Same-sex Marriage Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arkeaus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arkeaus

Guest
Hello all, I’d like to preface this post by saying that in no way am I meaning to be disrespectful to Catholicism or Christianity in general. I’m genuinely curious as to the mindset of many Catholics on the following;

Background information: I’m a 17 year old gay atheist that grew up in a conservative Catholic household who gradually grew up and away from religion in general. Anyway:

Okay. Gay Marriage. I understand the issues many Christians have with it, but correct me if I’m wrong here - they believe marriage is a sacrament created and officiated by “God” himself, and no human (name removed by moderator)ut can change the divinity of the institution. Many believe that any attempt to alter the traditional definition of one man marries one woman is an offense to “God” himself.

I’m not really sure what to think of this, I guess this is sort of a brain dump. As an atheist, that’s nice of you all to believe in that definition and I don’t fault you for believing as you do. Despite my personal sentiments on this issue, * I believe you have a right to your beliefs. However…

I honestly don’t see how you kind people believe that is your right to use your religious beliefs to dictate how others should live their lives. I’m sorry to be frank, but… I don’t believe that Jesus was a “holy” man. There is evidence for his historical existence, but I honestly do not find him to be any different than other influential figures throughout history that claimed to be divine. I do not believe in the Christian version of a divine “God,” an refuse to live my life as if I do. Just as you all don’t adhere to the customs and doctrine of, for example, Islam, I refuse to adhere to the doctrine of Catholicism. As such, I honestly could care less what the Christian “God” says about me marrying another man. I’m going to, period.

I know someone’s going to bring this up: “But Marriage by definition involves a divine being!” False. It has been around a long time before the creation of Christianity as a means of allocating property to couples when they mate and have children. As for the ‘mate and have children’ part, I’m fully aware that homosexuality does not produce children. Neither do infertile couples. If you deny me marriage on the grounds of infertility, you must deny infertile couples the right to marry in the same way.

Again, I’m sorry if this is coming off as arrogant and/or disrespectful, but it confuses me as to how people can ignore the customs and traditions of other religions while simultaneously insisting that everyone must adhere to theirs. That’s not how the world works.

As for the term “Marriage” itself, I personally find it insulting when many Christians use quotes around homosexual marriages, I.E., “Gay ‘marriage’” because it implies that the validity and worth behind my marriage are not what they seem to be. However, I understand why many Christians do that. I suppose for the same reason that I prefer the add quotes around “holy” when describing Christian prophets such as Jesus and Moses. Ah, well. Semantics, y’know.

This whole post is not meant to attack your beliefs. No matter my personal feelings toward the Catholic church and religion in general, I respect your right to practice your faith. However, this does not mean I will respect your attempts to deny me the right to ignore your faith. As an atheist, I have absolutely zero obligation to adhere to your religion and thus refuse to do so. I guess you could liken it to keeping kosher while having no attachments to Judaism whatsoever - it seems silly to miss out on shrimp cocktail due to the beliefs of others, right? I guess that’s kinda how I feel toward the large body of Christians rallying against gay marriage.

Argh, I kinda feel like I’m just rambling aimlessly at this point, repeating myself over and over. I’m sorry if I offended anyone by this post, but honestly, I’m genuinely curious as to how you justify disallowing gay couples to marry each other. You can still believe it to be ‘wrong’ in your hearts and minds, I’m not denying you that, but to deny me the very option to pursue something you may not agree with is simply wrong. This is not a theocracy.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Interested to hear your responses! :D*
 
Who’s stopping anyone from living how they want? Honestly? The institution of one man, one woman crosses all current societies and belief systems. It’s not just a Catholic thing.

According to the Jewish World Review, it is not a civil rights issue:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Some gay people don’t believe in the institution:

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And many don’t believe in monogamy:

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Gay people are having ‘commitment ceremonies,’ but I don’t understand what they’re committing to.

Respectfully, I hear about rights and responsibilities, but what are the responsibilities? At the end of the ceremony, just go back home like nothing happened?

From my point of view, the only reason marriage is an issue is because financial benefits are involved.

I was ill last year, and the following happened, with my straight friend:

He was with me for a long time in the emergency room. Nobody asked about our sexual orientation.

A little later, I was talking to the company who handles my IRA. I was told I needed to choose a beneficiary, so I picked my friend. It was all handled over the phone in 5 minutes. No questions about sexual orientation, or paperwork.

We also decided to put his name on my meager bank account. We produced a few pieces of ID, signed a few papers. No questions about sexual orientation.

Had I not been able to return to work, he would become my legal guardian with full power of attorney. A little time and expense but no big deal. I did the same when my dad was ill.

Had things gotten worse, I would have written a will leaving everything to him, had an attorney look it over and done.

Peace,
Ed
 
Arkeaus said:
Hello all, I’d like to preface this post by saying that in no way am I meaning to be disrespectful to Catholicism or Christianity in general. I’m genuinely curious as to the mindset of many Catholics on the following;

Background information: I’m a 17 year old gay atheist that grew up in a conservative Catholic household who gradually grew up and away from religion in general. Anyway:

Okay. Gay Marriage. I understand the issues many Christians have with it, but correct me if I’m wrong here - they believe marriage is a sacrament created and officiated by “God” himself, and no human (name removed by moderator)ut can change the divinity of the institution. Many believe that any attempt to alter the traditional definition of one man marries one woman is an offense to “God” himself.

I’m not really sure what to think of this, I guess this is sort of a brain dump. As an atheist, that’s nice of you all to believe in that definition and I don’t fault you for believing as you do. Despite my personal sentiments on this issue, * I believe you have a right to your beliefs. However…

I honestly don’t see how you kind people believe that is your right to use your religious beliefs to dictate how others should live their lives. I’m sorry to be frank, but… I don’t believe that Jesus was a “holy” man. There is evidence for his historical existence, but I honestly do not find him to be any different than other influential figures throughout history that claimed to be divine. I do not believe in the Christian version of a divine “God,” an refuse to live my life as if I do. Just as you all don’t adhere to the customs and doctrine of, for example, Islam, I refuse to adhere to the doctrine of Catholicism. As such, I honestly could care less what the Christian “God” says about me marrying another man. I’m going to, period.

I know someone’s going to bring this up: “But Marriage by definition involves a divine being!” False. It has been around a long time before the creation of Christianity as a means of allocating property to couples when they mate and have children. As for the ‘mate and have children’ part, I’m fully aware that homosexuality does not produce children. Neither do infertile couples. If you deny me marriage on the grounds of infertility, you must deny infertile couples the right to marry in the same way.

Again, I’m sorry if this is coming off as arrogant and/or disrespectful, but it confuses me as to how people can ignore the customs and traditions of other religions while simultaneously insisting that everyone must adhere to theirs. That’s not how the world works.

As for the term “Marriage” itself, I personally find it insulting when many Christians use quotes around homosexual marriages, I.E., “Gay ‘marriage’” because it implies that the validity and worth behind my marriage are not what they seem to be. However, I understand why many Christians do that. I suppose for the same reason that I prefer the add quotes around “holy” when describing Christian prophets such as Jesus and Moses. Ah, well. Semantics, y’know.

This whole post is not meant to attack your beliefs. No matter my personal feelings toward the Catholic church and religion in general, I respect your right to practice your faith. However, this does not mean I will respect your attempts to deny me the right to ignore your faith. As an atheist, I have absolutely zero obligation to adhere to your religion and thus refuse to do so. I guess you could liken it to keeping kosher while having no attachments to Judaism whatsoever - it seems silly to miss out on shrimp cocktail due to the beliefs of others, right? I guess that’s kinda how I feel toward the large body of Christians rallying against gay marriage.

Argh, I kinda feel like I’m just rambling aimlessly at this point, repeating myself over and over. I’m sorry if I offended anyone by this post, but honestly, I’m genuinely curious as to how you justify disallowing gay couples to marry each other. You can still believe it to be ‘wrong’ in your hearts and minds, I’m not denying you that, but to deny me the very option to pursue something you may not agree with is simply wrong. This is not a theocracy.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Interested to hear your responses! :D*

Congratulations:shrug:
Click to expand...
 
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion. What you do is between you and God at the end of the day, whether you believe in Him or not. What did you expect any of us to say in response to your thread? You’ve stated what you’re going to do, “period.” Do you expect us to waste our time trying to talk you out of something you’re dead-set on doing? Or point out where in the Bible it says how wrong it is to do what you’re definitely going to do (which, btw, would be pointless if the Bible has no meaning for you)? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems you are looking for an argument here. 🤷 Whatever your reason for joining this forum and posting this, you are in my prayers. (Like it or not, sorry! :p)
 
  1. We think the fact that gay marriage is impossible is clear from natural law. You don’t need to believe in God, you just have to pay attention to how people are built.
  2. The idea that in saying that marriage should be ordered towards producing children we exclude the idea of infertile people marrying is simply false. Believe it or not, we’ve actually thought of this one. The basic idea is the phrase “ordered to.” Marriage is ordered to procreation because in it’s natural state barring any pathologies it will produce children. “Ordered to” does not mean “will cause.”
  3. We believe that our beliefs are absolutely true. We believe that those who study the truth will eventually come to agree with us. We understand that there are those that do not currently agree with us, and that people live according to the amount of truth that they’ve discovered. So we don’t expect a non-Catholic to follow all Catholic rules.
However, we do expect everyone to seek the truth, and believe that in so doing some parts of natural law will become painfully obvious.
  1. We are not attempting to force our beliefs on you. We would love to convince you of our beliefs, but if we don’t we will not try to force you to follow them on every issue. Please excuse the bluntness, but if I wrap words around this to make it sound nicer, the point will be lost: We are not saying that a man cannot pretend that he is married to a man. We say that he is not married to a man no matter what he thinks, because that’s not what marriage is, but we are not saying that he cannot pretend that he is. (Should not, sure, but we won’t force him not to.)
What we do not support is the government joining in and telling us that we must also pretend two men are married. They aren’t. Telling us that we must treat them like they are is not good. For example: several Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to shut down because they refuse to pretend that homosexual “marriage” is true marriage.

Basically, if you want to ignore our beliefs, fine. However, you cannot ask us to do so, and our beliefs mandate that we never, ever treat a same sex “marriage” like it is in fact marriage.
 
Iron_Donkey said:
  1. We think the fact that gay marriage is impossible is clear from natural law. You don’t need to believe in God, you just have to pay attention to how people are built.
  2. The idea that in saying that marriage should be ordered towards producing children we exclude the idea of infertile people marrying is simply false. Believe it or not, we’ve actually thought of this one. The basic idea is the phrase “ordered to.” Marriage is ordered to procreation because in it’s natural state barring any pathologies it will produce children. “Ordered to” does not mean “will cause.”
  3. We believe that our beliefs are absolutely true. We believe that those who study the truth will eventually come to agree with us. We understand that there are those that do not currently agree with us, and that people live according to the amount of truth that they’ve discovered. So we don’t expect a non-Catholic to follow all Catholic rules.
However, we do expect everyone to seek the truth, and believe that in so doing some parts of natural law will become painfully obvious.
  1. We are not attempting to force our beliefs on you. We would love to convince you of our beliefs, but if we don’t we will not try to force you to follow them on every issue. Please excuse the bluntness, but if I wrap words around this to make it sound nicer, the point will be lost: We are not saying that a man cannot pretend that he is married to a man. We say that he is not married to a man no matter what he thinks, because that’s not what marriage is, but we are not saying that he cannot pretend that he is. (Should not, sure, but we won’t force him not to.)
What we do not support is the government joining in and telling us that we must also pretend two men are married. They aren’t. Telling us that we must treat them like they are is not good. For example: several Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to shut down because they refuse to pretend that homosexual “marriage” is true marriage.

Basically, if you want to ignore our beliefs, fine. However, you cannot ask us to do so, and our beliefs mandate that we never, ever treat a same sex “marriage” like it is in fact marriage.
Click to expand...
This 👍
 
I would also like to point out that the fact that a married couple may be infertile is incidental and does not require a change in definition of marriage itself. An orange is still an orange even if is cut in half. A marriage is still a marriage, even if it is infertile. The principle of marriage has not changed simply due to the fact that.a couple may be infertile. The principle of marriage is still mutual assistance and procreative ability, an openness to life that however unlikely, could possibly arise. Even if it does not, the principle still does not changed based on an incidental happenstance.

Suggesting that homosexual “marriage” is even remotely like the marriage of an infertile couple is comparing apples to oranges.

And, despite your repeated apologies for being offensive and arrogant, you clearly did not make much of an effort to avoid it. Indeed apologizing for it over and over and continuing the same tone you used indicates a level of flippancy in the repeated apologies. I would encourage you to avoid such a tone on here that may lead one to believe you are only looking for an argument.

God bless.

-Paul
 
edwest2 said:
Some gay people don’t believe in the institution:

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And many don’t believe in monogamy:

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Gay people are having ‘commitment ceremonies,’ but I don’t understand what they’re committing to.

Respectfully, I hear about rights and responsibilities, but what are the responsibilities? At the end of the ceremony, just go back home like nothing happened?

From my point of view, the only reason marriage is an issue is because financial benefits are involved.
Click to expand...
It sounds to me that the author of that first article wants all gay people to conform to his standards, which I find odd. He probably just wants an excuse for being promiscous, I guess. 🤷

But, you musn’t think that all gays are promiscous. That certainly isn’t true.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
It sounds to me that the author of that first article wants all gay people to conform to his standards, which I find odd. He probably just wants an excuse for being promiscous, I guess. 🤷

But, you musn’t think that all gays are promiscous. That certainly isn’t true.
Click to expand...
Can you provide any evidence for this?

Peace,
Ed
 
Arkeaus said:
Hello all, I’d like to preface this post by saying that in no way am I meaning to be disrespectful to Catholicism or Christianity in general. I’m genuinely curious as to the mindset of many Catholics on the following;

Background information: I’m a 17 year old gay atheist that grew up in a conservative Catholic household who gradually grew up and away from religion in general. Anyway:

Okay. Gay Marriage. I understand the issues many Christians have with it, but correct me if I’m wrong here - they believe marriage is a sacrament created and officiated by “God” himself, and no human (name removed by moderator)ut can change the divinity of the institution. Many believe that any attempt to alter the traditional definition of one man marries one woman is an offense to “God” himself.

I’m not really sure what to think of this, I guess this is sort of a brain dump. As an atheist, that’s nice of you all to believe in that definition and I don’t fault you for believing as you do. Despite my personal sentiments on this issue, * I believe you have a right to your beliefs. However…

I honestly don’t see how you kind people believe that is your right to use your religious beliefs to dictate how others should live their lives. I’m sorry to be frank, but… I don’t believe that Jesus was a “holy” man. There is evidence for his historical existence, but I honestly do not find him to be any different than other influential figures throughout history that claimed to be divine. I do not believe in the Christian version of a divine “God,” an refuse to live my life as if I do. Just as you all don’t adhere to the customs and doctrine of, for example, Islam, I refuse to adhere to the doctrine of Catholicism. As such, I honestly could care less what the Christian “God” says about me marrying another man. I’m going to, period.

I know someone’s going to bring this up: “But Marriage by definition involves a divine being!” False. It has been around a long time before the creation of Christianity as a means of allocating property to couples when they mate and have children. As for the ‘mate and have children’ part, I’m fully aware that homosexuality does not produce children. Neither do infertile couples. If you deny me marriage on the grounds of infertility, you must deny infertile couples the right to marry in the same way.

Again, I’m sorry if this is coming off as arrogant and/or disrespectful, but it confuses me as to how people can ignore the customs and traditions of other religions while simultaneously insisting that everyone must adhere to theirs. That’s not how the world works.

As for the term “Marriage” itself, I personally find it insulting when many Christians use quotes around homosexual marriages, I.E., “Gay ‘marriage’” because it implies that the validity and worth behind my marriage are not what they seem to be. However, I understand why many Christians do that. I suppose for the same reason that I prefer the add quotes around “holy” when describing Christian prophets such as Jesus and Moses. Ah, well. Semantics, y’know.

This whole post is not meant to attack your beliefs. No matter my personal feelings toward the Catholic church and religion in general, I respect your right to practice your faith. However, this does not mean I will respect your attempts to deny me the right to ignore your faith. As an atheist, I have absolutely zero obligation to adhere to your religion and thus refuse to do so. I guess you could liken it to keeping kosher while having no attachments to Judaism whatsoever - it seems silly to miss out on shrimp cocktail due to the beliefs of others, right? I guess that’s kinda how I feel toward the large body of Christians rallying against gay marriage.

Argh, I kinda feel like I’m just rambling aimlessly at this point, repeating myself over and over. I’m sorry if I offended anyone by this post, but honestly, I’m genuinely curious as to how you justify disallowing gay couples to marry each other. You can still believe it to be ‘wrong’ in your hearts and minds, I’m not denying you that, but to deny me the very option to pursue something you may not agree with is simply wrong. This is not a theocracy.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Interested to hear your responses! :D*

You are asking for license to do what you want. That is not freedom.

There are those of us that understand freedom comes with responsibility. In addition, we do not feel homosexual marriage is best for the common good. And I vote.
Click to expand...
 
edwest2 said:
The institution of one man, one woman crosses all current societies and belief systems. It’s not just a Catholic thing.
Click to expand...
False. Islam, Fundamentalist Mormons, some forms of Bhuddism, some Jewish communities, and uncountable tribal religions allow polygamy. Together they make up quite a large proportion of the human population. In addition, Unitarians, Episcopalians, some Anglican and Lutheran sects, and many Bhuddist, Hindu, and Native American groups all consider gay marriage legitimate. The Catholic definition of marriage, even sans fertility requirements and divorce prohibitions, is by no means universal. The idea some people have that religion itself is against gay marriage is frankly ridiculous.
 
Arkeaus said:
I know someone’s going to bring this up: “But Marriage by definition involves a divine being!” False. It has been around a long time before the creation of Christianity as a means of allocating property to couples when they mate and have children.
Click to expand...
The relative age of Christianity vs the institution of marriage is a moot point. Marriage predeates Christianity but it does not predate God or belief in God.

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; (Genesis 1:27-28)

That verse is from the Old Testament, written perhaps thousands of years before Christ. People believed in a divine being long before they believed in or even anticipated Christ, so the relative age of Christianity vs the institution of marriage is not releveant. Marriage was viewed as a divine institution apart from Christianity for many thousands of years, at least among the Jews, as the passage in the Old Testament clearly shows.

You can live with whomever you want and you can do with them whatever you want and you can call it whatever you want. You can even call it marriage, but it will never be a marriage because marriage is a permanent relationship between one man and one woman which can never be disolved.

-Tim-
 
edwest2 said:
Can you provide any evidence for this?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Yes.

Stephen Fry was in a relationship with another man for 15 years. Elton John has been in a relationship with another man for 7 years, which is still active.

Claims from gays on public forums:

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080224191724AA2ZvrD
answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuIBXtb_C0k1M3wJPH00jvbty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120812090124AAlZTWB

Statistics taken from dating sites:

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth
 
RiverTam51 said:
False. Islam, Fundamentalist Mormons, some forms of Bhuddism, some Jewish communities, and uncountable tribal religions allow polygamy. Together they make up quite a large proportion of the human population. In addition, Unitarians, Episcopalians, some Anglican and Lutheran sects, and many Bhuddist, Hindu, and Native American groups all consider gay marriage legitimate. The Catholic definition of marriage, even sans fertility requirements and divorce prohibitions, is by no means universal. The idea some people have that religion itself is against gay marriage is frankly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Religions across the world have more liberal wings and more orthodox wings. However, one need not even resort to religion to prove the illegitimacy of same-sex marriage. As this is a Catholic Christian forum, however, we (generally speaking) subscribe to our faith, and one will find a myriad of Christian defenses for traditional marriage. That does not mean, however, that they are the only defenses; there are many on here perfectly comfortably making non-religious based arguments. In fact, the Catholic Church itself has a strong belief and robust defense of traditional marriage that appeals to non-religious means to prove our conclusion can be reached by anyone, regardless of religion.

God bless.

-Paul
 
PJD1987 said:
Religions across the world have more liberal wings and more orthodox wings. However, one need not even resort to religion to prove the illegitimacy of same-sex marriage. As this is a Catholic Christian forum, however, we (generally speaking) subscribe to our faith, and one will find a myriad of Christian defenses for traditional marriage. That does not mean, however, that they are the only defenses; there are many on here perfectly comfortably making non-religious based arguments. In fact, the Catholic Church itself has a strong belief and robust defense of traditional marriage that appeals to non-religious means to prove our conclusion can be reached by anyone, regardless of religion.

God bless.

-Paul
Click to expand...
The non religious arguments for traditional marriage are not convincing at all in my opinion. The only non religious people that are against gay marriage are people that hate gays. There is absolutely no logical reason to be against gay marriage. “Traditional marriage” has been destroyed by divorce rates of over 50% anyway. Most families in America don’t have a mother and father and children.
 
interestedman said:
The non religious arguments for traditional marriage are not convincing at all in my opinion. The only non religious people that are against gay marriage are people that hate gays. There is absolutely no logical reason to be against gay marriage. “Traditional marriage” has been destroyed by divorce rates of over 50% anyway. Most families in America don’t have a mother and father and children.
Click to expand...
Well, interestedman, nothing ever produced by the Catholic Church will convince you, unfortunately. It doesn’t take away the fact that they have a robust non-religious defense that is proposed to those with minds that may be a bit more open to our position.

The fact that the divorce rate is so high, and most families in America don’t have a mother and a father and children is further proof of the Catholic Church’s position and the destructive forces of a culture of death and contraception.

God bless.

-Paul
 
interestedman said:
The non religious arguments for traditional marriage are not convincing at all in my opinion. The only non religious people that are against gay marriage are people that hate gays. There is absolutely no logical reason to be against gay marriage. “Traditional marriage” has been destroyed by divorce rates of over 50% anyway. Most families in America don’t have a mother and father and children.
Click to expand...
And, quite frankly, the fact that traditional marriage in the US is so destitute and ruined has absolutely no bearing on the objective goodness or evil of homosexual “marriage.” So why bring it up? It’s essentially an ad hominem attack: you’re saying gay “marriage” can’t be wrong because traditional marriage isn’t fairing well in this country? How does that follow, logically?

And, as the above poster said, the state of traditional marriage today is only more proof that the way this country is doing it - nay, the way the WORLD is doing it - is destructive and untenable. It doesn’t work. And, believe it or not, the world isn’t doing it the way the Church says it should. Hmmm… perhaps you will forgive me for wanting to do it the way the Church says, rather than the luckless society. I think I like my chances of success a little better that way.
 
What Catholics believe about the sacrament of marriage is rooted in what can be observed in how our body is made. The first marriage was a natural union between the first of our species, we Catholics call them Adam and Eve. When God became man (this is where religion comes in), Christ elevated this natural marriage of one man and one woman to the supernatural reality of a sacrament.

A natural marriage that takes place outside of the Catholic Church between one man and one woman who aren’t Catholic can be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church even when it’s not a sacramental marriage. Natural marriage was what God first instituted by marrying Adam and Eve so that the two become “one flesh” (thank God that the first man and woman weren’t homosexual or none of us would be here). But Christ (God the Son) raised this to to a supernatural reality.

Marriage, like all the sacraments, involves natural form and matter. In the case of marriage the natural element is the physical union of one man and one woman. The basic concept of taking the natural and raising it to the supernatural is also the key to understanding all the other sacraments. For example, the natural function of water is to cleanse the body of impurities. But Christ elevated this natural function to the supernatural reality of Baptism which cleanses our soul of all spiritual impurities.

So the point of this is that the Church cares about protecting traditional marriage, even when it’s a marriage outside of the Catholic Church and not sacramental such as the civil marriage of one man and one woman who aren’t Catholic, because we affirm the validity of natural marriage.

Basic natural marriage was what Adam and Eve had, and this was a union that was blessed by God even though it was not elevated to a sacrament.

There is no such thing as a “gay gene”. Speculation does not equal proof. The true orientation of “gays” in the way their body is made is a heterosexual orientation. That’s why if a lesbian gets raped by a man her body will respond in a heterosexual way by getting pregnant. The human body simply does not believe it is “gay”.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Yes.

Stephen Fry was in a relationship with another man for 15 years. Elton John has been in a relationship with another man for 7 years, which is still active.

Claims from gays on public forums:

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080224191724AA2ZvrD
answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuIBXtb_C0k1M3wJPH00jvbty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120812090124AAlZTWB

Statistics taken from dating sites:

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth
Click to expand...
Thank you. I think I’ll look for scientific studies - unbiased and non-political or religious.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top