That is a very poor line of argumentation as it supports the concept of gay marriage to reduce promiscuity and it also suggests that women engaging in sex with men is worse than women engaging in sex with women because they are more likely to get STDs.
I’m wondering if it’s a productive strategy to continually remind people how wrong something is, when they don’t agree with or don’t understand the morality.
Still does not address the question asked:
Or, as Zoltan put it:
That is indeed the apparent source of division. But as I know committed monogamous gay couples, I would argue that it is you who needs to support your assertion that monogamous gay couples are impossible
eek especially if you are using it to justify a ban on same sex marriage.‘Page not found’
Marriage is not a magic wand that will instantly make a couple, homosexual or heterosexual, monogamous, but if it encourages couples, homosexual or heterosexual, in the right direction that is a good thing.
There is no proof of that happening that is a theory. people in same sex unions, in the institution you claim encourages fidelity, are most of the new cases of HIV infections in that studyStill does not address the question asked:
Or, as Zoltan put it:
That is indeed the apparent source of division. But as I know committed monogamous gay couples, I would argue that it is you who needs to support your assertion that monogamous gay couples are impossible
‘Page not found’
But if that is the NYT story cited in one of the other SSM threads recently, even that showed that many of the couples studied were monogamous. IOW it disproves your assertion.
Marriage is not a magic wand that will instantly make a couple, homosexual or heterosexual, monogamous, but if it encourages couples, homosexual or heterosexual, in the right direction that is a good thing.
And there is good reason to hope that the beneficial effects will increase over time as the culture of promiscuity is undermined. Just as it has taken time for legalisation of homosexuality to undermine the ‘gay sauna’ culture, leading to the number of saunas to more than halve in the USA.
I have no idea of what you mean here. Could you rephrase this with fewer indefinite terms?
Of course there are committed and faithful gay couples. Statistics seem to show long term monogamy is less likely than in hetero couples. Promiscuity seems to be more likely in the homosexual community, although given the track record of all of humanity, the discussion becomes silly. There is plenty of promiscuity to go round.Still does not address the question asked:
Or, as Zoltan put it:
That is indeed the apparent source of division. But as I know committed monogamous gay couples, I would argue that it is you who needs to support your assertion that monogamous gay couples are impossible
True, marriage is not a magic wand. Catholicism observes that marriage is a vocation. A vocation is a call from God. In the following passage the Church talks about the beatitude (the good) that we are called to. The call is from God, the vocation is rooted in God, not civil definitions.
The following section also testifies to marriage as a vocation. It can speak to anyone, believer or not.
What does the word “innate” mean?
This is a fantastic post. Especially this paragraph here:(emphasis in red added)
It is not a slippery concept. This thread is about Catholics being afraid to speak out about your views in a predominantly secular environment.
Then you come along, arguably gloating about how you, an adult in a position of authority over children, used that authority to browbeat a young girl who dared express a secular opinion in a catholic environment.:nope:
Being “the biggest bully in the playground” is of course a figure of speech that I would expect any adult english speaker, let alone a teacher, to be familiar with. The point was not that you were ‘bullying’ her, but that you are celebrating a triumph of authoritarianism and peer pressure over freedom to express individual opinions, when you happen to be the authority, on a thread allegedly about how we (or maybe just you) should be free to express individual opinions.
That being said, while ‘bully’ is a more perjorative term than I would have chosen outside of the established figure of speech, I don’t see that it is inaccurate, stripped down to its literal meaning. You did not, from you said, persuade this girl by reason and evidence that she was wrong, you got the pastor to call her parents and those of the other dissenters and are now proud that this girl was browbeaten into not expressing her moral objection. The very topic of this thread.
As a teacher, I would have expected to deal with a child who disagreed with me by either explaining my point of view with evidence and arguments in order to persuade her, or accepting that she has a different point of view from mine, and that I could not come up with a good argument against it. I would never resort to calling the Principle and getting him to call her parents just over a difference of opinion. That would be both a professional and a moral failure.
For that matter, even if she opposed me on gay marriage and chose to turn up in class with a (decent) fashion statement of that opposition, I would if anything have to commend her for both standing up for her principles and doing so in a polite non disruptive manner. Even if I still disagreed with her and hoped to eventually persuade her otherwise.
Of course this may be a difference between a teacher, whose main duty is the good and education of the student, and a catechist, who you may feel only has a duty to get the children to agree with the catechism by whatever means. :ehh:
I don’t see how in a thread, about being scared to speak out against gay marriage, a child speaking out in support of gay marriage warranted a call the the principle and her parents. It was just a matter of silencing an opinion, rather than engaging and teaching.
Promiscuity clearly is a massive problem in the gay male community, but that to me only highlights the importance of encouraging them to form stable relationships - which is what marriage is all about.
I would not see anyone arguing that it would be better for them to be promiscuous. Rather, the anticipated counter would be that they should be celibate or in a self imposed heterosexual marriage. Obviously Catholic homosexuals are free to choose that for themselves, but it is neither rational, practical nor moral to force that choice on others.
Well, claiming that all marriages are vocations (even arranged loveless dynastic marriages?) and a call from God is a religious claim, so I would argue that you do not have the right to try to enshrine that belief or its consequences in civil law. Especially as you are actually claiming that marriage is always and intrinsically a religious act, so by preventing a gay couple who feel ‘called’ to marry you are preventing them from exercising their freedom of religion, and imposing your religion on them above theirs!
Marriage plays a unique role in raising children - and in many other aspects of a couple’s life - but not in actual conception, which it actually makes slightly less likely.
‘Speak’ to, sure. Trying to impose it on non believers, not so much. Again, I have no idea if that is what you meant.
Literally, inborn. An intrinsic part of you.
Here is a link to the actual study. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in reducing the spread of HIV. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20635246
Of course marriage is a good thing for heterosexuals. They are expected to marry. Legitimizing marriage for homosexuals is nothing more than promoting dangerous, deviant sexual practices within or without a so called monogamous relationship.
The infidelity rate amongst heterosexual marriages where at least one partner cheats is ~40%. Gay people are terrible at marriage, they are as bad as heterosexuals.
With heterosexuals, the expectation in entering marriage is to honor the vow of fidelity, with failure more than not to keep the vow and cheating later. Infidelity or promiscuity is a common reason for divorce. One does not (at least I have not) come across “monogamish” arrangements or “dignified promiscuity” in gay “marriages”.
Exactly! Because they don’t marry. They form OPEN relationships and call it a marriage.
Even the most GENEROUS surveys to conservatives still show a majority of gay men (let alone women) living in monogamous relationships, where one of the survey options is “monogamish.”
You said that so called “marriage” will save lives and encourage fidelity when in reality if they aren’t being faithful now or in unions, calling something marriage isn’t going to change that.
Why was marriage established? What purpose does it serve? Why can’t two people come together and beget children? Why did the state establish marriage?
“Use”
The internet is a good place to sharpen debating skills. That means if the issue comes up, and it has in my life, one is better able to present reasoned arguments along with recognizing the sleaze tactics of the pro gay crowd.
These come off as pagan sex jihadists
Throw the first stone.
So let me get this straight. You are angry that people might call you a bigot for calling gay people “recruiters” and “predators,” accusing us of molesting children, and suggesting we are “rife” with “drug addition, alcoholism, and disease.”The internet is a good place to sharpen debating skills. That means if the issue comes up, and it has in my life, one is better able to present reasoned arguments along with recognizing the sleaze tactics of the pro gay crowd.
Many believe they are born gay. That means they are gay at 5 and at 13 years old. Even if they don’t know it. Along comes an adult gay recruiter to help the 13 year old understand his confusion. These are predators, no different in principal then low life pimps (slavers) who exploit vulnerable young females into a life of prostitution. They are nobodies victims. Both lifestyles are rift with drug addiction, alcoholism, disease and yet the norm is presented as long term loving monogamous homosexual relationships. One has to ask, how does a 13 year old boy get HIV? That is according to the CDC. Older adult homosexuals seeking catamites?
In my hometown newspaper is a series on prostitution in the western part of my state. An 18 year old tells a doctor she has had sex 500 times and the Doctor dismisses her confession as mere promiscuity. He did not bother to ask why are you having so much sex? What are the circumstances? Are you into prostitution? Do you have a pimp?
Those have tactics that work.
discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=457
These come off as pagan sex jihadists
I do now work in a public grade school in maintenance. The kids are great. Full of life. They come up and ask me questions. Maybe it is because I am one of the few males in that environment. The school shuts down on Wednesday night on account of church activities. So things a different here than they are in other parts because it is conservative .
The point being, responsible adults would naturally be protective of these children and would want the best for them.
‘‘The most horrific monsters into a victim.’’ That is so right on the money.
