Same-Sex Marriage

[Robert_in_SD]

Ohhh you might benefit from reading my article:

geocities.com/gaymarriage@ymail.com

I debunked the use of all those studies to argue against gay marriage. You might want to do your research

I’ve done the research. It’s a fact that a homosexual lifestyle leads to a greater risk of morbidity and death.
AA:

…but a woman who wants to get married to a woman does not have the same rights as a man who wants to get married to a woman. Therefore that’s not equal rights - it’s not even rights against homosexuality - it’s gender discrimination. Have a read of this:

uweekly.com/newsmag/02-04-2009/10216

See the flow chart

What a fine example of sophistry the flow chart is. The fact is that marriage is an institution that requires a man and a woman. Until the recent dispute arose over reordering the institution, this was not an issue. Cite one civilization where marriage included male-male and/or female-female unions as a marriage. The simple face is that a gay lifestyle is not compatible with marriage. It is the gay community that wants to twist the institution into something it is not, as part of an agenda of acceptance and inclusion. My point is that acceptance and inclusion is a two-way street. We should acknowledge the differences and move forward in honesty, instead of sacrificing the institutions that people hold to be fundamental.
AA:

In the Church’s oppinion, it might be lie, but we all know that we don’t live in a theocracy and the religious beliefs of some should not be forced down the throats of the rest of us. Seperation of church and state

Even taking the religious beliefs out of the equation, the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage has always been exclusive of a homosexual union. From early civilization the institution has been about supporting the creation and raising of children. This aspect of marriage cannot naturally occur within a homosexual union.

I’ve heard the argument that marriage need not include such an aspect, that it can be about two persons promising to commit to each other exclusive of the promise to rear and raise children. But that only begs the question. The historical fact is that marriage is an institution that does nurture and support procreation and rearing of children in a stable environment. That cannot be removed from the definition of marriage without fundamentally altering what marriage is, and has been. That would be the fundamental equivalent of redefining the term "mother’ to include men, and/or women without children. It renders the meaning of the word null.
AA:

You’re the one who needs to stop pretending! Come on, take your head out of the sand. Read that article and you will see why this IS about equal rights!

I read the article. It’s the same old argument that has been presented before. As I noted above, the real issue is whether or not one group within society should be allowed to redefine a fundamental institution as part of their agenda of acceptance and inclusion. While I have no qualms with tolerance and avoiding prejudice and persecution, I do not agree that the way to accomplish “gay rights” is the destruction of a fundamental building block of society.
AA:

Do you understand homosexuality at all? Do you not understand why this idea simply would NOT work? To try to put it in perspective… Morals, religion and laws aside - try to imagine yourself falling in love with another man. (I’m assuming you’re a hetrosexual man… correct me if I’m wrong). Imagine a world where the major religions said that hetrosexuality was a sin, and only homosexuals were allowed to get married by law.

Think of it this way. If your lifestyle were rejected by the world’s religions, why would you care about whether or not your union would be labelled with a word that arises from this same paradigm. It makes no sense, unless the motive is to attempt to change the thinking of those who reject your lifestyle choice. It’s not about feelings. It’s about politics.

And my point about leaving the gay lifestyle to get married was to underscore the same point I made above. You can call a gay union a “marriage” but that does not make it a marriage. It is something fundamentally different. That does not negate the feelings you described above. Calling a gay union a “marriage” is not a panacea for gay rights. It is a horrible act of deception that is not fair to those in the gay community, nor is it fair to those who are outside of it.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Ohhh you might benefit from reading my article:…

Hello again Angela;

Another interesting thing about your argument. At least in California, homosexual unions already enjoy all of the “legal benefits” of a traditional marriage, and have for a number of years now. Yet, I’m not aware of any studies showing that gay unions - enjoying all of the legal benefits of marriage in CA - have resulted in increased health benefits to people living the gay lifestyle in this state. You assert that “at least” gays should be allowed to “try” to acheive the same legal benefits. That has already been accomplished. As Justice Ming Chin noted in his dissent in the “In re marriage cases” opinion, the REAL battle was simply over the right to call a gay civil union a “marriage.” That is the only REAL “civil right” at issue. The question is whether or not the people of the State of California who believe marriage is by nature a complimentary union of a man and a woman must be compelled to redefine their traditional understanding of marriage to such a degree that the term loses its fundamental meaning.

That’s not about “gay rights” at all… Gay couples have all the rights of a traditional marriage. It’s about general religious freedoms being placed at risk because of social activism in the courtroom.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[TracyJ]

Yep. Troll alert.

I don’t call anyone names, like trolls and such. Nor do I fear politely asked questions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I always wonder why people with “Banned” under their usernames get to open threads.

Just a random question.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I always wonder why people with “Banned” under their usernames get to open threads.

Just a random question.

I thought “banned” people can’t even log in mchless start a thread.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Why is it sinful? And if gay people have “a union”, why don’t they have the benefits of a married couple, like shared health insurance?

It is sinful because the Church, relying both on Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture teaches that it is so.

Now one is well aware danica that such a viewpoint flies in the face both of the dominant culture ( liberal humanist) and the majority of baptised catholics in the developed world who are part of that culture and frankly resistant to the teachings of the Church on any matter of sexual morality never mind this one. However the Church does claim the authority to teach.

Marrriage is a union bertween man and woman. Arrangements between homosexuals be they legally recognised or not may or may not be a good thing for some or all parties but are not marriage.

 

[rossum]

I thought “banned” people can’t even log in mchless start a thread.

The OP has only three posts listed. I suspect that the banning happened after the posting.

rossum

 

[paully]

Romans 1:18-26

God’s Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

**26****Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. **

 

[JaneGrey]

What a fine example of sophistry the flow chart is. The fact is that marriage is an institution that requires a man and a woman. Until the recent dispute arose over reordering the institution, this was not an issue. Cite one civilization where marriage included male-male and/or female-female unions as a marriage. The simple face is that a gay lifestyle is not compatible with marriage. It is the gay community that wants to twist the institution into something it is not, as part of an agenda of acceptance and inclusion. My point is that acceptance and inclusion is a two-way street. We should acknowledge the differences and move forward in honesty, instead of sacrificing the institutions that people hold to be fundamental.

Even taking the religious beliefs out of the equation, the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage has always been exclusive of a homosexual union. From early civilization the institution has been about supporting the creation and raising of children. This aspect of marriage cannot naturally occur within a homosexual union.

I’ve heard the argument that marriage need not include such an aspect, that it can be about two persons promising to commit to each other exclusive of the promise to rear and raise children. But that only begs the question. The historical fact is that marriage is an institution that does nurture and support procreation and rearing of children in a stable environment. That cannot be removed from the definition of marriage without fundamentally altering what marriage is, and has been. That would be the fundamental equivalent of redefining the term "mother’ to include men, and/or women without children. It renders the meaning of the word null.

I read the article. It’s the same old argument that has been presented before. As I noted above, the real issue is whether or not one group within society should be allowed to redefine a fundamental institution as part of their agenda of acceptance and inclusion. While I have no qualms with tolerance and avoiding prejudice and persecution, I do not agree that the way to accomplish “gay rights” is the destruction of a fundamental building block of society.

Think of it this way. If your lifestyle were rejected by the world’s religions, why would you care about whether or not your union would be labelled with a word that arises from this same paradigm. It makes no sense, unless the motive is to attempt to change the thinking of those who reject your lifestyle choice. It’s not about feelings. It’s about politics.

And my point about leaving the gay lifestyle to get married was to underscore the same point I made above. You can call a gay union a “marriage” but that does not make it a marriage. It is something fundamentally different. That does not negate the feelings you described above. Calling a gay union a “marriage” is not a panacea for gay rights. It is a horrible act of deception that is not fair to those in the gay community, nor is it fair to those who are outside of it.

Peace,
Robert

I’ve done the research. It’s a fact that a homosexual lifestyle leads to a greater risk of morbidity and death.

With respect to you and the Catholic Church’s view on homosexuality, there is simply no such fact. Homosexuals in general might be more prone to things like depression. However since homosexuals and heterosexuals are not physiologically different (I dont think anyone can or should try to argue so) this suseptibility is more than likely due to non-biological factors such as society and environment. Young homosexuals are more prone to be bullied and those of all ages prone to being told over and over again that they are unnatural and sinful. Its no wonder what this does to a person. I know this both from personal experience (I have many kind, well-adjusted friends of this sexual orientation) and from what I have read/heard in psychology.
Illegitimate children for instance are also at risk of depression from social stigmas. To me, this shows that we should find ways to get rid of this stigma rather than perpetuate it by making claims such as, ‘‘oh well because of what you are you are just doomed for life.’’ The truth is socialisation and its effects are extremely powerful. There is nothing objectively wrong with a homosexual lifestyle in itself. It is against Church teachings, unnatural in the sense that it does not produce children, and might seem weird and perverted to many, BUT thats all. The last one is an example of the power of nurture/socialisation. The social stigma of homosexuality is still quite prevalent and I believe it is this which is the biggest obstacle to their lifestyle thriving. I know of homosexual parents who are far better parents than certain heterosexuals.
I will not touch upon Catholicism and same sex marriage as I am not well versed on it specifically. I can only speak from my knowledge and experiences. However I will speak up when people make claims which only serve to perpetuate discrimination.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[JaneGrey]

By the way, having grown up without ever seeing anything like it, the first time I came across a couple consisting of a 21 year old girl and a close to 60 year old man, I was in all honesty horrified, it repulsed me to see them show affection to one another, every fibre in my being was just telling me that it was wrong. But is it? I have come to accept that what I experienced was more my personal feelings than a universal moral truth however such large age gap couples can potentially encounter more problems in their relationships than a same sex couple of the same age with common interests. However I would not go as far to say that the old man/young girl couple face such dire issues as a shortened life span. And I have no right to try to prevent them from being together or turning others against them (as much as I feel like doing so )

God bless

 

[peary1]

Why does the Catholic Church not accept same-sex marriage?

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. That is biblical. That is what revelation teaches us. That is what all societies, even nonChristian ones, have believed since time immemorial. The basis for a stable society is the family and the begetting of children. End of answer.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Old thread.
Closed.