Secular argument against gay marriage

[tonyrey]

It is incredibly naive to think academic progress at school is evidence that children are more fulfilled and happier living with two male adults or two female adults rather than with a man and a woman who care for them as a father and mother. They tend to concentrate on their studies - as I did - because at home they miss a normal family life.

It’s not my field but my impression is that there are many other studies based on other data-sets which reach the same conclusions while there are few if any peer-reviewed studies supporting your conclusion.

An impression is not a valid reason - unlike a conclusion based on personal experience.

The activity of homosexuals ceases to be a private matter when they adopt children who are exposed to a greater risk of infection.

That’s inconsistent since adoption agencies would be highly irresponsible if they were any less concerned at the health and life-style of prospective heterosexual adopters.

Non sequitur. Adoption agencies should take into account the health and life-style of **both **heterosexual and homosexual adopters - bearing in mind that all homosexuals expose children to a greater risk of infection.

An important question in that respect is whether the applicants are in a monogamous relationship, and denying marriage makes that question harder to answer.

Adoption agencies take the nature of the prospective adopters’ relationship into account regardless of whether they are married - which is another reason why the demand for gay marriage is absurd.

You are assuming that a homosexual relationship is comparable to a traditional marriage!

No, I didn’t make any assumptions there but just observed that you are being inconsistent.

An observation without foundation!

It is not what an appeal to my opinion but a conclusion based on an objective fact: the complementarity of the father and mother.

That remains just an opinion until you provide a supporting argument.

Your request for a supporting argument implies that the roles of the father and mother are not complementary:

1. Are the paternal and maternal instincts illusions?
2. Do the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children?
3. Can two men understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman?
4. Can two women understand an adolescent boy as well as a man?
5. Has the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children?
6. Is there any reason why being brought up by a gay couple is preferable to being brought up by a heterosexual couple?

All beliefs are subjective but they are objective when based on established facts - not passing fashions - like physical and psychological differences which are essential for the preservation and well-being of the family.

That remains just an opinion until you provide supporting evidence.

Please answer the foregoing questions.

The complementary roles of the father and mother remain unrefuted.

Non sequitur, and in any event if that’s your claim, you’re the one who needs to support it.

Please answer the foregoing questions.

The reference to income is revealing. Most children prefer to have a foster father and mother regardless of income. They wish to be like other children and not belong to a one-sided household.

Please cite evidence, noting that to be relevant your cited study will must take account of probable bias in children in any country where adults discriminate against homosexuals.

Please answer the foregoing questions.

A most illogical deduction! Homosexuals are not “bad” but through no fault of their own two males or two females are incapable of adequately replacing the love and care of a man and woman because they do have the physical and psychological differences which are essential for the preservation and well-being of the family…

Leaving aside the large number of one-parent families, you keep claiming that there are psychological differences between the genders which are important in raising children without providing any supporting evidence.

Please answer the foregoing questions.

… without which the basic unit of society will lose its unique status and eventually disappear, thereby defeating the purpose of the quest for equality because it will apply to an obsolete custom which will have become a meaningless description of any relationship between persons - or even persons and animals.

No response.

And this is in any case irrelevant to gay marriage since in your country and many others unmarried same-sex couples have been able to adopt for many years.

Historical precedents do not determine moral values.

 

[tonyrey]

The arguments for and against gay marriage will continue indefinitely but the majority will decide whether it is legalised, demonstrating that laws are often unrelated to moral principles: might is not right…

The move in the UK to legalise heterosexual civil relationships highlights the absurdity of “equality for everyone in every respect”. It amounts to a demand for uniformity destroys respect for individual beliefs and customs.

What on earth will be the difference between marriage and a civil relationship if everyone chooses one or the other? Marriage is already on the rocks and will become an insignificant custom for the vast majority of people in secular societies like the UK. That is the price of rejecting the reality of objective moral values which are inseparable from spiritual reality. Nothing matters when everything is derived from matter…

 

[inocente]

A beautiful example of a combined evasion and an argumentum ad hominem!

In the light of your statement about passing fashions the **objective **question remains to be answered:

Why not get married to a cat, a dog, a horse or a monkey?

It is not possible for you to marry your pet, since marriage is defined by the vows, and both parties need to accede to them as adult citizens.

For the same reason you can’t marry your hat-stand and other diverse objects (of either gender).

I’d advise you seek professional counseling if these desires persist.

*And what determines right or wrong in the **undesigned ***scheme of things?

The same as always:

*Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Luke 6*

 

[inocente]

I’m a little astonished that this thread has gone on for 40 pages. But that seems to be the nature of discussions about same sex marriage.

Yes, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The facts are pretty simple. There is a sexual act that can only be done by man and woman together, and for that reason we call it the marital act, the conjugal act, or marital relations. It can be engaged in whether or not the man and woman are fertile or infertile. It remains the marital act. By its very biological nature it is directed innately to procreation, whether or not that ensues in any particular instance.

It is and always will be impossible for same sex couples to engage in marital relations. That’s the reason that same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.

Now, same sex marriage advocates will say that’s just reducing marriage to sex. No, it’s only stating the obvious. Sexual complementarity is essential, but not the only characteristic of marriage.

Once we have said that sexual complementarity is non-essential, then nothing is essential. Marriage is meaningless.

And it was the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception which started us down this road. It broke the essential link between marriage and procreation. Between marriage and children. Between marriage and family. Those who rejected Humane Vitae, for example, started us on the road to same sex marriage.

The EU rights agency issued a survey of LGBT hate crime and discrimination today, and wandering what other surveys had been carried out I spotted this one of US Catholics from two years ago:

*Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall.

When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics.

Beyond the issue of same-sex marriage, Catholic support for rights for gays and lesbian people is strong and slightly higher than the general public.

Catholics overwhelmingly reject the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.

A majority of Catholics (56%) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin.*

Don’t know how accurate these surveys are but another showing similar support for gay marriage is this one from last year,

 

[inocente]

haha, yes I did. heterosexual marriage advocates and normalises the reproductive sexual act for such a union. In which I find moral in marriage, it is the only kind of “love of eros” in which value adds to the union rather than one that mutually appeases sexual desires for both.

I think you have said before that if “marriage” advocates sexual relations between the two and a man and a woman are capable of the sexual acts that homosexuals are, than it would also already be advocating such sexual immorality and in a way thats correct, thus why same sex marriage is up for discussion, however a man and a woman are capable of the reproductive sexual act that two men or two women are not and thus a homosexual marriage would absolutly affirm the advocation of such sexual immorality.

And than obviously a great deal more sexual immorality would be advocated in the process, which is what I am trying to show you with fornication and the 60s and 70s sexual revolution that JimG brought up.

I think it may be exactly the reverse.

The idea that marriage is a license to have sex and procreate was challenged by the sexual revolution, with many deciding marriage was obsolete - why bother getting married if that’s all it stands for?

What is needed is a counter-revolution which reaffirms that the prime purpose of marriage is neither sex nor procreation but a life-long union. Gay marriage is part of that counter-revolution, since it explicitly denies that marriage is about procreation.

*My apologies, I didn’t mean “not accurate.” I meant it as in I should focus on the NT because it brings the full meaning to the OT and that you were right before when you were speaking about the inapproptiateness of us quoting the OT to suit or own whim and fancy for such an argument.

The OT advocates some things that are incorrect, so to say not in line with the truth of the NT and I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who gave the OT it’s full meaning, so thus we cannot quote OT without the full meaning that Christ gave us in the NT.*

Not quite sure I agree, but I see your point now.

Like I said before, I am very curious to understand your view of God in relation to humankind, of men and women.

A number of CAF posters believe in some form of designer but your Church doesn’t teach that. Your Church teaches what I think is known as theistic evolution:

*This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution *

My view is similar to your Church.

And thus why I brought up fornication, if you cannot see a sin in the sexual acts of homosexuality, can you see a sin in fornication? and if so how did you arrive to the conclusion that there is a sin in fornication? If not, how did you conclude it?

I think I’ve now answered in a reply to you yesterday - both can be a sin depending on the circumstances.

*I look forward to your reply inocente.

Thank you for getting around to my replies.

Thank you for reading
Josh*

Always a pleasure.

 

[inocente]

Meanwhile… from the other side of your mouth…

I started to reply to you, then saw that and the other uncharitable remarks and decided to ignore your posts from yesterday.

If you want to post them again but this time without the personal remarks, I’ll read them and reply.

 

[inocente]

Anyone who can look at the structure and multiple functions of a human neuron, all timed to perfectly react to each other at the speed of electrical impulse, and say that God is not a designer is fooling themselves to a dangerous degree.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

I would say that such thought wanders dangerously into Non-Christian territory. To think God is incapable of designing is to deny and dismiss His wondrous deeds in all their loving detail.

As just posted to josh (post #822), my belief is similar to what the Church teaches rather than ID or any of those other American sects, but we’re getting way off-topic here.

 

[Lochias]

As just posted to josh (post #822), my belief is similar to what the Church teaches rather than ID or any of those other American sects, but we’re getting way off-topic here.

Actually, you are completely wrong, and all you used to back up your statement is a Wikipedia article, which has all the authority of a potted plant.

This statement is the Catholic way of thinking:

"Those of us who believe in God believe that God is the designer of our human body including our sexual organs."

This is from a Catholic priest, from this article:

frwest.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-catholic-church-teaches-about-sex.html

Please remember that Wikipedia is not the authority of the Church. Also, the Baptist denomination is about as American as you can get, so your statement made me chuckle more than a little.

 

[inocente]

Thank you for that. I also believe in the Big Bang Theory, but whether it be big bang theory or what ever, it was still designed, you don’t get something from nothing, no designer is an athiest point of view. No designer means no creator.

Religious people know that something can’t come from nothing, thus we have a creator, who is also our designer, you don’t think the dictionary was done by an explosion in a printing press do you?

Thus I come to the same point, men and women didn’t just happen, no more than the dictionary just happened from an explosion in a printing press, we were designed.

And basically if you believe in God, than you believe in a designer, so my question is, how do you reject a designer? and if there is no designer than how do you get the creation?

Not even Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître would reject God as the designer and creator, he is merely trying to explain how God may have created the universe, how God’s design may have worked and came into being.

So thus, you believe in God, and God is our creator therefore how could he not have designed us? do you think men and women were a mistake? that he created the big bang and said “lets see where it all goes.” How can you not think it was designed? that humankind especially male and female have been designed?

It’s estimated there are 17 billion Earth-size planets in our galaxy and there are thought to be over 170 billion other galaxies in the visible universe.

I’m not overly impressed with the notion that God designed every life-form that there might be on all those planets.

As posted early in #822, my beliefs are pretty standard for many Christians, what I think is called theistic evolution.

*My argument of fornication and same sex marriage was separate. But yes, if homosexuals do not desire the appropriate sexual act, we do not pretend that an inappropriate sexual act is suddenly appropriate.

If desires are your conclusion as to why such sexual acts are considered moral and not sinful, than what about a heterosexual who no longer desires his wife?

I am just trying to point out that given your logic for seeing nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality, you must also see nothing wrong with fornication, really using the same logic you must see nothing wrong with all protected sexual activity, otherwise the logic for advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality makes no sense.

Same sex marriage is a move from the father of all lies, the logic you are using can so easily be used against you to remove any sense of sexual morality, because if the sexual acts of homosexuality are seen as moral, than what sexual activities are considered immoral?

So I would be very interested if you could come up with a logical conclusion for why you see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral and other sexual acts as immoral, such as fornication, polygamy, incest etc etc.*

I thought I answered this yesterday, maybe not. Fornication just means sex outside marriage, it’s just a word. If someone rapes his wife it’s not fornication but it is immoral. Incest is immoral for reasons gone into many times now. As also said before, polygamy is deemed moral in some societies and religions but I think it is incompatible with the vows to what we would both call marriage.

I’m surprised that you guys keep on about sex all the time. I mean when did you last hear someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be able to have lots of sex, how nice for them”. Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is about sex?

I think one of the reasons why people are increasingly in favor of gay marriage must be they hear the opponents talking about sex all the time and don’t want to be seen with them.

*Yes, we are using the standard definition, if they are married than it’s not fornication it’s adultery.

So your reasoning says that fonication is “up to them” unless harm may come to someone else, I might also include that with contraception and all of the birth control methods available today, incestuous sexual relations would remove the consideration of children.

I would also include that sexual relations with more than one person such as polygamy would be included in fornication, such as a threesome etc

If these sexual acts are “up to you” would you say that they are immoral? and if not, how did you conclude it?*

I think it’s not just harm to others but harm to each other, e.g. rape is harming the other person, but … yikes, can we talk about something other than sex!

Somewhat off-topic as well, seems like the kind of thing they discuss over in the Social Justice section.

Exactly, so why would society be unwilling to marry incestuous couples or polygamists? because your right, no questions are asked about sex, so why would sex be a factor in these other marriages?

Why can people buy assault weapons in the USA? Why can people buy tobacco products? Because people are not computers.

*Do you see why the Pope said that same sex marriage is a move from the father of all lies, to decieve people of good will? because you are indirectly advocating a vast range of sexual immorality with the reasoning behind same sex marriage without realising.

How could people advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality yet discourage any other sexual act?*

You got a bit incoherent there, who is advocating sexual acts? Why do you think not calling homosexuals immoral would mean not calling rapists immoral?

 

[inocente]

Yes, there are alot of people using birth control, in which the Catholic Church says is immoral because it closes the sexual act to the gift of life. However it is still the reproductive sexual act that is being advocated with heterosexual marriage.

Sounds like one rule for the rich and another for the poor, also known as post-rationalization.

You say it is not true for civil marriage, than what is true for civil marriage? anything goes approach? why are incestuous relationships and polygamists unable to marry in civil marriage?

Because society doesn’t want it.

 

[Lochias]

It’s estimated there are 17 billion Earth-size planets in our galaxy and there are thought to be over 170 billion other galaxies in the visible universe.

I’m not overly impressed with the notion that God designed every life-form that there might be on all those planets.

All this statement shows is a startling lack of faith in the power of God to create.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

CandideWest;10756471:

On that basis (the largely impartial nature of the organisation and better supported references and research) I have a higher degree of confidence in the APA position than that of NARTH when they contradict each other.

Okay, I don’t know a great deal about it, i’ll just take your word for it. Whether same sex attraction is a disorder or not, It is still immoral in my opinion, for me it is no different to a married heterosexual who no longer desires his wife and desires another woman instead, just because he has such desires doesn’t make them right.

Don’t you find it funny that a so-called scientific community has a political position? It makes sense however, in the light of the lobbying of the psychiatric community in terms of removing homosexuality as a disorder. Lobbying and political positions is not something any of the physical sciences engage in to any great degree. It’s like lobbying the American Physical Society that the world is flat. It simply makes no sense.

If we are saying gay people are born with this disposition, then we are saying that this is an exclusively genetic trait. There has been no other trait recorded that people have made such an extraordinary claim.

How do gay genes get passed on without a mother and father.

Wouldn’t this unlikely result mean that of the LGBT, that only Bisexuals and Transgender people could have possibly been born “that way.” ** Please enlighten me about the science.**

 

[Acrossthedesert]

I think it may be exactly the reverse.

The idea that marriage is a license to have sex and procreate was challenged by the sexual revolution, with many deciding marriage was obsolete - why bother getting married if that’s all it stands for?

What is needed is a counter-revolution which reaffirms that the prime purpose of marriage is neither sex nor procreation but a life-long union. Gay marriage is part of that counter-revolution, since it explicitly denies that marriage is about procreation.

See the** bold** below… the license is given to support marriage as a life giving enterprise that carries on the civilization… It’s all about families. Homosexual unions do not provide anything to society. No building block. Even the pagan Romans understood this and admired the Christians self giving in raising children and caring for the old.

The Real Issue

Why can’t homosexuals obtain a marriage license? Is this an issue of equal protection under the law? We can better answer these questions when we understand why the state issues marriage licenses.
Marriage licenses are issued so that marriage can be tracked for the purpose of executing other laws which takes into account the marriage covenant. These laws include trial law (spousal testimony), taxation laws (filing status), and property law ( inheritance and common property). All these laws are beneficial to the married couple. So in effect the state issues marriage licenses in order to grant benefits to married couples.

Why do we grant benefits to married couples?
The state grants benefits to married couples because the state indirectly benefits from the activity surrounding family life. This is similar to the state granting support for college students in the form of student loans and grants. Having a higher educated population benefits the state in the activities this endeavor creates not only within the educational establishment but throughout society. Similarly the state promotes Military service by granting benefits to servicemen and veterans. Although there are people who disagree with military service or marriage, the vast majority of Americans believe that these activities should be promoted.

That brings up an intriguing question;
Does the majority within a democracy have the right to promote the activities it deems beneficial to society by providing benefits?
If the majority of people believe that homosexual marriage does not benefit society, do they have the right not to grant them the benefits of civil marriage? And if civil marriage is a benefit granted by a democratic state, the question of equality and civil rights does not apply. You do not have a right to a benefit. The real issue is whether the majority rules.

Do we have a democracy?

 

[inocente]

No it’s not, I am not arguing for forced treatment or criminalization of gays and yes we are allowing these “depravities” to continue to produce “moral corruption.” However we are not encouraging, advocating or normalising such moral corruption.

If you’re allowing it to continue and we can all see you’re allowing it to continue then you have allowed it to become normal, which is what normalized means.

*Like I said before, Christ taught us not to throw stones, but it’s a whole new level to claim that immoral acts are now moral, to claim that Christ’s forgiveness and mercy is no longer needed for such immorality. *

Now hang on here, where does Jesus say homosexuality is immoral? I don’t mean those verses you quoted before about divorce, I mean where does Jesus say it out loud and give His reason. And it’s still not a secular argument.

*So denying incestuous relationships marriage and accusing them of fornication is also unjust?

Would denying polygamists marriage and accusing them of fornication be unjust?

If a married heterosexual couple decides that they want to become polygamists and brings another woman/man into the relationship, accusing them of adultery is unjust?*

Aren’t they immoral whether or not they are called fornication?

We are going round in circles. You think the “homosexual act” is immoral, I think the morality is similar to the “heterosexual act”. You think marriage is about sex, I don’t.

*So is the sexual acts of homosexuality seen as apple pie and stealing it is seen as fornication? could you please explain or elaborate?

Both fornication and the sexual acts of homosexuality are through consent.*

I got lost.

*But with contraception and birth control there is no need to worry about that and especially if the sexual act of such a union is not taken into account for marriage than why would people discourage it?

Why would people discourage polygamous marriage?*

If you think contraception is 100% effective, think again.

Please go back over my previous posts about polygamy and incest. Sorry but I’m not going to keep repeating the same answers over and over again.

When you think of a way to explain how God is creator and yet not designer, than please let me know, Id love to hear such explanation.

Have a look at that article on theistic evolution I linked earlier, I think it has links to vatican.va documents too. Maybe also reflect that the bible doesn’t talk about a designer god but it does call God the Creator.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If we are saying gay people are born with this disposition, then we are saying that this is an exclusively genetic trait.

Not necessarily. Expressions of some traits from genetics are impacted by other factors such as nutrition during early years of lives.

How do gay genes get passed on without a mother and father.

Wouldn’t this unlikely result mean that of the LGBT, that only Bisexuals and Transgender people could have possibly been born “that way.” ** Please enlighten me about the science.**

I don’t know if there exists “gay genes” or not. But for phenotype (attributes) that are the result of multiple genes (polygenetic) it’s possible for siblings to carry some of the genes needed for the trait but not all the genes it takes for the trait to be expressed. For more information on this search for “polygenetic phenotype.” The result of some polygenetic genes can produce a range of possible expressions. Skin tone and height are examples of polygenetic attributes. Also consider eye color for which at least 15 genes have been identified as contributers.

Traits from recessive genes would also require that a child inherit the gene from both parents before it is expressed (ex: sickle cell anemia).

 

[inocente]

Actually, you are completely wrong, and all you used to back up your statement is a Wikipedia article, which has all the authority of a potted plant.

This statement is the Catholic way of thinking:

"Those of us who believe in God believe that God is the designer of our human body including our sexual organs."

This is from a Catholic priest, from this article:

frwest.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-catholic-church-teaches-about-sex.html

Please remember that Wikipedia is not the authority of the Church. Also, the Baptist denomination is about as American as you can get, so your statement made me chuckle more than a little.

That would have a bit more credibility if it was in some sense an official Church document rather than some guy’s blog. It even has a free blogspot URL.

If you don’t like Wikipedia, why not join up and improve the articles?

You perhaps didn’t bother following the link to the main article on the Church, where you will find many links in the notes and references, including links to vatican.va.

A bit of scholarship never hurt anyone.

And while you’re at it, why not correct your strange belief that the Baptist faith is American?

But, mainly, this thread isn’t about ID so could you reread the OP so we can get back on topic?

 

[Lochias]

Now hang on here, where does Jesus say homosexuality is immoral? I don’t mean those verses you quoted before about divorce, I mean where does Jesus say it out loud and give His reason.

Where does Jesus deny that it’s immoral? Where does he tell his followers to ignore that particular Jewish law and custom?

 

[Lochias]

That would have a bit more credibility if it was in some sense an official Church document rather than some guy’s blog. It even has a free blogspot URL.

Ha. Wikipedia is a bunch of guys’ or gals’ blogs smashed into one, effectively. You’d find more accurate information on any one given subject on the back of a Cheerio’s box.

If you don’t like Wikipedia, why not join up and improve the articles?

Nah, I don’t endorse hopeless causes.

You perhaps didn’t bother following the link to the main article on the Church, where you will find many links in the notes and references, including links to vatican.va.

The link you provided does not say anywhere that the Church doesn’t believe that God designed us. Listen to what you’re saying: God creates, but He doesn’t design? What? Really? :hypno:

Sorry, but your position on this is so illogical as to be laughable.

A bit of scholarship never hurt anyone.

Yes, indeed! You should try it sometime.

And while you’re at it, why not correct your strange belief that the Baptist faith is American?

My bad, then. It still acts, these days, like any other “American Sect”, as you put it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might as well be one.

But, mainly, this thread isn’t about ID so could you reread the OP so we can get back on topic?

The topic of ID is intrinsic to the OP, since you fallaciously claim that God didn’t design our bodies.

 

[JimG]

Yes, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

JimG:

The facts are pretty simple. There is a sexual act that can only be done by man and woman together, and for that reason we call it the marital act, the conjugal act, or marital relations. It can be engaged in whether or not the man and woman are fertile or infertile. It remains the marital act. By its very biological nature it is directed innately to procreation, whether or not that ensues in any particular instance.

It is and always will be impossible for same sex couples to engage in marital relations. That’s the reason that same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.

Now, same sex marriage advocates will say that’s just reducing marriage to sex. No, it’s only stating the obvious. Sexual complementarity is essential, but not the only characteristic of marriage.

Once we have said that sexual complementarity is non-essential, then nothing is essential. Marriage is meaningless.

And it was the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception which started us down this road. It broke the essential link between marriage and procreation. Between marriage and children. Between marriage and family. Those who rejected Humane Vitae, for example, started us on the road to same sex marriage.

The EU rights agency issued a survey of LGBT hate crime and discrimination today, and wandering what other surveys had been carried out I spotted this one of US Catholics from two years ago:

*Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall.

When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics.

Beyond the issue of same-sex marriage, Catholic support for rights for gays and lesbian people is strong and slightly higher than the general public.

Catholics overwhelmingly reject the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.

A majority of Catholics (56%) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin.*

Don’t know how accurate these surveys are but another showing similar support for gay marriage is this one from last year,

Thanks for the reply, although it has nothing whatever to do with what I wrote. Same sex couples can not ever engage in marital relations. That’s just a fact of nature.

I realize that you wish to re-define marriage to have nothing to do with sexual complementarity, but that is impossible.

 

[CandideWest]

I never said the majority of the public was against the decision, I said only four states allowed a woman to have an abortion whenever she (and her doctor) deemed it necessary. R v W invalidated all the other state laws that prohibited abortion (allowing states to ban only late term abortions). The democratic process did not have a chance to play out in those states.

Ahh, righto. Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to argue that democracy would have returned a different result.

Okay, fine. But before I respond, let’s first take a look at your truth statements, which were made prior to mine:

1. sexual orientation is like one’s biological sex and race;
2. homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships

Please provide supporting arguments for these truth statements.

I do not believe I have made either of those truth statements.