Same-sex Marriage Question

[mangy_dog]

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! *

Yes, rambling aimlessly.

I pray that your poor soul finds the truth of Jesus Christ. Agnosticism, atheism and active homosexuality…boy, talk about a cocktail for disaster. Hopefully you will come to your senses before the great Warning and the Permanent Miracle.

All that Catholics can do for people like you is pray…we don’t force catholicism on anyone. As baptized Catholics we are called to announce, denounce and renounce. We don’t judge…only the God that you deny is the judge-merciful and terrible.

You poor soul…I would advice you not to go on with, that union ] but, you wouldn’t take the advice of a catholic. So I just pray.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

Lesbians are substantially more likely to divorce than heterosexuals, this should have been obvious because women instigate most divorces. Gays aren’t that much more likely than heterosexals to get divorced, the increase is probably because they don’t normally have the “until death do us part” view.

 

[edwest2]

Lesbians are substantially more likely to divorce than heterosexuals, this should have been obvious because women instigate most divorces. Gays aren’t that much more likely than heterosexals to get divorced, the increase is probably because they don’t normally have the “until death do us part” view.

Can you tell me what your comments are based on? The constant, non-stop argument from the gay community is that many have been wanting to be married for a long time. They often point to people, gay men and women, who have been advocating this for a long time. And to top it off, they usually point to long-term gay relationships, both male and female. So regardless of the vows they take or make, the point is constantly being repeated - we, gay couples who want to get “married,” have been together for a while. So, it’s not like two immature kids who haven’t known each other more than a few months driving over to the little wedding chapel and getting married by an Elvis impersonator.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Can you tell me what your comments are based on? The constant, non-stop argument from the gay community is that many have been wanting to be married for a long time. They often point to people, gay men and women, who have been advocating this for a long time. And to top it off, they usually point to long-term gay relationships, both male and female. So regardless of the vows they take or make, the point is constantly being repeated - we, gay couples who want to get “married,” have been together for a while. So, it’s not like two immature kids who haven’t known each other more than a few months driving over to the little wedding chapel and getting married by an Elvis impersonator.

Peace,
Ed

here

Check last page

 

[edwest2]

here

Check last page

Thank you. What I read was a lot of ambiguity and guesswork. And things like this:

“For Sweden, we find the same relation between the divorce risks of lesbian
and gay partnerships. In addition, we provide a comparison with the divorce-risk level
of opposite-sex marriages (Table 5). An introductory model without further
explanatory variables (Raw model) shows that the divorce risk in partnerships of men
appears 50 percent higher than the corresponding risk in heterosexual marriages, and
that the divorce risk in partnerships of women is about the double of that of men.”

To my brothers and sisters in Christ. This document shows the continuing attempts to destroy the family and “alternatives to traditional marriage” as a “good.” This is a gravely disordered idea that all Catholics need to be aware of and another reason to oppose “same-sex marriage” because, clearly, “marriage” as it is traditionally known will come under further attack using different terminology, both now and in the future.

I must conclude that the focus is on sex and financial benefits. With all due respect, all human beings have the capacity to love, aside from those with certain mental disorders, but overturning traditional marriage is the goal of a group of sexual deviants and perverts who are only happy when they see signs in society of “acceptance” of what they want. It’s time to put an end to a social engineering experiment which we already know is wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[RiverTam51]

Lesbians are substantially more likely to divorce than heterosexuals, this should have been obvious because women instigate most divorces. Gays aren’t that much more likely than heterosexals to get divorced, the increase is probably because they don’t normally have the “until death do us part” view.

Yes. There may be differences in the dynamics of the relationships that make one or both groups less stable than straight couples. The fact that most gays and lesbeans who get married are (for obvious reasons) non-religious adds to the effect, as few will feel that God forbids divorce. But no matter what the stats are, I think edwest2 needs to retract or clarify his statements about ALL gays being promiscuous.

 

[RiverTam51]

Thank you. What I read was a lot of ambiguity and guesswork. And things like this:

“For Sweden, we find the same relation between the divorce risks of lesbian
and gay partnerships. In addition, we provide a comparison with the divorce-risk level
of opposite-sex marriages (Table 5). An introductory model without further
explanatory variables (Raw model) shows that the divorce risk in partnerships of men
appears 50 percent higher than the corresponding risk in heterosexual marriages, and
that the divorce risk in partnerships of women is about the double of that of men.”

To my brothers and sisters in Christ. This document shows the continuing attempts to destroy the family and “alternatives to traditional marriage” as a “good.”
…
Peace,
Ed

The paper was completely neutral on what kind of relationship is “better.” Perhaps if you had read more closely you might have realized that it supports your argument that gays and lesbeans are less likely to have life long relationships than straight couples, not the other way around.
It did not use guesswork, it used statistics.
The fact that you could not be bothered to try to figure out what it said in no way refutes it. But if you would like to point out ways in which you think the authors took data incorrectly, or misinterpreted their results, I am open to discussion.

 

[djames99]

You are looking for someone to agree with a wrong, and you will find many by those who have chosen this world instead of returning to their inherited celestial home. It is difficult to turn away from the delectable and concupiscence which is part of our natural nature.
There is no doubt it is one of the most subtle and deceiving afflictions satan can impose on people. But it is a sham all the same.

The good news is that God says homosexuality is a sin and forbidden. Good news in that we know God would not trick us by imbedding a fault in our nature that would create an unchanging disqualification which would impede our assent into heaven. He also proves it is a trick by showing us all the cures of those who have turned to the devotion to the Holy Mother through daily Rosary. Church sponsored self help groups have had many successes. Even logically, that dependable qualifer of atheistic authenticity, cannot explain the cures.

You mention you were baptized catholic. Your mother had it right all along and shows she intended for you to make the right choices. What an opportunity to make her proud she made that choice. I can even predict what will happen if you pursue this deadly path. The procedure you call marriage is a cult ritual presided by satan. This is because all God’s good refused by us is offered for replacement by evil, and God will not preside. This is not a vendetta as some would think, it is the result of a long war between God and satan that God warned us about, his soldiers.

The famous people who have finally chosen this path have chosen to remain away from God. They have chosen honor among men instead of honor in heaven. They go to their choice wearing the titles and empty labels, and finding no one in the abys that is not self centered and wrought with pain and discomfort. They are alive, and should make the best of it by repairing the wrong before it is too late.

Insisting that the sin be compounded with the involvement of innocent children, every further action chooses a deeper level of eternal despair and accountability.

You claim to have read all the arguments. I could say that you are past invincible ignorance that would mitigate your circumstance, since you fully know the consequence. You are at the point where you can choose to make the right choice. You will need to trust and take the comfort that it is not too late.

If you are atheist, then it matters not that you believe as this has no more relevance than anything else you do in this temporal life. You can give anything the benefit of the doubt and no atheist could claim it is any more futile than anything else in life. So you have benefit of the doubt, and the road is clear for you to give Mother Mary a chance to help.

I hope you make the right choice, choose the holy way, forget what civilian laws allow you to do. They will be accountable for misleading the people one day. Make your mother proud by marrying with God’s approval, and begetting children His way. Your children will be proud of you and will not curse you for your false teachings.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The paper was completely neutral on what kind of relationship is “better.” Perhaps if you had read more closely you might have realized that it supports your argument that gays and lesbeans are less likely to have life long relationships than straight couples, not the other way around.
It did not use guesswork, it used statistics.
The fact that you could not be bothered to try to figure out what it said in no way refutes it. But if you would like to point out ways in which you think the authors took data incorrectly, or misinterpreted their results, I am open to discussion.

I know right?

You are looking for someone to agree with a wrong, and you will find many by those who have chosen this world instead of returning to their inherited celestial home. It is difficult to turn away from the delectable and concupiscence which is part of our natural nature.
There is no doubt it is one of the most subtle and deceiving afflictions satan can impose on people. But it is a sham all the same.

The good news is that God says homosexuality is a sin and forbidden. Good news in that we know God would not trick us by imbedding a fault in our nature that would create an unchanging disqualification which would impede our assent into heaven. He also proves it is a trick by showing us all the cures of those who have turned to the devotion to the Holy Mother through daily Rosary. Church sponsored self help groups have had many successes. Even logically, that dependable qualifer of atheistic authenticity, cannot explain the cures.

You mention you were baptized catholic. Your mother had it right all along and shows she intended for you to make the right choices. What an opportunity to make her proud she made that choice. I can even predict what will happen if you pursue this deadly path. The procedure you call marriage is a cult ritual presided by satan. This is because all God’s good refused by us is offered for replacement by evil, and God will not preside. This is not a vendetta as some would think, it is the result of a long war between God and satan that God warned us about, his soldiers.

The famous people who have finally chosen this path have chosen to remain away from God. They have chosen honor among men instead of honor in heaven. They go to their choice wearing the titles and empty labels, and finding no one in the abys that is not self centered and wrought with pain and discomfort. They are alive, and should make the best of it by repairing the wrong before it is too late.

Insisting that the sin be compounded with the involvement of innocent children, every further action chooses a deeper level of eternal despair and accountability.

You claim to have read all the arguments. I could say that you are past invincible ignorance that would mitigate your circumstance, since you fully know the consequence. You are at the point where you can choose to make the right choice. You will need to trust and take the comfort that it is not too late.

If you are atheist, then it matters not that you believe as this has no more relevance than anything else you do in this temporal life. You can give anything the benefit of the doubt and no atheist could claim it is any more futile than anything else in life. So you have benefit of the doubt, and the road is clear for you to give Mother Mary a chance to help.

I hope you make the right choice, choose the holy way, forget what civilian laws allow you to do. They will be accountable for misleading the people one day. Make your mother proud by marrying with God’s approval, and begetting children His way. Your children will be proud of you and will not curse you for your false teachings.

Homosexuality is not a sin, homosexuality is merely a label to refer to (almost) exclusive attraction to the same sex, the act on these attractions is sinful. Attraction to the same sex is does not prevent entering Heaven, indeed for those who unite their suffering with Christ it can vastly expedite it. You also appear to deny God’s passive will, things which He allows, but does not actively do. There are also the effects of original sin which ripple down the generation and affect us rather painfully, people are born blind, deaf, dumb, mentally retard, schizophrenic, bipolar, et cetera as a result of it.

 

[edwest2]

The paper was completely neutral on what kind of relationship is “better.” Perhaps if you had read more closely you might have realized that it supports your argument that gays and lesbeans are less likely to have life long relationships than straight couples, not the other way around.
It did not use guesswork, it used statistics.
The fact that you could not be bothered to try to figure out what it said in no way refutes it. But if you would like to point out ways in which you think the authors took data incorrectly, or misinterpreted their results, I am open to discussion.

Based on the numbers. If straight men are likely to divorce 50% of the time and gay men 50% above that, then 3 out of 4 gay men divorce/separate. If lesbian couples are double that of gay men, then 100% divorce/separate.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The unambigious evil desire to gain acceptance for any kind of mix or match “marriage” arrangement makes those who support such a thing feel good. They want deviant sexual sexual relationships to be the norm.

From the study:

"More diversity is one of several characteristics of the family patterns in many countries
during the last decades. Although small in numbers and far from being accepted in most
countries, legalization of same-sex marriages fits neatly into this development. The
increasing diversity is often regarded as a part of a larger cultural change, implying an
increase in freedom as well as an obligation for individuals to decide how to organize
their lives in an individualized society (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 1995; Beck 1997).
Another factor that might have paved the way for same-sex marriages is the
increasing separation between reproduction and sexuality, in favor of a more plastic
sexuality in the terminology of Giddens (1992). Sexuality has naturally always been
separated from reproduction in homosexual relations, and this separation is becoming
increasingly dominant also in heterosexual relationships. Thus, the disparity between
homo- and heterosexual relationships is being diminished. The increasing acceptance
and legal legitimacy of homosexual practice may be the most important change regarding sexuality in the last decades, or as Giddens (1992:33) expressed it “… sexual diversity, although still regarded by many hostile groups as perversion, has moved out of
Freud’s case-history notebooks into the everyday social world”.

“… everyday social world.” That is a grave threat to social stability for everyone everywhere. It devalues marriage to the point where it becomes ‘sex how I want it, divorce, and then different partners for more sex, and benefits.’

That, my friends, is pure anarchist thinking hidden under the word “diversity” which simply means “I want deviant sexual lifestyles.”

Freedom - yeah - freedom to be slaves to the flesh.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Yes. There may be differences in the dynamics of the relationships that make one or both groups less stable than straight couples. The fact that most gays and lesbeans who get married are (for obvious reasons) non-religious adds to the effect, as few will feel that God forbids divorce. But no matter what the stats are, I think edwest2 needs to retract or clarify his statements about ALL gays being promiscuous.

Please point me to where I said “all gays” are promiscuous. Here’s my clarification:

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[catholicanne]

If you deny me marriage on the grounds of infertility, you must deny infertile couples the right to marry in the same way.

I’ll try to say what I’m going to say nicely because you’re 17 and when I was 17 I thought I knew all the answers.

The statement you made about infertile couples offended me. I am an infertile woman and I am married to a man. My marriage to my husband is in no way invalid because I cannot have children. We had every intention of having children when we got married. If it were up to us, we’d have 15 children! But it’s not up to us, it’s up to God, and for whatever reason He has decided that we are not to have children biologically. We obeyed God and married one another and are open to life.

I am not sure why you posted what you did other than to reassure yourself that Christians are mean nasty people and you were right in choosing to be a gay atheist. If you want to have sex with men, that’s between you and God. I pray that one day, when you are older and wiser, you will understand how stupid you were to post what you did.

 

[djames99]

Not a sin as yet but an intrinsic evil ready to be made form. There are acts that God defines has intrinsically evil. I think we can concur that if God calls something an abomination, he’s not speaking passively, nor does he consider it a mild irritation. HS as an attraction is also the result of a sin. Original sin was not on the agenda in the grand scheme for man, and as a result man has this thorn, ready to excite the senses and exploit, if not outwardly, in the mind’s eye. Still cause to seek reconciliation but at this stage not a serious sin if there was no attempt to seek expression and assistance if need be.

Entering heaven presumes putting up a good fight, as well as making good use of advice from the Church who has his best interest vested, and a good record for seeking reconciliation, but *not *by giving in to the enemy.

Suffering does not presume acceptance of one’s state which would taint the offering.

I see some indication of discernment in him. He opens the door for opinions and that is good.

 

[antunesaa]

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.

And thanks for the well wishes.

One of the main tenets of the Christian faith is the belief that all men and women who ever lived or will live on this earth are sinners, except Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Looking down on other people is not only un-Christian but also, as you rightly assert, hypocritical. The only thing I would like to add is that we Catholics still have the painful obligation of knowing that a sin is a sin, and all sexual acts outside marriage in the traditional sense are sinful.

Yesterday at the mass I had the pleasure of saluting an old acquaintance who I know used to be openly gay. I ignore whether he still is, but I was really happy to see him there and witness his faith in the mercy of Our Lord.

 

[slotty]

Just thought I’d throw this one in there to help with the whole ‘Monogamy & Homosexual unions’ thing

1. 
   *]scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=homosexual+monogamy
   *] Clicked on ‘Extradyadic sex and gay male couples: Comparing monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships’
   *] Read the journal article
   
   Note: Don’t click on the link if you find terms referring to sexual acts offensive. These are scholarly articles so they use terms that may be NSFW and definitely NSF Kids

 

[RiverTam51]

Based on the numbers. If straight men are likely to divorce 50% of the time and gay men 50% above that, then 3 out of 4 gay men divorce/separate. If lesbian couples are double that of gay men, then 100% divorce/separate.

Peace,
Ed

That is not at all what their numbers say. I can clarify if necessary.

 

[RiverTam51]

Please point me to where I said “all gays” are promiscuous. Here’s my clarification:

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
Peace,
Ed

If you did not mean to say or imply that, then we do not have an issue. I agree that the average gay man has more sexual partners than the average straight man.

 

[edwest2]

That is not at all what their numbers say. I can clarify if necessary.

Please clarify.

Thank you,
Ed

 

[RiverTam51]

Please clarify.

Thank you,
Ed

What the numbers mean is that in a given year, n% of couples of a certain type will divorce. This is a multiplicative function, not an additive function. Let’s say, for example, that a certain kind of heterosexual couple has a 10% chance of divorcing each year. Then after 1 year, 90% will be together, then 81%, 72.9%, etc. If a gay couple has 1.5 times the divorce risk, then it would be 85%, 72.25%, 61.41% etc. And if lesbeans had twice that risk, the number still together would be 70%, 49%, 34.3%.
This is different from an additive function, which would look like 90, 80, 70 for straights, 85, 70, 55 for gays, and 70, 40, 10 for lesbeans. Any of these would eventually end up with 0 of the group remaining married if you let them go on forever, while the ones in the last paragraph will never quite reach 0 no matter how long they go on.
Of course, I doubt any group has divorce rates this high, I just pretended they were this high for to make it easier to see what I’m saying. Also, the study shows that divorce risk changes for a given couple as they’ve been together longer. But my point is, the study looks at how likely a given couple is to divorce, but never implies that all of a group will divorce.