B
buffalo
Guest
So you advocate lowering the bar even further? How about strengthening the family unit?
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
That is simply using the magician’s trick of look over there and not here. Stay on topic, OK? So you’ve succumbed to the “we all hate gays” nonsense. I had no trouble working with gays or lesbians and dated a (former) bisexual.
The only reason I can see for gay “marriage” is a benefits package and that’s it. So you want to live how you want. Who’s stopping you?
Peace,
Ed
R
RiverTam51
Guest
My point remains that not all religions or societies confirm marriage as one man, one woman.
The guy making the thread, RA, and I all do not believe in divine revelations, so any religious-based arguments are moot for most of those arguing against you.
And as for the non-religious arguments, I was a Catholic for most of my life, and did quite a bit of theological and philosophical study in that time. So, I think I can claim to understand the non-religious arguments in the same way that Catholics do. Nevertheless, I have not seen any of these that are convincing to me. As robust as the defenses may seem when you already agree with the conclusions, they cannot be robust when one can find logical reasons not to believe them.
R
RiverTam51
Guest
To be clear, you are claiming that there are 0 gays or lesbeans who are loyal to their partners?
If so, are you saying that every single gay on the provided links is lying about their loyalty?
P
PJD1987
Guest
When one is predisposed to disagree with them, they have the same confirmation bias issue you claim we have. I suppose it just comes down to, Catholics know and believe the Truth of these arguments, and they follow logical reason. And you, on the other end of the spectrum see things differently. We certainly are not going to budge from a position of Truth, and you most likely will not budge from your position either, and thus we are at an impasse. We will pray for you to have a more open mind, and you will wish we did as well
In the end, no one is convinced of anything, so asking for “proof” that will meet your standards ends up being a futile thing to begin with. The “proofs” we have are already out there readily available, and you as a former Catholic seem to be familiar with them. I do wish you would come back to the Church though! I will pray for that!
God bless.
-Paul
I
interestedman
Guest
I’m not gay and actually have a traditional family. I am in the hospital right now because my second child was born on saturday.
And I haven’t succumbed to the “we hate the gays argument”…I said that pretty much anyone without a religious reason to be against gay marriage hate the gays.
A
antunesaa
Guest
The moral conduct prescribed for gays is the same as for straights who are not married to someone of the opposite sex: permanent and absolute sexual abstinence. No one hates gays here, just like no one hates priests, nuns and singles without same sex attraction.
There is, in my opinion, a decisive argument against gay marriage that is not immediately religious: marriage is ordered to procreation. This means that the society has an incentive to protect the institution of traditional marriage, since it is the arrangement that ensures its own perpetuation. Same-sex marriage does not have this attribute, so there is not an obvious motive for society to grant it special protection. I also think that society does not have much of an incentive to encourage polygamy, for instance. While it also tends to protect procreation, it fails to protect security, by at least two mechanisms: i) reducing the genetic pool through reducing the number of fathers; ii) preventing many young males to match with females, which may give rise to potential social problems.
I think all these practices (gay marriage and polygamy) should be left to private arrangements between fully consenting adults, but without the explicit protection of the society through the state.
Ah, and congratulations for the wonderful grace of fathering a second child, extended to your wife!!!
I
interestedman
Guest
People say that you don’t “hate the gays” and that they should remain celibate like single people but I guarantee that many on here that claim not to “hate the gays” look down on a gay couple they see in public but barely think anything of it when someone remarries after divorce. I bet a lot of Catholics that look down on gays actually are remarried after divorce. You can say “I hate the sin, not the sinner” but really many resent the sinner as well.The moral conduct prescribed for gays is the same as for straights who are not married to someone of the opposite sex: permanent and absolute sexual abstinence. No one hates gays here, just like no one hates priests, nuns and singles without same sex attraction.
There is, in my opinion, a decisive argument against gay marriage that is not immediately religious: marriage is ordered to procreation. This means that the society has an incentive to protect the institution of traditional marriage, since it is the arrangement that ensures its own perpetuation. Same-sex marriage does not have this attribute, so there is not an obvious motive for society to grant it special protection. I also think that society does not have much of an incentive to encourage polygamy, for instance. While it also tends to protect procreation, it fails to protect security, by at least two mechanisms: i) reducing the genetic pool through reducing the number of fathers; ii) preventing many young males to match with females, which may give rise to potential social problems.
I think all these practices (gay marriage and polygamy) should be left to private arrangements between fully consenting adults, but without the explicit protection of the society through the state.
Ah, and congratulations for the wonderful grace of fathering a second child, extended to your wife!!!
And thanks for the well wishes.
P
PJD1987
Guest
crisismagazine.com/2012/irony-of-ironies-vatican-ii-triumphs-over-moribund-modernity
The article linked above is not particularly related to the same-sex marriage debate, however it does explain the limited nature of empirical-reason and thus may speak to way those with no religious affiliation or beliefs have a difficult time understanding Catholic arguments.
It is an interesting read, and I just thought I would share.
God bless.
-Paul
The article linked above is not particularly related to the same-sex marriage debate, however it does explain the limited nature of empirical-reason and thus may speak to way those with no religious affiliation or beliefs have a difficult time understanding Catholic arguments.
It is an interesting read, and I just thought I would share.
God bless.
-Paul
L
LSK
Guest
The idea that the traditional definition of marriage is only held by Catholics is a false idea. The OP wrote that marriage was instituted as a way to allocate property, etc. Actually, that is true however there is no evidence that this is the ONLY aspect of marriage. Neither does marriage date from the institution of Christianity. Rightly does the OP state that marriage existed before Jesus yet the historical record shows that there has, within EVERY society discovered so far, been a religious element to the covenant of marriage.
Now, I will tell you that I personally believe that the government has no business issuing a marriage license to anyone - man, woman, child, dog or creature from another planet. I do believe the government should, for order sake, issue licenses that state two consenting adults have agreed to live together and merge their property and fiscal lives. This will allow the government to track them, tax them appropriately and divide their goods correctly when one of them dies or one of them decides to break the contract.
I think all people, irregardless of their religious leanings, should be required to register with the government when they are going to enter into this type of union. Then they can take their little government license to their priest, rabbi, iman, coven leader, preacher or whoEVER and ask that person to preside over the appropriate Sacramental Marriage Ceremony.
This will protect The Church from those activists (who pretend they would NEVER do this) from getting a ‘marriage’ license and showing up at my parish, demanding to be married. And when the priest says, “No” they will (of course) immediately go to their ACLU chapter and claim discrimination.
Whether they win or not is not the point - they will attempt to tie up our financial assets in legal fights in order to cripple The Church.
Of course it won’t destroy the Church because Jesus is not a liar; however, if we were to bifurcate the idea of civil unions from marriage and let marriage remain the domain of those who know it has so much more about it than who gets the house and who owns the car, then the secular world can go be Rome and we can be Jerusalem.
Just an idea.
Also, the OP states that he cannot see where Jesus is any different than any other historical figure which indicates he has never been properly schooled in exactly what Jesus did and how Jesus spoke about himself. He is distinctly different, which is why His death (and resurrection) in a little Roman outpost changed the world.
Now, I will tell you that I personally believe that the government has no business issuing a marriage license to anyone - man, woman, child, dog or creature from another planet. I do believe the government should, for order sake, issue licenses that state two consenting adults have agreed to live together and merge their property and fiscal lives. This will allow the government to track them, tax them appropriately and divide their goods correctly when one of them dies or one of them decides to break the contract.
I think all people, irregardless of their religious leanings, should be required to register with the government when they are going to enter into this type of union. Then they can take their little government license to their priest, rabbi, iman, coven leader, preacher or whoEVER and ask that person to preside over the appropriate Sacramental Marriage Ceremony.
This will protect The Church from those activists (who pretend they would NEVER do this) from getting a ‘marriage’ license and showing up at my parish, demanding to be married. And when the priest says, “No” they will (of course) immediately go to their ACLU chapter and claim discrimination.
Whether they win or not is not the point - they will attempt to tie up our financial assets in legal fights in order to cripple The Church.
Of course it won’t destroy the Church because Jesus is not a liar; however, if we were to bifurcate the idea of civil unions from marriage and let marriage remain the domain of those who know it has so much more about it than who gets the house and who owns the car, then the secular world can go be Rome and we can be Jerusalem.
Just an idea.
Also, the OP states that he cannot see where Jesus is any different than any other historical figure which indicates he has never been properly schooled in exactly what Jesus did and how Jesus spoke about himself. He is distinctly different, which is why His death (and resurrection) in a little Roman outpost changed the world.
E
edwest2
Guest
Wow? Are you a mind reader? Where did I even imply such a thing? But since you asked, I was watching TV and Ellen Degeneres was outdoors, at a podium at some type of event, and introduced, “My wife. Anne Heche!” That did not go so well. Or how about Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher? Gay divorce is becoming an issue, and do you know what I read? No one in the gay community saw it coming. Give me a break.
I’m looking for an unbiased study that is non-political or religious - that’s what I wrote. I never used the word lie or even the word skeptical.
Peace,
Ed
S
SgtSchultz
Guest
I think people who do these things are hypocrites who need to shut their mouths. I agree, it seems to me the loudest mouthed politicians in your country seem to have the most skeletons in the closet. Whether it was Newt Gingrich attacking Clinton for being unfaithful, while he himself was sleeping around, the gay basher (whose name I can’t remember) who was a patron of gay prostitutes in airport washrooms, Rush Limbaugh talking about how drug users should be killed while he was not only using illegal drugs himself, but having his maid obtain the illegal drugs on his behalf.
It does seem like there is inordinate attention paid on gays and none at all on other sexual sins, and this is probably the very reason why people in favour of traditional marriage are losing the argument. There alleged allies have done more harm than their opponents ever could have.
Here’s a thought that a friend gave me. Should the government get out of the marriage business all together and go back to the way it was back before the French Revolution? Back then, marriage was a religious rite that had nothing to do with the state. Should we not go back to a more “pure” version of marriage from back in the day? One where the state cannot continually meddle in politics? My friend compares this idea to the established Church of England. Under state control, they have to continually bend to the political will of who is in charge. Independent institutions do not and are more pure and orthodox as a result.
R
RiverTam51
Guest
You implied that you believe all gays are promiscuous when Regular Atheist said
and you replied
RA provided two links to blogs in which gays stated their loyalty to their partners, and one study which, conclusions aside, used as evidence that some of the gays studied were not promiscuous. You then said that you would wait for unbiased scientific evidence.
I am not arguing that there is less promiscuity among gays than straights, or that lesbean celebrities will have stronger marriages than those of straight celebrities. But I am wondering whether you really think that all gays are promiscuous. Because if you do, then I am wondering what you think about all the people in the blogs and the study who claim to be monogamous.
A
april32010
Guest
SgtSchultz;9646692:
while he was not only using illegal drugs himself, but having his maid obtain the illegal drugs on his behalf. when did he say this,source?
A
april32010
Guest
when did he say this?source?
A
april32010
Guest
that would be larry craig, what did he say that would be called gay bashing?again,source?
A
april32010
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
Let me just address this part. The reason for the quotes in many cases is that many who oppose gay marriage, including me, don’t really recognize it as a possiblity. So the quotes are put in to show the cognitive dissonance, such as one might put quotes around the term “square circle,” to recognize that it is a contradiction in terms.
And the reason for that view is that we view marriage as a conjugal relationship. A marital relationship is at its essence conjugal. It involves conjugal relations, and conjugal relations at essence requires sexual complementarity. Same sex couples are innately incapable of conjugal relations–marital relations–and thus of marriage. It’s not a comment on anyone’s personal worth, but of recognizing reality.
J
JimG
Guest
I have to agree that traditional marriage has been nearly, but not totally, destroyed by divorce, cohabitation, adultery, and contraception. It is only because traditional marriage has been so nearly destroyed that gay marriage even becomes a possibility.
But the destruction of marriage means the destruction of family structure, and the destruction of family structure leads to civilizational collapse.
Family structure has been pretty flexible over the millenia, but it is not infinitely flexible. I recommend Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization” for a review of family structure over the course of thousands of years. In the book he recognizes only three historical instances in which family structure collapsed so much as to bring an end to the underlying society. Two of those instance occurred among ancient civilizations, and he sees the third occurring now, having begun in the 20th century.
The book is not about gay marriage. It was written in the 1940’s. But it’s useful as a reference in evaluating the effects of family structure on civilization.
Gay marriage won’t all by itself destroy family structure. But it may be the final nail in the coffin. One hopes to reverse the decline, rather than to accelerate it.
B
buffalo
Guest
Exactly - instead of lowering the bar further we should be supporting real families.
- Status