Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[larkin31]

Don’t take this the wrong way, but if you’re really offended by the extremes of gay culture, why did you turn up at an event to view leather boys and lewd queens on floats?

Indeed.

If Catholicism offended me, I would not be here at CA…

 

[JDaniel]

Don’t take this the wrong way, but if you’re really offended by the extremes of gay culture, why did you turn up at an event to view leather boys and lewd queens on floats?

No offense taken. I might be gay. You don’t know. Wouldn’t you be surprised?

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

That’s false. Take a good look at San Francisco. I rest my case!

God bless,
jd

HA

I was there a month ago, in the city, everywhere. What claim would you like to make about it? Let’s trade first-hand descriptions of San Francisco…

By the way, Provincetown in the summer is worse. I have been there, too.

 

[nguirado]

But it has nothing to do with gay marriage. You associated it in a cause-effect manner with decline in marriage rates, which is specious. Marriage is an ancient institution that has lost its protective purpose in countries that have economic mobility and strong legal protections for women and for children. Persons continue to pair and mate and cohabitate for love, for money, for protection, for children–and most of them marry. But as the legal distinctions and between married pairs and unmarried pairs lessen and the protective advantage of marriage lessens, then more and more folks will find cohabitation a viable alternative.

You think marriage is superfluous. It’s a way to show how much you care. I think (meaningful, purposeful) marriage is essential to society and we should support it through the state for that reason. That’s the difference between people who support traditional marriage and most people on the SSM side (except for those schemers who want to transform society- more).

 

[JDaniel]

HA

I was there a month ago, in the city, everywhere. What claim would you like to make about it? Let’s trade first-hand descriptions of San Francisco…

By the way, Provincetown in the summer is worse. I have been there, too.

Haven’t been there, but, I’ve been to New Hope. Small, so it can’t compare to San Fran. It has been about six years since I was in San Fran. I do like the park, but, I don’t like the waterfront.

God bless,
jd

 

[larkin31]

You think marriage is superfluous.

No, I don’t. And never suggested such. Why would you misrepresent what I think in this way?

It’s a way to show how much you care. I think (meaningful, purposeful) marriage is essential to society and we should support it through the state for that reason

So do I.

That’s the difference between people who support traditional marriage and most people on the SSM side

No, I think you are wrong. Gays who want to be married VALUE MARRIAGE.

 

[larkin31]

Haven’t been there, but, I’ve been to New Hope. Small, so it can’t compare to San Fran. It has been about six years since I was in San Fran. I do like the park, but, I don’t like the waterfront.

God bless,
jd

We’re talking gay marriage here, and gay culture and values, etc. Do you have nothing to say about these in SF after stating that SF made your case so strong that you could “rest” after simply naming it?

 

[JDaniel]

We’re talking gay marriage here, and gay culture and values, etc. Do you have nothing to say about these in SF after stating that SF made your case so strong that you could “rest” after simply naming it?

Nah. It sounded as though you wanted to change the temper of the conversation, so I dropped out. As you grow older, you’ll begin to see that there are some worth fighting for.
Anyway, good talking with ya.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Larkin

No, I think you are wrong. Gays who want to be married VALUE MARRIAGE.

What would they value it for that they cannot get just by living together, sharing expenses, and bequeathing their estates to each other?

Most of them are not religious. The ones who pretend to be religious know it is against every church but those taken over by gays, such as the Church of England. There must be an agenda that lies at the bottom of the demand for marital rights. As I said above, adoption of same-sex children would be at the top of that list of rights they will demand.

Pity the children they will adopt.

 

[larkin31]

Nah. It sounded as though you wanted to change the temper of the conversation, so I dropped out. As you grow older, you’ll begin to see that there are some worth fighting for.
Anyway, good talking with ya.

God bless,
jd

I’m 50. You?

 

[colmcille1]

I am not gay. Just extremely open minded. Living in NYC, I to have occasionally seen some pretty outrageous things. But they often seem similar to what a lot of young people do when flaunting their identities and individuality.
I think many of those gays that act that way are responding to the psychological affects of their marginalization and oppression. They are saying; “You think I am a freak. Okay I’ll show you how outrageous I can be”. Some I would agree go a bit over the top. But would it be better for them to accept a view that they really are sick and should hide their heads in shame? They are simply defending their right to be.
You would find that if actually treated with total acceptance in society that the incidence of the kind of outrageousness you deplore would actually decrease. The call for gay marriage is really for some a plea for acceptance. Many want to live the same kind of life you do. But we in our ignorance and persistence in clinging to antiquated belief systems will not let them.

Hi mcteague,
Take it from a real Irishman: you are talking absolute nonsense!
You said in one post that it stirred your “Irish” blood to see a minority under siege, as it were. If you know anything about your history or had the proper pride to speak of it, you would know that Irishmen have always showed great courage in fighting for great and just causes.
And you would list gay “marriage” as such a cause?! Give me a break!
You demonstrate how infantile your grip is by stating “the incidence of the kind of outrageousness you deplore would actually decrease”!!! Gay “marriage” is a contradiction in terms. And you reckon that traditional marriage is an “antiquated belief”?
No, it is your deluded view of marriage that’s the problem here.
And I’m going to presume you are a non-believer. Still, I will leave you with the words to be heard spoken by many true Irish folks (and maybe you’ll think about said words and come back “home”).
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mcteague

But would it be better for them to accept a view that they really are sick and should hide their heads in shame?

Should a son who regularly has sex with his mother view himself as sick and hide his head in shame? Should he flaunt his perversion and demand the legal right to marry his mother?

If you buy that, then I can see why you are also for same sex marriage. No common sense there.

 

[mcteague]

Hi mcteague,
Take it from a real Irishman: you are talking absolute nonsense!
Cut
Colmcille.

First, please note that I never refer to myself as Irish rather than Irish American. I consider it somewhat disrespectful. So I would appreciate your not sticking your hairy chest out it me.
The post I replied to implied that because only a minority of vocal gays support gay marriage that it is not a legitimate cause.
You say you are Irish. I would assume the years 1798 and 1916 might noteworthy to you. The rebellions occurring in each of those years did not gain the level of popular support hoped for. Would you argue that they were not legitimate causes? And it does not matter what you or I think. It only matters if gays supporting marriage believe it.

I did not say that marriage was antiquated. Some of the views about homosexuality expressed should long ago been swept into histories dust pan.

The argument about acceptance decreasing certain behavior is based on my observations of psychology. I did not say it would eliminate it; only that in many cases it would decrease.

Returning to Ireland for a moment. When Connelly was a labor leader in America before returning to Ireland he never based his support of causes on religious beliefs or sexual orientation of those involved. Perhaps it is you that requires a lesson in your own history.

 

[colmcille1]

First, please note that I never refer to myself as Irish rather than Irish American. I consider it somewhat disrespectful. So I would appreciate your not sticking your hairy chest out it me.

You referred to your blood as “Irish”. So now you are backpeddling on this?

The post I replied to implied that because only a minority of vocal gays support gay marriage that it is not a legitimate cause.

It is NOT a legitimate cause. Can’t you see that?

You say you are Irish. I would assume the years 1798 and 1916 might noteworthy to you. The rebellions occurring in each of those years did not gain the level of popular support hoped for. Would you argue that they were not legitimate causes?

If you are seriously trying to put these events from Irish history on the same philosphical platform as gay “marriage”, then I cannot reply to you. It’s beneath contempt.

And it does not matter what you or I think. It only matters if gays supporting marriage believe it.

**So it does not matter to you about the issues other posters have raised re the adoption of children into a gay “marriage”? **

I did not say that marriage was antiquated. Some of the views about homosexuality expressed should long ago been swept into histories dust pan.

If it doesen’t matter what you think about gay “marriage”, why are you so concerned about so-called “views on homosexuality”? Do you see how your thinking is self-serving here?

The argument about acceptance decreasing certain behavior is based on my observations of psychology. I did not say it would eliminate it; only that in many cases it would decrease.

**Well thank God “psychology” does not hold sway over life. More backpeddling re behaviour of vocal gays. No, the truth is, they would be more vociferous with each “victory”. **

Returning to Ireland for a moment. When Connelly was a labor leader in America before returning to Ireland he never based his support of causes on religious beliefs or sexual orientation of those involved. Perhaps it is you that requires a lesson in your own history.

Connelly was an advocate of socialism. The biggest most important political development of the 20th century was the death of socialism. End of story.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[mcteague]

Connelly was an advocate of socialism. The biggest most important political development of the 20th century was the death of socialism. End of story.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

I am arguing that you can not equate apparent popular support with legitamacy. That is all
I have not once said that any off these events are equal. Only that this issue should not be held to a different standard.
By the way, not really back peddling blood is blood.

 

[colmcille1]

I am arguing that you can not equate apparent popular support with legitamacy. That is all
I have not once said that any off these events are equal. Only that this issue should not be held to a different standard.
By the way, not really back peddling blood is blood.

If they are not equal, why should this issue be given an equal standard?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[mcteague]

If they are not equal, why should this issue be given an equal standard?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

An equal standard of in the reason applied to our discussion about them. You can not say that gay marriage is illegitimate because of lack of popular support, but those other things are legitimate when they also lacked it. It is a biased analysis, and should be rejected. We should hold like things to the same standard. These are like in the sense a claim was made that lack of popular support proves illegitamacy. The examples given prove that assertion false. There may be valid reasons to oppose gay marriage. But illegitamacy argued because of lack of majority support is not a valid argument

 

[Betterave]

Well if that’s the case, condoms should be made illegal. By not making them ilegal, the government is promoting indifference to an objectively evil act.

When you approach a question like this, you can’t just deal in moral absolutes and think that the ideal government is the one that will maximally compel moral behavior. Government promotes the common good within the context of a particular understanding of society, of the common good. It would not be wrong for condoms to be illegal, but government is often not well-placed to be a moral leader or reformer. Changes often have to take place in society before it is possible for just laws to be implemented and enforced relative to a given issue. The issue of condoms being made illegal is a bit of an absurd one, given that governments are currently often major condom pushers. We should not accept the government’s position on condoms, but we shouldn’t therefore leap into campaigning for condoms being made illegal - that is simply absurd in the context of most contemporary societies.

NOT changing the generally accepted definition of marriage is a very different matter, obviously.

 

[Betterave]

An equal standard of in the reason applied to our discussion about them. You can not say that gay marriage is illegitimate because of lack of popular support, but those other things are legitimate when they also lacked it. It is a biased analysis, and should be rejected. We should hold like things to the same standard. These are like in the sense a claim was made that lack of popular support proves illegitamacy. The examples given prove that assertion false. There may be valid reasons to oppose gay marriage. But illegitamacy argued because of lack of majority support is not a valid argument

You are correct on this point. I think that if you look at the rhetoric on this issue, however, you will notice something interesting: there is an awful lot of this kind of comparison to other minority movements that have become mainstream in order to legitimate the issue, especially the comparison to racism. But this kind of appeal is just an emotional one to make people feel bad, because they feel bad about racism. There is very little to actually substantiate the parallel to discrimination based on race, or based on religion for that matter. That is my assertion, anyway, to which I invite you to tell me what the parallel is, other than the one you’ve mentioned - starting off as a minority movement (I would think there are more charlatan minority movements than ‘righteous’ ones.)

BTW, you claimed you are open-minded, and you do in fact appear to be the most open-minded SSM proponent I have come across on these forums.

 

[mcteague]

You are correct on this point. I think that if you look at the rhetoric on this issue, however, you will notice something interesting: there is an awful lot of this kind of comparison to other minority movements that have become mainstream in order to legitimate the issue, especially the comparison to racism. But this kind of appeal is just an emotional one to make people feel bad, because they feel bad about racism. There is very little to actually substantiate the parallel to discrimination based on race, or based on religion for that matter. That is my assertion, anyway, to which I invite you to tell me what the parallel is, other than the one you’ve mentioned - starting off as a minority movement (I would think there are more charlatan minority movements than ‘righteous’ ones.)

BTW, you claimed you are open-minded, and you do in fact appear to be the most open-minded SSM proponent I have come across on these forums.

Thank you for the compliment. I am actually working this weekend. I will reply more fully to both of your replies to me when I can. But I will say something briefly now.
A few years ago I was watching the old movie “Inherit the wind” with Spencer Tracey playing the Clarence Darrow type character. Anyway there is this one character; the preacher. Early in the movie he all fire and brimstone; yelling about sin and damnation. But later on there is this scene where his daughter tells him that she is in love with the man on trial for teaching evolution. Well he just pretty much falls to pieces. But in a quite more personal way. He is down on knees begging God to forgive his daughter. Tears streaming down face because he feels he let her down, and he knows she is going to hell because of his failings.
Now I don’t particularly believe in creationism. But the fact is this preacher character clearly does. He really believes in the damnation of hell for sinners. It does not seem to me that should be thinking about how much smarter I may or may not be than this guy. Or which conception of creation is most logically valid. I empathize and feel for this mans pain and suffering because I see that it is real. I extend myself to see the world from his eyes.
I am not sure if we really need to come up with some proof why gays should be considered an oppressed minority. Unless we are talking about treating them differently, as in a special way from other people. To me Gay marriage does not do that. It simply treats them as other people are already treated. It seems that it should be a rather small thing to give.
And although I do also have empathy for the feelings of people opposed to it. And I do think homosexuality is more complicated than some gay rights advocates admit. Still, I have to compare these things in there relative good or harm. It does not seem that hard a choice. Partly because I believe many of the legitimate concerns, not all opponents of gay marriage of homophobic nuts, will be shown be not a serious than some currently believe.