- Status
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Thank you, buffalo!
That’s a very useful link for Catholic and non-Catholic CAF members who are for traditional marriage, especially towards elections.
This instigated me to check on the current representative of the congressional district where my family resides. I was happy to see the representative’s support for traditional marriage and opposition to gay ‘marriage,’ in agreement therefore with DOMA.
Belows is part of the statement released by this representative:
*One aspect of the assault on marriage is the movement now afoot to blur the distinction between marriage and homosexual partnerships. And it’s an important distinction. A partnership exists when two or more individuals come together to associate with each other on mutually agreeable terms for a defined purpose. In partnerships the only responsibilities are to the other partners under terms freely negotiated and agreed to by them. No third party is involuntarily summoned into it. A homosexual relationship is obviously in the nature of a partnership and not a marriage.
True, some homosexual couples seek to raise children. But such an arrangement does not alter the fact that it is a fundamentally different relationship than a marriage. Nor does it negate the child’s right and need to draw fundamental and unique sociological guidance from both a mother and a father. No matter how loving and caring, a homosexual couple cannot offer that.
**Abraham Lincoln once asked, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
Nor does calling a homosexual relationship a marriage.**
*
That’s a very useful link for Catholic and non-Catholic CAF members who are for traditional marriage, especially towards elections.
This instigated me to check on the current representative of the congressional district where my family resides. I was happy to see the representative’s support for traditional marriage and opposition to gay ‘marriage,’ in agreement therefore with DOMA.
Belows is part of the statement released by this representative:
*One aspect of the assault on marriage is the movement now afoot to blur the distinction between marriage and homosexual partnerships. And it’s an important distinction. A partnership exists when two or more individuals come together to associate with each other on mutually agreeable terms for a defined purpose. In partnerships the only responsibilities are to the other partners under terms freely negotiated and agreed to by them. No third party is involuntarily summoned into it. A homosexual relationship is obviously in the nature of a partnership and not a marriage.
True, some homosexual couples seek to raise children. But such an arrangement does not alter the fact that it is a fundamentally different relationship than a marriage. Nor does it negate the child’s right and need to draw fundamental and unique sociological guidance from both a mother and a father. No matter how loving and caring, a homosexual couple cannot offer that.
**Abraham Lincoln once asked, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
Nor does calling a homosexual relationship a marriage.**
*
T
Taoist
Guest
I’m glad to see my representative “attacking marriage.” In my state of California, according to the above web site, only three California representatives are openly in favor of keeping the homosexuals down and denying them their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.
It’s been quite a while since I’ve visited CAF, could someone please enlighten me on what the church is doing to overturn gay marriage in states and countries where it is legal?
It’s been quite a while since I’ve visited CAF, could someone please enlighten me on what the church is doing to overturn gay marriage in states and countries where it is legal?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Taoist
only three California representatives are openly in favor of keeping the homosexuals down and denying them their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law
Doesn’t speak well for California legislature, does it?
By the way, what obligation is there in your mind for the state to recognize sodomy as an “equal rights” issue? Isn’t that kind of like saying incest should also be an equal rights issue?
If the issue ever comes before the Supreme Court, I would not be too confident that the Supreme Court as presently Constituted will rule in favor of the right to legalize sodomite relationships as marital compacts. Although you never know, the Supreme Court did legalize the massacre of the unborn.
**It’s been quite a while since I’ve visited CAF, could someone please enlighten me on what the church is doing to overturn gay marriage in states and countries where it is legal? **
I have no idea. Maybe just praying for the conversion of the pagans?
only three California representatives are openly in favor of keeping the homosexuals down and denying them their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law
Doesn’t speak well for California legislature, does it?
By the way, what obligation is there in your mind for the state to recognize sodomy as an “equal rights” issue? Isn’t that kind of like saying incest should also be an equal rights issue?
If the issue ever comes before the Supreme Court, I would not be too confident that the Supreme Court as presently Constituted will rule in favor of the right to legalize sodomite relationships as marital compacts. Although you never know, the Supreme Court did legalize the massacre of the unborn.
**It’s been quite a while since I’ve visited CAF, could someone please enlighten me on what the church is doing to overturn gay marriage in states and countries where it is legal? **
I have no idea. Maybe just praying for the conversion of the pagans?
T
Taoist
Guest
You make sodomy sound like a bad thing. By the way, the definition of sodomy is not restricted to homosexuals, but I seriously doubt the church would go after straight, married sodomites, so your double standards are showing.
No. Please try to stay on topic.
Your inability to distinguish homosexuality from sodomy blinds you. Your inability to understand how the US Constitution works is glaring. Do you realize the Constitution does not recognize the rules of any religion, but recognizes only the law as it is written in the Constitution?
More directly to your point, Justice Scalia is on record saying the 14th Amendment (granting equal protection of the law to all citizens) applies only to freed slaves after the Civil War, which is his way of rejecting the validity of the 14th Amendment for modern society. Incidentally, if the Supreme Court does strike down gay marriage then the doors will be open to overturn Brown v. Board of Education and allow for legal segregation of the races, religions, blues eyes and any other difference the local majority deems undesirable.
I thought this issue was a big deal for the church. Are you making fun it?I have no idea. Maybe just praying for the conversion of the pagans?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Taoist
**
You make sodomy sound like a bad thing. By the way, the definition of sodomy is not restricted to homosexuals, but I seriously doubt the church would go after straight, married sodomites, so your double standards are showing.**
Try as you might, you can never make sodomy out to be a good thing. It is vile and unnatural, and no civilization has ever given sodomy its blessing.
Please try to stay on topic.
Making an analogy of sodomy to incest is valid. Analogies are allowed on any thread, so long as they don’t take over the thread.
Do yourself a favor and learn some history, and at least a modicum of common sense.
Laws 8.836c-e, in which Plato discusses what laws should regulate sexual conduct. It’s plain that Plato sees a historical decline in morals since the time of Laius.
“Suppose you follow nature’s rule and establish the law that was in force before the time of Laius. You’d argue that one may have sexual intercourse with women but not with men or boys. As evidence for your view, you’d point to the animal world, where (you’d argue) the males do not have sexual relations with each other, because such a thing is unnatural. But in Crete and Sparta your argument would not go down well, and you’d probably persuade nobody. However, another argument is that such practices are incompatible with what in our view should be the constant aim of the legislator - that is, we’re always asking, ‘which of our regulations encourages virtue, and which does not?’ Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue? Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person? Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument - quite the contrary. Everyone will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman. So who on earth will pass a law like that? Hardly anyone, at any rate if he knows what a genuine law really is.”
Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”
Aristotle
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child.”
**I thought this issue was a big deal for the church. Are you making fun it? **
Only an atheist would think I was making fun of the power of prayer. Get a grip on your logic.
**
You make sodomy sound like a bad thing. By the way, the definition of sodomy is not restricted to homosexuals, but I seriously doubt the church would go after straight, married sodomites, so your double standards are showing.**
Try as you might, you can never make sodomy out to be a good thing. It is vile and unnatural, and no civilization has ever given sodomy its blessing.
Please try to stay on topic.
Making an analogy of sodomy to incest is valid. Analogies are allowed on any thread, so long as they don’t take over the thread.
Do yourself a favor and learn some history, and at least a modicum of common sense.
Laws 8.836c-e, in which Plato discusses what laws should regulate sexual conduct. It’s plain that Plato sees a historical decline in morals since the time of Laius.
“Suppose you follow nature’s rule and establish the law that was in force before the time of Laius. You’d argue that one may have sexual intercourse with women but not with men or boys. As evidence for your view, you’d point to the animal world, where (you’d argue) the males do not have sexual relations with each other, because such a thing is unnatural. But in Crete and Sparta your argument would not go down well, and you’d probably persuade nobody. However, another argument is that such practices are incompatible with what in our view should be the constant aim of the legislator - that is, we’re always asking, ‘which of our regulations encourages virtue, and which does not?’ Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue? Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person? Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument - quite the contrary. Everyone will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman. So who on earth will pass a law like that? Hardly anyone, at any rate if he knows what a genuine law really is.”
Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”
Aristotle
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child.”
**I thought this issue was a big deal for the church. Are you making fun it? **
Only an atheist would think I was making fun of the power of prayer. Get a grip on your logic.
B
buffalo
Guest
Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Excuse me, but homosexuality and sodomy are NOT alternative realities. They intersect in a big way. The behavior is not a basis on which to make new law, even with your justification that some heterosexual pairs engage in sodomy, which likewise presents health risks for women who participate in such behavior.
Your arguments are not reasons to make same-sex partnership parallel to traditional marriage of one man one woman creating the family unit.
Same sex couples cannot produce children to create a family, the irreducible unit of society, in all cultures, preceding all governments and even the Church. That is, unless same sex couples enters into a parasitic and/or compensated arrangement with a person or persons to make up the natural pairing that produces an ovum and sperm, and bringing a fertilized egg to term, through birth of a child, all the way to raising that child. Lawyers and doctors need to devote their talents toward the common good, not the good of a misguided minority that has replaced the worship of God with the worship of unnatural lust.
Don’t be too sure the gay crowd will have the final say on which way California would go. The homosexual judge in the state who ruled against Prop 8 should have recused himself. As for legislators, just look at the battle in the house of representatives in Rhode Island. The gay supporters there assume it is a slam dunk for their cause. There are many representatives in California who have not made their official position known as you can see on the site provided by the OP. I am very pleased to see the incumbent in our district make his position known even before he won the seat in 2008.
,
T
Taoist
Guest
I’m very happy to have received the responses to my position in favor of gay marriage and will address each individually. However, since this forum is obviously devoted to only one rule book I do not expect to change any minds, but I do hope to illuminate the readers of the arguments from the other side, and hopefully make the members’ arguments much stronger.
‘Sodomy’ is defined as anal and oral sex, which is not limited to homosexuals, which is why your equivocation of the term in describing only homosexuals is inaccurate. Please be more precise in your use of words in order to minimize confusion and misrepresentation. Also, you make no argument for why sodomy is “vile and unnatural, and no civilization has ever given sodomy its blessing.” First, since you have claimed absolutely that “no civilization has ever given sodomy its blessing” then if I find one example then that argument will be rightfully discredited. Are you sure you want to keep that wording? It’s your last chance. Secondly, while you are at it please explain how private sexual practices between consenting adults have anything to do with the public contract of marriage, and why certain private sexual practices should automatically disqualify one from marriage.
You will have to do much better than make an unqualified claim to have a valid point. Simply stating something does not make it true. Please explain how incest is analogous to homosexuality.
So early in our relationship and you have already made assumptions. I am third generation Jesuit high school educated and an M.A. in HIstory from a Jesuit university. So your reference of Plato, while a valiant attempt at intimidation, is easily dismissed as irrelevant to the US Constitution since Plato is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. Please stay relevant to the topic, which is the legal justification for denying homosexuals their 14th Amendment right.
If only the church would restrict itself to prayers in secular matters, but clearly that is not the case. If the church becomes involved in secular matters then it must abide by secular rules. Also, you are insulting the Christians in the places where gay marriage is legal by declaring them pagan. If you wish to be taken seriously on this issue then please refrain from ad hominem attacks.
T
Taoist
Guest
Please do better than this. By definition marriage is a civil contract, legally recognized only when authorized by a civil authority.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Rights to a civil contract are one thing. “Rights” (demands) that a State additionally approve, formally, of your independent civil contract are something else entirely. You do not have a civil right to a State-approved formal union called, specifically “marriage.” You can go get yourself a lawyer to draw up a contract, or draw one up yourself if you’re clever, but the rest of U.S. society, represented by the government, does not have to approve of same-gender sodomy, mutual masturbation, and oral sex as the simulations of genuine complementary love between two biologically complementary individuals.
You can also cohabitate and engage in the above sexual acts, as freely and often as you like. Definitely guaranteed by the Constitution. No one has any right to persecute you for it. But no one has to congratulate you for it, either, and pronounce you “husband and husband,” “wife and wife,” etc.
By the way, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are relational terms, to each other. They lose their significance when removed from their gender complementarity.
You can also cohabitate and engage in the above sexual acts, as freely and often as you like. Definitely guaranteed by the Constitution. No one has any right to persecute you for it. But no one has to congratulate you for it, either, and pronounce you “husband and husband,” “wife and wife,” etc.
By the way, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are relational terms, to each other. They lose their significance when removed from their gender complementarity.
T
Taoist
Guest
Heterosexuality and sodomy intersect in a big way, too. Ever heard of a woman giving a man a blow job, aka fellatio? There’s even a word for a man sexually pleasuring a woman orally - cunilingus. Anal sex in not exclusive of homosexuals. So what’s your point?
New law? Clearly you are not reading why gay marriage is legal in certain states; it’s because gay marriage is specifically NOT illegal. New laws must be made to make it illegal.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but are you saying heterosexual sodomy is bad for women’s health? Please clarify.
This is putting the cart before the horse. If the purpose of marriage is to produce children then marriage, according to you argument above, should be allowed only after children are produced. But if you wish to ignore that, then how about this? Any marriage that does not produce children, whether by choice or physiology is made null. Also, any person unable or unwilling to produce children is disqualified from the marriage contract. Thus your argument amounts to: only people willing and able to have children are allowed to marry, but only after children are produced. Are you sure you want me to twist your words around like this, or would you rather abandon it since the current marriage requirements do not explicitly or implicitly require the production of children and never have?
Why? Don’t leave me hanging, does the church have something planned that will forever ban gay marriage in the US?
Which judge was that?
True that. But then politicians are not known for taking up minority causes if it will cost them votes, which is why the gay marriage issue is being fought in the courts instead of the legislatures. I thought you understood that.
Did you count the number who were officially for gay marriage? Let’s just say it was more than three, which in a majority-rule democracy is more important than what the minority thinks. But nevermind that, gay marriage, like all other matters of its sort, will be decided in the courts, so the number of legislators for or against it is moot.
T
Taoist
Guest
So far I’m unimpressed with the arguments presented on this thread against gay marriage. I’m aware of Cafeteria Christians, but cherry-picking doesn’t work in secular law, so does anyone have a good legal argument why the 14th Amendment should be ignored? That amendment is a big problem in efforts to ban gay marriage since every time the issue comes before a judge lately the judge rules in favor of gay marriage.
One way of consoling yourselves if gay marriage does become legal in the US is it won’t mean the Catholic church must perform gay marriages. The church does have a First Amendment right of freedom of association, speech, and religion, so it is welcome to carry on its efforts to divide men along Biblically arbitrary lines all it wants, but only within its own membership.
One way of consoling yourselves if gay marriage does become legal in the US is it won’t mean the Catholic church must perform gay marriages. The church does have a First Amendment right of freedom of association, speech, and religion, so it is welcome to carry on its efforts to divide men along Biblically arbitrary lines all it wants, but only within its own membership.
T
Taoist
Guest
This doesn’t make sense to me. Please clarify what marriage is if it is not a legally recognized and enforced agreement? Although I was married in the Catholic church, Monsignor specifically pointed out the ceremony was not legally binding until the civil documents were signed and properly filed. So please explain how your interpretation differs.
All this is irrelevant to the issue. It’s legal to hate blacks, Latinos, Jews, homosexuals or any other class of people one arbitrarily choses (mostly because they look or think differently than you and refuse to get with your program), as the Supreme Court has affirmed, but this has nothing to do with preventing citizens from entering into the common, state recognized, legal agreement called ‘marriage.’
I congratulate my brother-in-law on his marriage to his husband, nor do I need your approval for it. So what’s your point?
This makes no sense.
Another big problem with the anti-gay marriage argument is that it hasn’t proven how gay marriage will harm straight marriage. The boilerplate mumbo-jumbo about why a minority should be denied the full force and protection of the Constitution doesn’t materialize, unless you consider detrimental to society women’s right to vote, Chinese and Japanese immigration, inter-racial marriage, the voting age lowered from 21 to 18, the ending of slavery, the ending of Jim Crow laws, the racial integration of the military, and the military admitting gays into service.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Taoist
So far I’m unimpressed with the arguments presented on this thread against gay marriage. I’m aware of Cafeteria Christians, but cherry-picking doesn’t work in secular law, so does anyone have a good legal argument why the 14th Amendment should be ignored?
Where does the 14th Amendment define marriage as a contract between members of the same sex? Where does the 14th Amendment say the state must pass legislation to dignify sodomy with the status of a marital bond?
If the Equal Protection clause applies to equating sodomites with heterosexuals for the sake of marital rights, why doesn’t it also protect incestuous relationships and incestuous marriages between consenting adults? If you invoke “Equal Protection” for one, why not for the other?
So far I’m unimpressed with the arguments presented on this thread against gay marriage. I’m aware of Cafeteria Christians, but cherry-picking doesn’t work in secular law, so does anyone have a good legal argument why the 14th Amendment should be ignored?
Where does the 14th Amendment define marriage as a contract between members of the same sex? Where does the 14th Amendment say the state must pass legislation to dignify sodomy with the status of a marital bond?
If the Equal Protection clause applies to equating sodomites with heterosexuals for the sake of marital rights, why doesn’t it also protect incestuous relationships and incestuous marriages between consenting adults? If you invoke “Equal Protection” for one, why not for the other?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
I have started a new thread here on whether the 14th Amendment provides “Equal Protection” rights for incestuous marriages. 
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7742480#post7742480
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7742480#post7742480
T
Taoist
Guest
Please stop pretending to be clueless about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as it makes it difficult to take you seriously and you are not helping your case.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
He’s not being “clueless,” least of all is he “pretending.”
It’s the Gay Lobby which is abusing the intentions of the law to their own particular ends.
It’s the Gay Lobby which is abusing the intentions of the law to their own particular ends.
T
Taoist
Guest
Well, then, Elizabeth, why don’t you explain how the religious lobby can avoid or nullify the 14th Amendment. Please try to stay on topic with the legal issue and not the players.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
You are right in that the broad definition of sodomy includes oral sex. I was referring to anal sex when I used the word, and I would venture to say that that’s what most people have in mind in the vernacular and in debate in this forum.
You forgot to include in your quote what I already said that homosexual behavior is not a basis on which to legalize gay ‘marriage’, notwithstanding the justification that some heterosexual pairs engage in sodomy (anal sex), which likewise presents health risks for women who participate in such behavior.
I was referring to DOMA, to which the OP leads in the link provided, not the few states that have legalized gay ‘marriage.’
Pardon an inartful but direct answer to your question. YES, anal sex is high risk sex for women as well who practice said behavior as it leads to medical problems. It tears the lining of the anus, a part of the body with the function for waste elimination, not for copulation. The tears at the sphincter and fissures higher up make easy entry for bacteria and body fluid borne diseases into the bloodstream. Since anal sex is the favored sex act of homosexuals, and in combination with the common promiscuity in that population, it led to the spread of AIDS in the early 80’s. Before somebody argues that that it was unhealthy (unprotected) sex that led to the spread, and not promiscuity, the CDC published reports that unequivocally pointed to promiscuity as a significant factor. Although subsequent educational campaigns for monogamous and safe homosexual relations are mitigating new incidents of HIV/AIDS, anal sex remains high risk. Just ask any infectious disease specialist.
You may think the bombast of your posts give them more substance. Nay. Neither will your bullying give you victory in argument. It is also bad form to twist words and meanings of your opponent in debate. You know that my meaning is not that only people willing and able to have children are allowed to marry, but only after children are produced.
I notice that was your question on your first post on this thread. It’s really odd, after you declared that you are glad the representative in your district is attacking traditional marriage.
Don’t tell us you are anxious what the Catholic Church might do. Being Jesuit high school educated, as you declared, with an M.A. in History, who abandoned his faith to be a no-afterlife-no-heaven-no-hell, yin-yang and gay ‘marriage’ believing Taoist, certainly you know much more than what you are letting on. Are you coming from a personal situation that embittered you towards the Catholic Church? Or, are you just fighting for ‘justice’ for your brother-in-law who took a husband? That’s very common here, posters vehemently arguing for the narrow interest of a personal situation or loved ones, not looking to the future of society and the common good.
Did you not say you are in California? How come you don’t know about Judge Vaughn Walker?
Oh, I do understand that the gay lobby is putting great resources and efforts to put candidates who are pro-gay marriage in elected and appointed government positions, and angling to get cases in front of courts held by activist judges like that one by Judge Walker. Both methods are useful to the pro-gay ‘marriage’ cause.
Yep, that’s what you hope for, the courts to come to the rescue of the ‘oppressed’ minority via activist judges, and not honor the votes in the state of California that should have put to bed that marriage is between a man and a woman, in alignment with DOMA. Some oppressed minority which does not care for the future of society and the country!
,
- Status