Same-Sex Marriage

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

That is not a biological thing, that is a vocation, a choice. Is that also what homosexuality is? A choice or biological?

I don’t know if homosexuality is a choice or biological.

But joining the Catholc clergy is a choice. If we all did that the race would die out.

 

[luvmykids]

Ortho:

I don’t know if homosexuality is a choice or biological.

But joining the Catholc clergy is a choice. If we all did that the race would die out.

Yeah and if we all were cops there would be no one to take care of the sick or teach the children. We are talking about sexual orientation here. We NEED the clergy. We do not NEED homosexuals to be homosexuals for the good of society. This is skirting around the issue. Even the clergy have sexual orientation.

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

Yeah and if we all were cops there would be no one to take care of the sick or teach the children. We are talking about sexual orientation here. We NEED the clergy. We do not NEED homosexuals to be homosexuals for the good of society. This is skirting around the issue. Even the clergy have sexual orientation.

Well, you brought up the notion that if everybody was homosexual the race would die out.

We don’t need Catholics for the good of society, either. Lots of places got along just fine without them.

 

[a_cermak]

One of the things that bothers me about the anti-gay marriage literature is that it always seems to concentrate on male gays, rather than lesbians. The fact is many of the arguments such as HIV/AIDS rates or pedophilia or promiscuity fall completely apart when you look at lesbians.

I still haven’t found any good SECULAR reasons given in the list here.

And I don’t think the next generation by and large has as much of what was earlier termed an “Ick” factor.

Pax,
Amy

 

[Ortho]

a_cermak:

One of the things that bothers me about the anti-gay marriage literature is that it always seems to concentrate on male gays, rather than lesbians. The fact is many of the arguments such as HIV/AIDS rates or pedophilia or promiscuity fall completely apart when you look at lesbians.

I still haven’t found any good SECULAR reasons given in the list here.

And I don’t think the next generation by and large has as much of what was earlier termed an “Ick” factor.

Pax,
Amy

I agree. We haven’t seen any non-religious reasons here.

 

[C_S_P_B]

What about the simple argument that Marriage is about raising famlies. (I know there is more to Marriage than this but am strictly limiting my argument.) It is about raising sons and daughters to be well formed and capable of happiness.

Fathers and mothers each have a role to play in this. Men and women are not the same but men and women are equal. Men and women are different to complement each other.

If gay marriage were endorsed, what are we saying about the necessity of both fathers and mothers in the upbringing and raising of children?

Which of the sexes is not really needed for this? Or is the argument that either can fulfill either role or that there are no roles? I don’t buy any of these arguments!

Now I know that all marriages do not result in children. Nevertheless, societies have all had the raising of children as a central component and purpose of marriage.

 

[luvmykids]

Ortho:

Well, you brought up the notion that if everybody was homosexual the race would die out.

We don’t need Catholics for the good of society, either. Lots of places got along just fine without them.

I brought up that notion because that’s what we are talking about. That’s what this thread is about. Same-Sex Marriage. Not Roman Catholic Clergy and whether or not they should be allowed to be Roman Catholic Clergy. Homosexuals should not have a LEGAL right to be married. They as persons individually can contribute to society. They have the same value as individuals as any of the rest of us do and they deserve the same respect in any other way. They should not however, be seen as a marital equal to heterosexuals. The heterosexual marriage is life giving. It is nurturing to the lives and upbringing of the human race. You CANNOT say that about the homosexual union. It has no purpose other than for the 2 of them to be companions to each other. Their homosexuality in itself is not a contributing factor in society. That’s fine, but they should not be able to be considered equal to the life giving environment that the marital couple provides. Children need a mother AND a father. No matter what way you look at it. I came from a divorced family and it was horrible to grow up without a father. Another woman in my life would not have filled the void that not having a father caused. You are deluding yourself if you think differently. What about the rights of children? This country protects children from all other harm, abuse, neglect, etc… and tries to only provide the best environment for them to live in. Well this would just be another step in the direction of condoning something that is not healthy for children. It would cause further confusion, not only on the part of the children that were being raised by these same sex couples and what their roles as males and females are, but also on the children that were exposed to these families. One of the arguments given by homosexuals is that if they could change it they would. Well why would you want to plant doubt in the growing minds of children as to what their gender identities are? That is inflicting the same pain on them. This isn’t just something that is in their bedroom and doesn’t effect any of us. This effects ALL of us in one way or another.

 

[Libero]

What about the simple argument that Marriage is about raising famlies. (I know there is more to Marriage than this but am strictly limiting my argument.) It is about raising sons and daughters to be well formed and capable of happiness.

But the problem there is that marriage is not solely about bringing up a family, we are not merely breeding machines. Further more, you would then have to start preventing some from getting married due to their ability to have children, wether it relates to orientation or not. How many people here chose to get married to the person they did, because they believed that they would be the best person to “breed” with? Many people who have children get married before even thinking about children.

Further more, a civil union is different, it is not merely a skit on marriage, governments could manage to allow homosexuals to have marriage if they wanted, but they have chosen not to. A civil union is only about the two people involved nothing else.

 

[CatQuilt]

felra:

I would go so far as to say that reason for attempts to redefine the family/marriage is the direct result of the primary mission and purpose of marriage – the begetting and raising of children – has been severed from the marital union (via contraception).

Brilliant!

 

[Libero]

Bringing the whole HIV/AIDs issue into the discussion is an appeal to prejudice in my opinion. Fact is, sex in a disease-free monogamous relationship is just as good at protecting people from HIV and other STD’s as abstinence.

Bringing up statistics about HIV/AIDS is made even more pointless nowadays, because HIV is no longer a homosexual disease, that is merely a prejudice and an old medical myth, this is evidenced by the fact that for the first time, HIV rates among heterosexuals has now overtaken the number in homosexuals in England.

 

[Libero]

They have the same value as individuals as any of the rest of us do and they deserve the same respect in any other way. They should not however, be seen as a marital equal to heterosexuals

But they are not, governments went far out of their way to ensure this, they are referred to as Civil Unions, if people refuse to accept this, then it is pointless them even engaging in debate about the topic. Civil Unions give the same legal status, nothing else, nobody - not even homosexuals in these Unions are trying to claim they have the same spiritual value - and this was clear when watching news broadcast about the topic, every time that a reporter would refer to the Unions as marriage, the homosexual couple would correct them - David Furnish did this too.

And why bother bringing in the idea of children? People here are going on saying “children need a mother and a father” - this has no relevance, it is not a given right for homosexuals to adopt, when having a civil union. Rambling on about the rights of children acheives nothing, and in fact it just manipulates the topic into something it is not.

There still have been no non religious reasons for not allowing homosexual unions, or really homosexuality at all.

 

[felra]

Libero:

Bringing up statistics about HIV/AIDS is made even more pointless nowadays,** because HIV is no longer a homosexual disease, that is merely a prejudice and an old medical myth**, this is evidenced by the fact that for the first time, HIV rates among heterosexuals has now overtaken the number in homosexuals in England.

It is no myth that HIV/AIDS is still largely a direct result of immoral sexual behavior.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

IThey should not however, be seen as a marital equal to heterosexuals. The heterosexual marriage is life giving. It is nurturing to the lives and upbringing of the human race. You CANNOT say that about the homosexual union.

How do you feel about marriage that involve infertile couple? Are they equal? How about a marrage between sterile couples?

When you are ready to apply this same standard to marriages between infertile heterosexuals, then you MIGHT have a point.

I would also point out that historically, marriage has been at least as much about property rights as procreation of children.

 

[Libero]

It is no myth that HIV/AIDS is still largely a direct result of immoral sexual behavior.

It is a myth that HIV/AIDS is a predominantly or only a homosexual disease. Further more, it is no longer accpetable to use an old out dated record of what once happened, and apply it to all homosexuals in the modern day.

 

[BillP]

It is no myth that HIV/AIDS is still largely a direct result of immoral sexual behavior.

The Catholic Church theoretically permits the behavior you allude to as a form of foreplay as long as it is between consenting married people and the man “finishes” in the correct place.

In fact that behavior is considered immoral per se by only a small minority of people in the world, if its engaged in by opposite sex consenting adults.

 

[felra]

BillP:

The Catholic Church theoretically permits the behavior you allude to as a form of foreplay as long as it is between consenting married people and the man “finishes” in the correct place.

In fact that behavior is considered immoral per se by only a small minority of people in the world, if its engaged in by opposite sex consenting adults.

The sexual behavior that you allude to is but one example of the the plethora of immoral sexual behavior “that HIV/AIDS is still largely a direct result of”.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

How do you feel about marriage that involve infertile couple? Are they equal? How about a marrage between sterile couples?

When you are ready to apply this same standard to marriages between infertile heterosexuals, then you MIGHT have a point.

Although I would point out that traditionally, marriage has been at least as much about property rights as procreation of children.

ok, then I guess I have a point, because you must be missing the big picture here. This is setting a new standard of living. Married couples that are infertile can still adopt. Whether they do or not still does not confuse other children and the rest of our society in the long run about what marriage is and our gender roles within society. It devalues the relationship between a man and a woman which has the POTENTIAL (if that makes you feel more comfortable) of life giving, which in turn is detrimental to our human race. Children will start to wonder what they were meant to be…heterosexual or homosexual. They now HAVE a choice, this is normal children, whatever makes you feel good. Anyone can be attracted to the same sex if they are brought up that way. It is also making it seem as if it is not important for children to be brought up by a mother AND a father. What would this do in the long run to our society…Do YOU want to find out? Let’s try it. Enough damage has been done already by divorce, contraception, abortion…let’s just keep the ball rolling.

 

[Libero]

ok, then I guess I have a point, because you must be missing the big picture here. This is setting a new standard of living. Married couples that are infertile can still adopt. Whether they do or not still does not confuse other children and the rest of our society in the long run about what marriage is and our gender roles within society. It devalues the relationship between a man and a woman which has the POTENTIAL (if that makes you feel more comfortable) of life giving, which in turn is detrimental to our human race. Children will start to wonder what they were meant to be…heterosexual or homosexual. They now HAVE a choice, this is normal children, whatever makes you feel good. Anyone can be attracted to the same sex if they are brought up that way. It is also making it seem as if it is not important for children to be brought up by a mother AND a father. What would this do in the long run to our society…Do YOU want to find out? Let’s try it. Enough damage has been done already by divorce, contraception, abortion…let’s just keep the ball rolling.

But the problem is that not all heterosexual couples can adopt, it depends on how suited a couple are to raising a child, and really that has no relevance to civil unions, nor is it a practical non religious reason why civil unions should not be permitted.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

The Catholic Church theoretically permits the behavior you allude to as a form of foreplay as long as it is between consenting married people and the man “finishes” in the correct place.

In fact that behavior is considered immoral per se by only a small minority of people in the world, if its engaged in by opposite sex consenting adults.

And how many women do you actually think would want that in their, (well the right place), after it has been contaminated by feces? Well, that wouldn’t be too smart, because you could get some nice infections. If it’s done regularly, you may even damage the muscles in there for good. That’s real loving.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

And how many women do you actually think would want that in their, (well the right place), after it has been contaminated by feces? Well, that wouldn’t be too smart, because you could get some nice infections. If it’s done regularly, you may even damage the muscles in there for good. That’s real loving.

There’s no need to get snotty with me. I’m simply pointing out that the Church permits it under ceertain circumstances. And if the Church permits it who are you or felra to claim it is “immoral”?

If you have some opbjection to the behavior, and frankly it kind of exceeds my “ick” factor under any circumstances, don’t do it. But don’t run around claiming somehting is immoral just because you don’t like it.