friends down the street who are in their 70’s and been together for about 50years

Nobody’s points are based on you alone, Panthia. And a handful does not represent a majority.

 

[rpp]

Most of these are in pay-for-publish journals, so…I’m not sure what to say to that. They generally aren’t considered reputable sources of science.

Meanwhile I’ll continue to live with my partner of 9years, with our roommates who have been together for 25 and regularly socialize with our friends down the street who are in their 70’s and been together for about 50years

Riiiight. Please show some proof for your assertions.

 

[pathia]

Riiiight. Please show some proof for your assertions.

I would suggest wthrockmorton.com/ He is a christian therapist who uses much less invasive and demanding methods of trying to cure homosexuality, he also will help folks work towards chastity if they wish. He actively debunks both sides of the debate when either side distorts data.

Every single one of those sites is a Christian or religious based site. I see no scientific peer review anywhere. Most of the links don’t even work for one. As for this Dr. Quick, I can’t find ANYTHING anywhere on him/her. There are multiple Dr. Quick’s, but none of them seem to have anything to do with these studies, which I cannot find either outside of these biased sites.

 

[pathia]

“Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)

· “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality,” Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)

· “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)

All three of these studies have been pulled from the FRC’s website with no explanation. They’ve been repeatedly criticized because Cameron has a rather dubious history. Now they’re just gone, completely. I will actually have to applaud them for doing this, unless their webmaster just made a mistake or something.

 

[urban-hermit]

funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

Somebody sent me this link, and asked me to watch and tell them what I thought. Considering they already know exactly what I think about this issue, they were clearly trying to make an argument for gay marriage based on this video.

So my question is, how should I respond? If I’m going to say it is sinful (he claims to be a Christian), where in the Bible is this supported? And I have seen passages about it in the Old Testament, but many things in the Old Testament are negated because the prophecies have been fulfilled and what not. So how do we know which ones remain?

Hi Christopher - sorry for the late response.

I agree with another poster who said just keep it on the factual level.

Maybe share a laugh with your friend about one or two humorous points in the video, or else comment on how well Doogie Howser is singing and dancing these days, but then actually examine the words that are said in the video and address them, point by point.

They are really the same old falsehoods that keep getting put forth by those who want to re-define marriage.

I wrote down the first few “arguments” made in the video:

---

Christians (C): “… It’s time to spread some hate, let’s put it in the constitution (“HOW?”) - Proposition 8!”

C: “They’ll teach kids about sodomy.”

(short voting booth segment shows Prop 8 is upheld/marriage is not re-defined)

Sex Radicals (SR): [regarding sodomy] “It isn’t true - that’s a lie!”

C: “But it worked, so we don’t care.”

SR: “our love’s not a sin”

C: “Well the Bible says it’s so”

Jack Black appears (is he really that fat?), portraying Jesus:

“Well the Bible says a lotta things, ya know?”

C: “Jesus, doesn’t the Bible say these people are an abomination?”

Jack Black: Well the Bible also says shellfish are an abomination …

---

Regarding the shellfish canard, Catholic Answers has a good resource refuting that false analogy HERE, as well as a lengthy special report on the folly of re-defining marriage to make it also mean homosexual partnerships HERE:

But my favorite Bible passage regarding marriage is in Mark 10, and they are the words of Our Lord Himself (although I did a little highlighting).

But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
Mark 10

 

[urban-hermit]

Here is another excellent link.
What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples legally “marry”?

 

[Newbie2]

Not all marriages are done in a Church. But even if the gays get Civil Unions, they will call them marriages. Plus, one day, the Church will be forced to marry gay’s.

If you think that we can withstand this Liberal onslaught, you better think again.

You think? Things will have to be really, really bad for this to happen…but you’re right, we’re certainly headed in that direction.

 

[Exalt]

I watched a few minutes of the link you included. I didn’t have the sound on

Why are you even posting? Jeez. At least take the liberty of listening to what you are supposed to be responding to.

Marriage is an institution by which one man and one woman commit their lives to one another so that they can procreate children who wil have a mom and a dad. It has worked well since the dawn of civilization. No society has attempted to mess with it much until now.

This is actually incorrect. Human civilization has redefined what “marriage” means countless times in the past. The concept of marriage as a lifelong bond between two loving adults over the age of 18, of any race, of opposite gender, that was freely chosen by both parties is relatively new. Marriages between blacks and whites were not allowed in the United States in many states up until this past century. In the years of slavery in the U.S., Marriages between slaves could be broken if one of the spouses was sent away (their marriage vows included “until death *or distance *do you part”). Marriages primarily based on *love *is also relatively new in the history of civilization - through most of the past two millenia European marriages were more about business than romance. Marriage between just *two *partners is also a change. Polygamy was common and accepted in ancient cultures.

So the issues isn’t that we *can’t *or *shouldn’t *redefine marriage because it is bad in of itself. As a society, we’ve done that countless times. The issue is whether we redefine it now to a lifelong bond between two loving adults over the age of 18, of any race, of *any gender, *that was freely chosen by both parties is relatively new.

That digression aside, the argument the video makes is totally and completely absurd, and is a text book example of the “straw man fallacy.” It offers only two sides to the issue of gay marriage: tolerance (a.k.a. hagiograpy of the gay lifestyle) or bigotry. There are, in fact, other views. The video makes the assertion that the motivating factor behind Proposition 8 was hatred, which is simply not true.

Actually, the position of the mock conservatives in the video was that they were against Proposition 8 because the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. I’ll quote from the video:

Mock Conservatives: “People listen to our plea: They’ll teach our kids about sodomy!”
…
Liberals: “But our love isn’t sin!”
Conservatives: “The Bible says it’s so!”

Then Mock-Jesus comes out and tells the group about how the Bible says “alot of things” and names off a bunch of things the Bible condemns.

That’s not a straw man. The Pro-Prop 8 groups constantly talked about how this would lead to homosexuality being “taught in schools.” As far as personal reasons go, the justification is that it’s against Christian, scripture-inspired values. As I said, this is not a straw man but a basically accurate rendering of the conservative position.

One day, the Church will be forced to marry gay’s.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05021005.html

*(And a bunch of other links that take up a bunch of space that were all basically about similiar things: Churches freely deciding to wed same sex couples.) *

In the United States, the first amendment protects you from that.

Also, all those links to news articles you posted were about how a given church freely chose to marry gay people. They were not forced by the government.

 

[Exalt]

The link below directs you to a 39 page argument from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal which argues for why gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage.

marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf

Finally, someone on the CAF who actually does his research.

The docment produced by Maggie Gallagher argues that Same-Sex Marriage will weaken marriage as a societial instituion. Why? Well, her basic argument looks at the legal history of marriage in the United States and maps out why it exists. It’s role has changed slightly over the years (e.g., it is no longer used to legalize sex, as fornication and sodomy are no longer illegal) - but Gallagher argues that there is one major role that Western marriage has always served. Namely, the production of children. Marriage primarily is used to give a legal and social framework for the rearing of children in a heterosexual relationship.

However, Gallagher goes on to say that we will redefine marriage to put the emphasis *away *from the rearing of children, because same-sex couples cannot reproduce themselves. Children do best when reared by thier own father and their own mother, and any change to our legal system that would make that less likely would cause harm. What remains unclear is this: How does the marriage of a gay woman to a gay woman affect the decision of a straight man and woman to get married and have children? Is it collective? Will most straight men and women look at marriage, see that it doesn’t have a big emphasis on child-rearing, and decide not to get married or have children?

It’s a very fuzzy connection she’s making, and I don’t think she makes her case simply because of the following: Marriages have been permitted between infertile and elderly couples for a very long time. It has **not **weakened the major role of marriage as a legal framework for child-rearing. Why? Probably because marriages between such people are quite rare. And guess what? Same-sex marriage will be rare too. Also, infertile and same sex couples can still adopt children, and the marriage will give the relationship between both married parents and their son/daughter social recognition and a legal framework. Though this may not be ideal for the child, we don’t live in an ideal world. Some kids will *always *need to be adopted, and studies have demonstrated that they *can *do pretty good in the right foster home, even a same-sex foster home.

Also, Gallagher devotes a pretty big chunk of her paper to the following: When same-sex marriage becomes common, and it’s prohibition as silly/offensive as the prohibition of interracial marriage, Churches will be punished for not marrying gays.

Of course, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would prevent infringements on the Church’s right to marry or not marry whoever they like.

Finally, Gallagher says that those who advocate heterosexual marriage will be ridiculed as bigots. Well, that’s just silly. If you’re straight and someone says that a heterosexual marriage and the rearing of children is best for you, I don’t think anyone will call you a bigot. If you’re teaching a history or civics or sociology class and you talk about the role of marriage primarily as a means of rearing children, I don’t think anyone will call you a bigot then, either. Gallagher, in this sense, seems to be throwing things a little out of proportion.

In conclusion: I remain unconvinced that marriage will be “weakened” to any noticeable extent by the legalization of same-sex marriage, any more than it’s weakened by the presence of infertile couples. The primary role of marriage as a vessel for the rearing of children is still there and will continue to be there for a long time. Why? Marriages between same-sex couples just won’t be common enough to warrant a complete change at that particular role of marriage - that’s the same reason that marriages between very old and infertile couples haven’t *already *redefined marriage in that sense. Though small changes may be made to the language of marriage, legally speaking (e.g., referring to Party A and Party B instead of Husband and Wife), Gallagher just doesn’t make her case that the legalization of same-sex marriage will cause traditional, heterosexual marriage to break down.

But maybe I’m wrong and maybe it will slightly weaken the role of marriage in that sense. What do we gain by making same-sex marriage legal? Well, we grant our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, and friends who happen to be gay an option to chose a committed, life-long, monogamous relationship, with the possibility of adoption within that relationship. We offer their love some stability, social recognition, and a legal framework. That offer, of course, comes with a great deal of risk. All marriages have a statistical 50/50 chance of failure, and it’s possible that for various reasons gay couples have an even higher chance of failure. But, at least we gave them that risk. At least we gave them the opportunity - instead of guaranteeing their failure by not giving them a chance.

 

[Awful_Things]

Also, Gallagher devotes a pretty big chunk of her paper to the following: When same-sex marriage becomes common, and it’s prohibition as silly/offensive as the prohibition of interracial marriage, Churches will be punished for not marrying gays.

Of course, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would prevent infringements on the Church’s right to marry or not marry whoever they like.

Nope. The Surpreme Court has reinterpreted the Constitution more than enough times for your words to offer no comfort. I can point out specific rulings if you’d like. Once gay marriage is legalized, churches will be sued for discrimination for not marrying one of its gay members. I could be wrong, but so could you. Given the possibility at stake, the burden of proof is on your side to offer convincing proof that this wouldn’t happen, as it has in other countries.

Finally, Gallagher says that those who advocate heterosexual marriage will be ridiculed as bigots. Well, that’s just silly. If you’re straight and someone says that a heterosexual marriage and the rearing of children is best for you, I don’t think anyone will call you a bigot. If you’re teaching a history or civics or sociology class and you talk about the role of marriage primarily as a means of rearing children, I don’t think anyone will call you a bigot then, either. Gallagher, in this sense, seems to be throwing things a little out of proportion.

Once gay marriage becomes normalized in textbooks, a child will absolutely be denounced as bigoted for not assenting to this in, say, a public school.

What do we gain by making same-sex marriage legal? Well, we grant our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, and friends who happen to be gay an option to chose a committed, life-long, monogamous relationship, with the possibility of adoption within that relationship.

Why should a faithful Catholic care? Not only does gay marriage contribute nothing to our society, but it is a state of grave sin, which if done with full knowledge and consent, is mortal and damnable. Why would I want to give anyone “option” of Hell? Why would I want to subject any child to just one more example (among abusive relationships and unwed parents) of an unstable set of parents? Why would I want to subject any child to an example of persistant and defiant sin from his role models? Let him grow up in a foster home before being led to sin by two willing and active gay parents.

We offer their love some stability, social recognition, and a legal framework.

Why would a Catholic want to offer any stability and social recognition to a relationship which offers no contribution to society, which is contrary to natural law, which creates a slippery slope of further legalizations, and which is gravely sinful? And if one is concerned about “legal frameworks”, then there are procedures, such as power of attorney that can solve enough of that to matter. Frankly, I’m not concerned about it.

That offer, of course, comes with a great deal of risk. All marriages have a statistical 50/50 chance of failure, and it’s possible that for various reasons gay couples have an even higher chance of failure.

Back that up. Did you get the 50/50 from the simply divorce / no divorce possible outcome? Seriously, I have no idea how you came up with a number that flies in the face of real-world numbers and statistical analysis.

But, at least we gave them that risk. At least we gave them the opportunity - instead of guaranteeing their failure by not giving them a chance.

Don’t know if anyone’s interested in doing a vote on this, but I for one would just as soon guarantee the failure of a grave sin that soaks the benefits of society without contributing to it.

 

[Exalt]

Nope. The Surpreme Court has reinterpreted the Constitution more than enough times for your words to offer no comfort. I can point out specific rulings if you’d like. Once gay marriage is legalized, churches will be sued for discrimination for not marrying one of its gay members. I could be wrong, but so could you. Given the possibility at stake, the burden of proof is on your side to offer convincing proof that this wouldn’t happen, as it has in other countries.

You want me to prove that something won’t happen?

Well, you and I both know that’s not possible. However, the laws of our constitution are clear. The First Amendment prevents the United States government from prohibiting the free exercise of Churches. It is not illegal for Churches to discriminate against couples who (1) have been previously married and are divorced, or (2) couples whom the pastor deems are not suited to be married. If you can find examples where Churches have been successfully prosecuted for denying marriage to any couple for the above reasons, I would be happy to read about it.

Why should a faithful Catholic care? Not only does gay marriage contribute nothing to our society, but it is a state of grave sin, which if done with full knowledge and consent, is mortal and damnable. Why would I want to give anyone “option” of Hell? Why would I want to subject any child to just one more example (among abusive relationships and unwed parents) of an unstable set of parents? Why would I want to subject any child to an example of persistant and defiant sin from his role models? Let him grow up in a foster home before being led to sin by two willing and active gay parents.

Ah, that’s what it’s all about with you. Sin. Of course. You’re out to protect our immortal souls from a God who would have us burn in hell for our transgressions. Well, that’s fine. Believe in that bloodthirsty, angry God if you must.

Why would a Catholic want to offer any stability and social recognition to a relationship which offers no contribution to society, which is contrary to natural law, which creates a slippery slope of further legalizations, and which is gravely sinful? And if one is concerned about “legal frameworks”, then there are procedures, such as power of attorney that can solve enough of that to matter. Frankly, I’m not concerned about it.

Of courseyou’re not concerned about gay people who don’t want to follow the Church’s teachings. You’re a hardcore, conservative Catholic who cares more about people’s souls than their earthly happiness.

“Treat others as you would have them treat you” certainly doesn’t apply here, right? You wouldn’t want to see it from our perspective, and you certainly wouldn’t want to be too concerned about us or our families.

Back that up. Did you get the 50/50 from the simply divorce / no divorce possible outcome? Seriously, I have no idea how you came up with a number that flies in the face of real-world numbers and statistical analysis.

Uh. “Flies in the face” of real-world numbers? Did you even look up those numbers?

The National Center for Health Statistics reported that the marriage rate is 7.5 per 1000 people, and the divorce rate is 3.6 per 1000 people. Using simple fuzzy math, that’s about 50%.
cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

Don’t know if anyone’s interested in doing a vote on this, but I for one would just as soon guarantee the failure of a grave sin that soaks the benefits of society without contributing to it.

So I assume you’d want to make it illegal then, too, right? What other sins would you want to make illegal?

 

[Awful_Things]

You want me to prove that something won’t happen?

Yes, you are the one who stated that it wouldn’t happen. Substantiate that.

Well, you and I both know that’s not possible. However, the laws of our constitution are clear. The First Amendment prevents the United States government from prohibiting the free exercise of Churches. It is not illegal for Churches to discriminate against couples who (1) have been previously married and are divorced, or (2) couples whom the pastor deems are not suited to be married. If you can find examples where Churches have been successfully prosecuted for denying marriage to any couple for the above reasons, I would be happy to read about it.

Sure, I’m off to church in a second, but I’d be happy to find cases where churches have been prosecuted in countries where gay marriage is legal. I will also point out cases where the Surpreme Court has overridden the first amendment. My case is that these two premises together do not point conclusively to the opposite of what you propose, but give good enough reason to suspect that this could happen in America.

Ah, that’s what it’s all about with you. Sin. Of course. You’re out to protect our immortal souls from a God who would have us burn in hell for our transgressions. Well, that’s fine. Believe in that bloodthirsty, angry God if you must.

Absolutely it’s about sin. But not about a bloodthirsty, angry God. I can’t help it if your theology is underdeveloped.

But you forgot my second point about not endorsing an definition of marriage that fails to contribute to the well-being of society.

Of courseyou’re not concerned about gay people who don’t want to follow the Church’s teachings. You’re a hardcore, conservative Catholic who cares more about people’s souls than their earthly happiness.

Yes, you are correct. Not hardcore, “conservative”, but hardcore, obediant.

“Treat others as you would have them treat you” certainly doesn’t apply here, right?

It absolutely does. How much would a person have to hate another person to make it easier for that person to sin? I would hope that you would look out for me enough not to tell me that a sinful behavior is okay. What a set-up that would be.

You wouldn’t want to see it from our perspective, and you certainly wouldn’t want to be too concerned about us or our families.

Once upon a time I did. Anymore, I’m not concerned anymore about accepting your viewpoint than you are about accepting the viewpoint of a pedaphyle or (probably) an incestuous man, both of whom are just looking for happiness.

Uh. “Flies in the face” of real-world numbers? Did you even look up those numbers?

The National Center for Health Statistics reported that the marriage rate is 7.5 per 1000 people, and the divorce rate is 3.6 per 1000 people. Using simple fuzzy math, that’s about 50%.
cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

Excellent point. I’ll concede my sloppy research as the last number I had seen put the numbers at around 44%.

So I assume you’d want to make it illegal then, too, right? What other sins would you want to make illegal?

Actually, no. This is where I would probably find disagreement with a few of the other Catholics in here, which I respect, but the part of me that leans Libertarian isn’t concerned about making immoral acts illegal, per se (with some qualifiers). If Bob and Tom want to willfully sin in Bob’s bedroom, so be it. God gave us free choice to accept or reject him, so why should I revoke that free choice through legislation? However, I won’t take their sexual and romantic attraction as a justification for calling the relationship marriage. Marriage has civil legitimacy because of what it contributes to society. Marriage has religious legitimacy because of its sacramental character. A gay relationship has neither.

 

[Awful_Things]

I’d be happy to find cases where churches have been prosecuted in countries where gay marriage is legal. I will also point out cases where the Surpreme Court has overridden the first amendment. My case is that these two premises together do not point conclusively to the opposite of what you propose, but give good enough reason to suspect that this could happen in America.

What follows is taken from Wikipedia, where the citations are provided:

The Boston Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities adoption services chose to shut down in 2006 rather than comply with state laws demanding arranging adoptions for homosexual couples as well. The charity, which had a state contract for placing special needs children, had previously placed 13 adoptees in homosexual households over the last 20 years. However, the Archdiocese decided it could no longer reconcile the law with a 2003 statement issued by the Vatican that instructed Catholic agencies to not place adoptive children in homosexual households. The state’s four Catholic bishops said the law forced the church to do something it considered immoral. Governor Mitt Romney commented “It’s a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children… I find the current state of the law deeply disturbing and a threat to religious freedom.”[66] Eight members of the Charities’ 42-member board resigned in protest over the bishops’ decision. Recent laws in England have also outlawed the practices of nine Catholic adoption agencies,[67] causing three of the nine agencies to close with the others facing potential legal battles.[68] Catholic Children’s Rescue Service shut down due to the new laws in June 2008, with the leaders complaining of discrimination against Roman Catholics.[69]

In April 2008, Christian Horizons, a Canadian Christian ministry which operates more than 180 government-subsidized care homes for the developmentally disabled, was fined CDN$23,000 by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after former employee Connie Heintz complained of discrimination after she entered a lesbian relationship.[70] Christian Horizons, which receives almost all of its funding from the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, said that she was in violation of a contract which all employees sign to refrain from adultery, fornication, homosexual relationships, or using pornography. The tribunal declared the contract violated employees’ rights, and the group was ordered to abolish the contract and implement a non-discrimination policy.[71]

John Reaney won a case of discrimination after being denied a position in the Church of England after he was told “a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post.” He said such a requirement was biased against him because of his sexual orientation. Ben Summerskill summarized that “The tribunal has rightly made clear that the Church of England cannot discriminate against gay people with impunity. No-one, not even a bishop, is exempt from the law.”[72]

Andrew McClintock resigned from his post as a magistrate on the South Yorkshire Family Panel after a law was passed in Great Britain allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. He filed a legal complaint alleging that he was being discriminated against because his religious beliefs disapproved of homosexual couples adopting. “I felt pushed into a corner,” McClintock said. “I wanted to be sure that I was not risking sending children into same-sex households. As that could not be guaranteed, I felt that I must resign rather than act against my conscience, but I was disappointed that no effort was made to accommodate my Christian beliefs.”[67] Government counsel Adrian Lynch argued that it would be incompatible with the Judicial Oath to allow McClintock to “cherry pick” the laws he wished to apply and those he did not. The Employment Tribunal and an Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected McClintock’s complaint and ruled that he “was duty-bound and obliged by the terms of the Judicial Oath that he had taken to adjudicate on any case which came before him and to decide it in accordance with his Oath and on its merits.”[73] McClintock has filed a further appeal with the Court of Appeal.

Elaine Huguenin was ordered to pay $6,637 in legal fees for refusing to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony while offering her photography services to the public, thus violating the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which specifies that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in such circumstances. Huguenin felt her religious beliefs prevented her from showing a ceremony that she disagreed with in a positive light.[74] While Huguenin cited her religious beliefs, rather than her desire to discriminate, as the prime motivation for her refusal to provide the services she had advertised, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission cited repeated judgements by the U.S. Supreme Court that “the right to free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘vallid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’”[74]

I think the last case is the most concerning as, once a court decides that a church is attempting to proscribe what the law prescribes by denying marriage to two of its baptised, confirmed members, a similar verdict could be reached. Especially striking in that case is that a relatively conservative judge (Scalia) wrote a concurring opinion. For the most recent example of the Supreme Court overriding the 1st amendment, I would think one would refer to The Federal Election Commission v. McConnell (McCain-Feingold).

 

[Exalt]

Sure, I’m off to church in a second, but I’d be happy to find cases where churches have been prosecuted in countries where gay marriage is legal.

That’s not what I said. I said to find me examples of any case where a church was prosecuted for denying to marry either (1) two people whom the pastor did not deem fit for marriage or (2) a couple that had one member who was divorced.

 

[Awful_Things]

That’s not what I said. I said to find me examples of any case where a church was prosecuted for denying to marry either (1) two people whom the pastor did not deem fit for marriage or (2) a couple that had one member who was divorced.

First, as you pointed out, I didn’t respond to that specific request.

Exalt, do you know what a straw man argument is?

I’m sure you do - you’re a bright individual, but for the sake of being thorough, a straw man argument is one in which an individual attacks an artificial and very weak “argument” on his opponent’s side and acts as though he has scored a great victory.

That being said, your point is that the first amendment protects churches. My point is that it does not. I pointed to cases to prove this.

Your point is that there should be no concern on the end of those who want to deny gay marriage because no prosecution of of churches will occur. My point is that you are wrong. Legalizing gay marriage will set up churches for all sorts of prosecution. I’ve done additional research into how this will happen, and it goes way beyond what I had speculated. A very scary picture.

If you want me to expand, I’d be happy to after the kids go to bed tonight. If you want to insist that your straw man approach wins the debate, that’s fine, too.

My point still stands. Legalizing gay marriage adds nothing to society, which removes any civil reason for it to happen. It is not sacramental, which removes any religious significance. And it will lead to discrimination against my church’s right to exercise upon its understanding of faith and morality.

And gay relationships are gravely disordered and sinful, and I care about gay people too much to tempt them into such sin by pretending I approve of such a relationship. You, after all, would never pretend to do the same for a pedophyle’s relationship with his 11 year old girl friend. And probably not (though I could be wrong) for a polygamous relationship. And probably not for insestuous relationships.

But this doesn’t mean you are not concerned about their happiness, does it?

Either way you respond, I want to thank you for dropping the name-calling tactic you tried in earlier posts. Just as I am capable of apologizing for my personal mistakes in this discussion, I’m capable of recognizing personal growth in another.

 

[Exalt]

That being said, your point is that the first amendment protects churches. My point is that it does not. I pointed to cases to prove this. … [The permission of secular gay marriage] will lead to discrimination against my church’s right to exercise upon its understanding of faith and morality.

The POINT of me bringing up the First Amendment is to point out that it would and HAS protected Churches from litigation when it comes to who a Church will or will not marry.

As far as I am aware, NO CHURCH has EVER been successfully prosecuted for not marrying two individuals whom the pastor has deemed unfit to marry.

**THAT was my point **and you have not brought to my attention ANY instance in the United States that has proven me wrong on the very clear terms of the above sentence.

Bringing up OTHER issues, such as employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, or related to issues of adoption are NOT pertinent to this specific conversation. YOUR charge was that Churches would be liable to civil litigation if they do not marry individuals who are of the same gender (In your own words: “Once gay marriage is legalized, churches will be sued for discrimination for not marrying one of its gay members.”) However, RIGHT NOW, Churches can deny marriage to WHOMEVER they wish for WHATEVER reason they like, and you haven’t brought a single example to deny that claim.

…Legalizing gay marriage adds nothing to society, which removes any civil reason for it to happen…

You mentioned putting your children to bed. I assume they’re younger. It’s very possible that one of your children will grow up and actually be gay.

I suppose it really comes down to what kind of life you would prefer your child to have. It’s difficult to know, right now, how you and your spouse would respond. My own parents, after all, were very devout Catholics when they found out.

I suppose, that, as a devout Catholic, you would prefer that your son or daughter live a devout, celibate life. You would like for your child to be a Christian and believe all the Catholic Church’s teachings on everything, including sexuality, and you would therefore expect your child to never engage in any kind of romantic relationship with the same sex. The common understanding of homosexuality is that it is an enduring characteristic (i.e., “therapy” seeking to change one’s sexual orientation is ineffective) - so this would mean a life of celibacy, void of any sexual or romantic relationships.

No first date. No first kiss. No sex. No holding hands. No first girlfriend, or *any *girlfriend. No boyfriend. No bringing home the boyfriend to dinners. No wedding. No marriage. No children (at least not with another parent). No life-long partner to grow old with. No romance, with all it’s particular joys and sorrows, ever. Ever. This absence of romantic love would go on for your child’s entire life.

That’s what you would expect your child to just … accept.

You can imagine that this would be difficult for a human being. As a heterosexual person with children, it is clear to me that you’ve never been faced with this dilemma. It may seem like an easy choice. After all, for a believer, it’s a question of no-romance-on-earth versus no-heaven-for-all-eternity. It *seems *easy.

But, what choice will your child *actually *make, if he or she discovers in his teenage years that he or she is indeed inclined solely towards homosexuality. What if your child *is *gay?

I expect that your child, as with most people, won’t make the choice to live a life of total celibacy, forever. I bet that your child won’t be a devout believer and therefore will take the position of most non-devout people: There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality.

So, given that your child won’t pursue a life of celibacy and *is *gay, what kind of romantic life would you want him or her to have? I imagine that you’d like to have your child to be involved in a monogamous, long-term relationship. Marriage. Would you like the State to have marriage as an option for your child?

We don’t ask that you understand romantic love between two men or two women. As a heterosexual person who has been brought up to believe that homosexuality is wrong, it’s very difficult for you to *understand *us. Our relationships just aren’t the same as heterosexual ones (I’m not saying that they’re *wrong, *just that they’re different).

Furthermore, we don’t ask that you *encourage *our relationships. We don’t ask that you *like *them.

But we *do *ask that you don’t compel the state to put them out.

I don’t expect that you’ll understand. You’re not gay. It’s impossible for you to fully understand our position. But consider if your own child and his or her future was at stake. In fact, it very well could be. Would you want secular marriage under the secular law to be an option? Or not?

 

[Awful_Things]

The POINT of me bringing up the First Amendment is to point out that it would and HAS protected Churches from litigation when it comes to who a Church will or will not marry.

As far as I am aware, NO CHURCH has EVER been successfully prosecuted for not marrying two individuals whom the pastor has deemed unfit to marry.

**THAT was my point **and you have not brought to my attention ANY instance in the United States that has proven me wrong on the very clear terms of the above sentence.

No, but I’ve shown enough precedent for violations of the first amendment to establish the beginning of a slippery slope that could lead there.

Bringing up OTHER issues, such as employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, or related to issues of adoption are NOT pertinent to this specific conversation.

They are now because I’m adding them. They are even more reason to be wary of gay marriage.

YOUR charge was that Churches would be liable to civil litigation if they do not marry individuals who are of the same gender (In your own words: “Once gay marriage is legalized, churches will be sued for discrimination for not marrying one of its gay members.”) However, RIGHT NOW, Churches can deny marriage to WHOMEVER they wish for WHATEVER reason they like, and you haven’t brought a single example to deny that claim.

And now I have several more charges on top of that, and they have been substantiated.

You mentioned putting your children to bed. I assume they’re younger. It’s very possible that one of your children will grow up and actually be gay.

It is possible. It is also possible that one could grow up with homocidal tendancies or an attraction to young children or a tendency to stray on his mate.

I suppose it really comes down to what kind of life you would prefer your child to have. It’s difficult to know, right now, how you and your spouse would respond. My own parents, after all, were very devout Catholics when they found out.

This is exactly why these types of decisions need to be made void of emotional attraction, which pulls us from logic and obligation. After all, one of my own children may murder someone. My emotional reaction would be that I wouldn’t want him to spend his life in a jail cell, but that wouldn’t be the best decision for him or society, would it.

By the way, you keep ignoring the comparisons I make to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia, which can all be substituted in the rest of your post to create an argument on their behalf. I suppose this is the best way for you to win an argument? Besides the straw man tactic, I mean?

I suppose, that, as a devout Catholic, you would prefer that your son or daughter live a devout, celibate life. You would like for your child to be a Christian and believe all the Catholic Church’s teachings on everything, including sexuality, and you would therefore expect your child to never engage in any kind of romantic relationship with the same sex. The common understanding of homosexuality is that it is an enduring characteristic (i.e., “therapy” seeking to change one’s sexual orientation is ineffective) - so this would mean a life of celibacy, void of any sexual or romantic relationships.

Absolutely. Summed up nicely.

No first date. No first kiss. No sex. No holding hands. No first girlfriend, or *any *girlfriend. No boyfriend. No bringing home the boyfriend to dinners. No wedding. No marriage. No children (at least not with another parent). No life-long partner to grow old with. No romance, with all it’s particular joys and sorrows, ever. Ever. This absence of romantic love would go on for your child’s entire life.

And eternity in hell would be his life if he persisted in mortal sin. Absence of romantic love is also the entire life of many good priests I know.

But anyway, let me point out (though you will ignore it), that this is yet another straw man argument. After all, keeping gay marriage from being legal will not prevent gays from having “romantic love”. It’s not legal in Missouri, where I live, but the couple down the street does just fine. After all, as I said, I don’t personally favor illegalizing gay sex or cohabitation. I just refuse to dignify it with the term “marriage”. You know that.

That’s what you would expect your child to just … accept.

With the grace of God, yes.

You can imagine that this would be difficult for a human being.

Of course, as have been my own personal struggles. You are obviously aware of what they are, right? Since you are assuming no empathy on my part? Go ahead and share once again why you assume I can not understand.

As a heterosexual person with children, it is clear to me that you’ve never been faced with this dilemma.

I’m sorry, clarify once again how you have this insight?

It may seem like an easy choice. After all, for a believer, it’s a question of no-romance-on-earth versus no-heaven-for-all-eternity. It *seems *easy.

I never said easy. I would imagine it is extremely difficult. But it is black and white.

However, let me ask again, are you asserting that you know for certain that I and the others who oppose your viewpoint do not have tantamount struggles?