Scared of speaking out Against Gay marriage?

[clem456]

SGMS - Once again you hit the nail on the head without being snarky, as I often become when discussing this issue. I just thank Our Lord that in the Real Catholic World (at least in the first world), a big majority are very supportive off basic human rights for all people.

I am just curious what exactly you mean here.
Are you saying that marriage is a human right for all people?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Throw the first stone.

I don’t actually want to stone any of them, I was being facetious.

 

[Thorolfr]

“Use”
I can use a hammer to beat someone to death. I can use my best friend as a sled and bumper ski on his chest (I’ve actually done that to my embarrassment).
“Using” get’s into areas that I have not much expertise. But let me give it a shot.

A thinking person can observe (I’ll avoid the word nature) that sex has a concrete process, an expression, involves real bodies in real time and space. Sex is not something detached from the reality of the human person.

So then, the hammer analogy I proposed above is not a very good one. A hammer is an inanimate object. It can be used. It can be used in a disordered way to beat a person to death, but even wielded in the proper way to drive a nail, the hammer is still a tool. It is subject to my whim, and has a utilitarian function in the hand of a person. No reasonable person would claim that a hammer is an integral part of a human person.

What is an integral part of a human person?
A person has a body that needs food and water. It is integral to the human person that we require sustenance to live. It is wrong for me to deny the reality of my neighbor’s hunger. It is wrong for me to deny him the opportunity for work to support himself. It is wrong for me to deny him the freedom of movement and freedom of participation in society. We can observe all of this because my neighbor is real. His physicality is not an abstraction. His existence is not something external to himself to be used by the rest of society.

In addition, human beings are concretely made male and female, with bodies designed to mate. We have no physical existence without the union of male and female bodies. Without the union of male and female, we have no bodies and no eyesight or reason to observe them with. Simply, without marriage, humans are not. Some of you may be saying WTH? why should I care? And that has frightening implications.

Sexuality is part of our very being, not an external tool like our hammer to be used in whatever way conceivable (no pun intended). It is integrated with the whole of a person. A person has dignity in his entirety. A person is not a mélange of disconnected parts. Our whole being has dignity and purpose. Sexuality is not separated from the person like the swinging of a hammer.

Do you see that if this undeniable reality is rejected and sexuality is seen as a using by people, the whole of human flourishing is at risk? Which parts of the human person can be denied in your opinion, and reduced to being merely useful?
The stomach? The color of skin? Race? I would suggest that all of human cruelty and misery results from some sort of denial of the whole personhood of people, and groups of people. Much of it done with seemingly good intentions !

I realize this is no consolation to someone who has strong sexual feelings and/or long term relationships with a same sex partner. I don’t pretend an answer to that. But our bewilderment should not excuse us observing reality whenever possible. That reality is good should be upheld and affirmed.

Instead of the word “use” which seems to bother you, I should have said that sex can perhaps have more than one legitimate and natural purpose besides procreation just as the mouth has more than one legitimate and natural purpose. The mouth can be used to chew food with, to speak with, and to kiss with. The saliva on the tongue has an enzyme called amylase in it which begins the process of digestion. But would anyone say that the tongue and the saliva is being used improperly if I lick a stamp with it before putting it on a letter? The point I was making is that body parts can have more than one legitimate purpose and can be used in different ways. This does not negate one of those possible purposes or uses such as procreation in the case of sexuality.

Whether a certain use or claimed purpose is moral or not is a completely different question. It is certainly legitimate for someone to say that other claimed purposes of sexuality outside of procreation are not moral and that is the position of the Catholic Church. But there might be disagreement on this issue and I don’t pretend to have any certainty about it. The fact that sexuality appears to have other purposes in the natural world besides procreation gives me pause. For example, scientists have observed that male bottlenose dolphins engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding.

 

[lightbeamrider]

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.”

I have another idea with regards to that, but I will charitably withhold my feelings on the matter, and I will take solace in the fact that very few Catholics feel the way you do about gay people.

We are not any of the things you say, nor is the LGBT community any of the things you say. You are so dreadfully off-base as to be almost unbelievable anyone could seriously believe anything that you just ranted about.

And people wonder why LGBT people feel Catholicism is so hostile to them…

This is another attempt at normalizing Gay culture and and painting themselves off as victims. Everybody hates us… You are nobodies victim. Here is what another gay wrote to me.

First of all, most gays who are 13 years old aren’t even brave enough to come out or even accept themselves (because of idiots like yourself).

People like me are the ones who cause damage to 13 year old boys and folks like him are the ones who are there to help them understand their homosexuality, since they were born that way. That makes the later predators, no different than pimps who prey on confused vulnerable females. Since females are not born to become prostitutes then infants are not born to be gay.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

Bugchasing is the practice of pursuing sexual activity with HIV-infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Individuals engaged in this activity are referred to as bugchasers. It is a form of self-harm. Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV-positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and becoming HIV-positive; giftgivers are HIV-positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser’s efforts to become infected with HIV.​

Bugschasing and the gift of HIV.

watermarkonline.com/2013/11/20/to-achieve-a-positive-hiv-status-some-gay-men-proudly-practice-risky-behaviors/

“I found several gift-givers willing to give me the bug,” Brandon explains. “I’m excited. It’s going to be a really hot night and it will accomplish something in the process.”

 

[SMGS127]

This is another attempt at normalizing Gay culture and and painting themselves off as victims. Everybody hates us… You are nobodies victim. Here is what another gay wrote to me.

People like me are the ones who cause damage to 13 year old boys and folks like him are the ones who are there to help them understand their homosexuality, since they were born that way. That makes the later predators, no different than pimps who prey on confused vulnerable females. Since females are not born to become prostitutes then infants are not born to be gay.

Gosh I hope you are not involved in any evangelization effort regarding the LGBT community. How someone can feel such disdain for an entire class of people that they refuse to consider actual facts and instead make up whatever horrible things they can say about said class of people, I have no idea. Your arguments are reminiscent of the arguments from the KKK who suggest that black men prey on “confused vulnerable” white women.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

Bugchasing is the practice of pursuing sexual activity with HIV-infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Individuals engaged in this activity are referred to as bugchasers. It is a form of self-harm. Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV-positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and becoming HIV-positive; giftgivers are HIV-positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser’s efforts to become infected with HIV.

Bugchasing (and giftgiving) involves such an incredibly small percentage of the gay male population as to be irrelevant when discussing gay men (and COMPLETELY irrelevant in discussing lesbians). Your argument is the same as suggesting that rape cults are the core of heterosexuals and heterosexuality.

 

[Rau]

Whether a certain use or claimed purpose is moral or not is a completely different question. It is certainly legitimate for someone to say that other claimed purposes of sexuality outside of procreation are not moral and that is the position of the Catholic Church. But there might be disagreement on this issue and I don’t pretend to have any certainty about it. The fact that sexuality appears to have other purposes in the natural world besides procreation gives me pause. For example, scientists have observed that male bottlenose dolphins engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding.

What do you understand by the statement “sexuality outside procreation is not moral”? Does it mean sex after menopause is immoral?

If you wish to contemplate real-world observations, I suggest noting that the male sexual act intrinsically delivers sperm. This does not say to me that every instance of the act ought to be an attempt to conceive a child, but it does suggest to me the natural partner for such an act. The fruits of sexual intercourse, whether they be conception or bonding or pleasure are bound together.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Dr. Taffy: I guess it is OK as long as you are the biggest bully in the playground.

You’ve got to be joking. I’ve never known Claire to be a bully, and how she handled the situation and her teaching sounds professional.

Would you be taking that tone if she were a Muslim?

But as I know committed monogamous gay couples

Anecdotal evidence.

 

[clem456]

Instead of the word “use” which seems to bother you, I should have said that sex can perhaps have more than one legitimate and natural purpose besides procreation just as the mouth has more than one legitimate and natural purpose. The mouth can be used to chew food with, to speak with, and to kiss with. The saliva on the tongue has an enzyme called amylase in it which begins the process of digestion. But would anyone say that the tongue and the saliva is being used improperly if I lick a stamp with it before putting it on a letter? The point I was making is that body parts can have more than one legitimate purpose and can be used in different ways. This does not negate one of those possible purposes or uses such as procreation in the case of sexuality.

Fair enough that you were not intending “use” in that sense, but the implication is still there.
Anyone can observe that sexuality serves to unify two people. Or it can, or may, unify. Rape is the obvious reflexive objection that sex does not necessarily unify. But the answer to the objection is that rape is the “using” of a person sexually, separated from the dignity of the whole person, that we are wishing to avoid.
A question is:
All the little bonding elements of sex… the unifying elements… bringing people close together, the smell the touch, the desire to be together, to nest…
can they be, or should they be separated from the real and objective reality of male and female, or what’s called the procreative elements?
It seems to me that case for gay marriage does not recognize the necessary integration of these two elements.
It seems to me, it can be analogous to giving a hungry man good wishes (a unifying thing) when his physical being screams out for food. The whole person is not recognized.

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes, Dr, many couples who participated in the study claimed to be in a monogamous relationship. However 30% admitted to having sex outside their relationships. The majority were involved in “open relationships” and continued to have sex with other partners.

30% is a ‘majority’ according to you?

In any case if any are monogamous, even in San Francisco a.k.a. Sodomy Central, that disproves your assertion that such relationships are impossible.

Of course marriage is a good thing for heterosexuals.

But only for heterosexuals? Despite the study posted on this forum showing that marriage reduces mortality for homosexuals?

Legitimizing marriage for homosexuals is nothing more than promoting dangerous, deviant sexual practices within or without a so called monogamous relationship.

…and again the obsession with other peoples’ “sexual practices”. As though homosexuals will not have sex if their marriages are not recognised! :ehh:

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.”

Many of the studies you reference probably do not have good sampling methodologies whether they are meant for conservatives or liberals.

 

[SuperLuigi]

…and again the obsession with other peoples’ “sexual practices”. As though homosexuals will not have sex if their marriages are not recognised!

Well, we’re not the ones demanding special rights for gay couples or that they get to have parades celebrating their identity in major cities.

So…I don’t think we’re the ones all obsessed about it. The activists make it hard for anyone to ignore, and we’re just addressing the issue with the Truth.

 

[Thorolfr]

What do you understand by the statement “sexuality outside procreation is not moral”? Does it mean sex after menopause is immoral?

If you wish to contemplate real-world observations, I suggest noting that the male sexual act intrinsically delivers sperm. This does not say to me that every instance of the act ought to be an attempt to conceive a child, but it does suggest to me the natural partner for such an act. The fruits of sexual intercourse, whether they be conception or bonding or pleasure are bound together.

So then why do other species such as bottlenose dolphins use same-sex sexual activity for group bonding purposes? Are dolphins using an unnatural partner when they do that? You might say that humans are different than animals by which you probably imply that we are superior to them. But I’m not certain that there is such a sharp divide between humans and the natural world around us. There is no doubt that the natural world (including the dolphins) is part of God’s creation. But I’m not totally convinced that the philosophical construct called “natural law” actually reflects the mind of God as much as it reflects the beliefs of those philosophers who constructed it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

And people wonder why LGBT people feel Catholicism is so hostile to them…

How do we fix this image?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.”

Can we stick to Catholic teaching instead of going into conservative bizarro-world please? I can argue for Catholic teaching without arguing that gay people are secretly aliens from another planet who can shoot lasers out of their eyes.

Sure, I can revert to the teachings of the Catholic Church, but then I would be preaching to the choir. Everything real Catholics need to know about the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is found at the top of the Social Justice title thread. Church Teaching on Same Sex Issues forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749

If people were aware of that information every thread concerning homosexuality would be over in less than two pages.

I stay on the secular side of this topic because I am from the “conservative bizarro-world” and I don’t need an organized religion to tell me that homosexuality deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.

Since most homosexuals, gay activists and gay supporters are non-religious they simply reject Church teaching. Even those who claim to be Catholic here on the forum have no problem skirting or openly rejecting the Church teachings.

It is for this reason the I argue from a logical and reasonable secular stand point rather than the religious principles of the Catholic Church.

For example…“Father” Zoltan can say that homosexuality includes unnatural sexual acts that are a grave sin and you will go to hell if you commit such sins. This would only have meaning to Catholics and the very few Catholic homosexuals who truly desire to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church.

But when Zoltan points to verified scientific studies showing that sexually transmitted disease is spreading at epidemic levels within the gay community and homosexuals are dropping like flies…the logical and reasonable conclusion would be that homosexual behavior is not exactly healthy.

Church – homosexuality = sin = hell
Logic – homosexuality = disease = death.

Take your pick.

 

[SMGS127]

How do we fix this image?

It would help if people who weren’t LGBT also stood up against people like lightbeamrider on these threads, for one…

A lot of LGBT people feel that those with charity in the Catholic community are unwilling to stand up to those without charity. Threads like these help secure that image. It creates an “us vs. them” atmosphere between the Catholic Church and LGBT people that makes it extremely non-conducive to conversion of LGBT people.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12635968:

In what

study are “most of the new cases of HIV infections” specifically married same sex couples?

In the link it talked about a study done in Amsterdam I quoted it earlier in the thread. It specifically talked about homosexuals in same sex unions. If unions are not helping how will giving them “marriage” help?

So the only reference you are willing to give is that you mentioned it somewhere ‘earlier’ in a twelve page thread?

Despite that, I assume that you are referring to this:

"In a recent study from a major journal conducted on males, it found that males in same-sex unions stayed together for an average length of two years,
and would regularly have sex with others outside of the relationship.

In this Amsterdam study, 86% of new HIV infections occurred in men who
considered themselves to be in same-sex unions. "

Again, the only reference given is that this is an “Amsterdam study” - sadly for you, this was enough.

You are apparently referring to a very old rabidly dishonest interpretation of “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam” Xiridou et al

Now, where to begin with what is blatantly false about the interpretation put on this article:

None of the couples in this study were married, as it concluded before same sex marriage was legalised in the country
This was not a study of the gay population as a whole. The study was limited to those who were:

• living in Amsterdam or living outside Amsterdam but were attending a GUM clinic for being HIV+
• attending a GUM clinic for some reason
• not in a monogamous relationship
• under 30, so could not have been in a relationship for very long, especially given the previous point

So you have a sample where the contributors could not have been in a relationship for very long, were heavily weighted towards the promiscuous, and were in not one single case married. The 86% figure you refer to is simply those who reported being in a ‘steady relationship’ - a term that is not defined.

And you try to use this to conclude that same sex marriages are short term, not monogamous, and spread disease?

The study (for good reasons, it itself is perfeclty honest and kosher) specifically excluded anyone in a monogamous relationship or who could have been in a relationship for more than 10 years or so.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So then why do other species such as bottlenose dolphins use same-sex sexual activity for group bonding purposes? Are dolphins using an unnatural partner when they do that? You might say that humans are different than animals by which you probably imply that we are superior to them. But I’m not certain that there is such a sharp divide between humans and the natural world around us. There is no doubt that the natural world (including the dolphins) is part of God’s creation. But I’m not totally convinced that the philosophical construct called “natural law” actually reflects the mind of God as much as it reflects the beliefs of those philosophers who constructed it.

Bottlenose dolphins are not “bonding” they are “humping”. One or two females go into heat and the males go nuts and hump anything. Like dogs and cattle…they are nothing more than horny animals.

This is such a lame justification of homosexuality…I really thought it had died out by now.

 

[Rau]

So then why do other species such as bottlenose dolphins use same-sex sexual activity for group bonding purposes? Are dolphins using an unnatural partner when they do that? You might say that humans are different than animals by which you probably imply that we are superior to them. But I’m not certain that there is such a sharp divide between humans and the natural world around us. There is no doubt that the natural world (including the dolphins) is part of God’s creation. But I’m not totally convinced that the philosophical construct called “natural law” actually reflects the mind of God as much as it reflects the beliefs of those philosophers who constructed it.

What merit is served in pointing to an animal to rationalise choice of a same sex sex partner (or any behavior) when Joe can just as easily rationalise his choice of sex partner by pointing to Sam and noting his choice Joe and Sam have still made choices that are contradictory to their physical nature.

 

[DrTaffy]

Well, we’re not the ones demanding special rights for gay couples

Not special rights, just the same rights as heterosexual couples.

or that they get to have parades celebrating their identity in major cities.

They already have this. And why not? It is not as though christians don’t have parades all through the year. Not to mention billboards, TV programmes, people knocking on the door with magazines and leaflets, T-shirts, bumper stickers, politicians, preachers in the streets, publically funded monuments and events and so much more.

So…I don’t think we’re the ones all obsessed about it.

Compare the number of references to gay sex on this forum and on even gay fora. Yes, you guys really are obsessed about this. More, bizarrely, than the guys who actually do it.

Homosexuals are not pushing for you to be prevented from practising your religion, you are pushing for them to be prevented from practising their religion or sexuality.

 

[DrTaffy]

Why was marriage established? What purpose does it serve? … Why did the state establish marriage?

Because people, gay or straight, naturally come together and form new family units, and end up sharing houses, property, income and so on. Same sex couples even end up raising kids together, and studies show that they do so very well.

This creates all sorts of legal and financial situations, such as what taxes have to be paid when the first member of the household dies. This is what the civil institution of marriage (which is where the word ‘marriage’ comes from) addresses.

Now if you want a different, more restrictive religious institution, feel free. But if you choose to call it by the pre-existing term for the civil institution that does not give you a monopoly on the word.