Since there are so many threads about homosexuality

[Marc_Anthony]

Sometimes when people read somethings it sets of certain triggers which inhibit fully understanding something because it puts them in a reactionary mode. I think the problem was due to her background she mistook what you wrote, we are only human.

This, I understand. But she said I wanted adopted children dead, ignored my post issuing clarification immediately afterward, blocked me, and, when confronted with the fact that I haven’t said anything remotely close to what she thought, still hasn’t seen fit to either apologize or unblock me.

 

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

I hope you don’t mind me asking for a clearer answer to my question. I am genuinely curious. I truly do not believe that my reasons for being against SSM are based on the fact that I do not believe this to be a good lifestyle for people. If you see something which makes it appear as though I think this way simply because I am biased against homosexuals I would be very interested to hear it.
If not, well, it would be nice to know that there are at least some SSM marriage advocates who recognize that disagreeing with them on the role of government does not necessarily make someone guilty of unfair treatment to homosexuals. I hope you can understand why I am asking for further clarification, your reply does come across a little as though you are simply evading the question.

 

[Glennford]

This, I understand. But she said I wanted adopted children dead, ignored my post issuing clarification immediately afterward, blocked me, and, when confronted with the fact that I haven’t said anything remotely close to what she thought, still hasn’t seen fit to either apologize or unblock me.

Aren’t we all glad the OP decided to share all of her wisdom with us.

 

[Seeker1961]

Well, if you have an active homosexual lifestyle, and are still professing to represent Christ in the world, then I can understand the concern. In the same way, if I had knowledge of a parishioner engaging in an extra-marital affair, but he continued to participate in communion, church activities, volunteer, etc. I would raise an objection.

Otherwise, if you have turned away from the homosexual lifestyle, then I would object to the actions taken against you. You would have just as much right to be there as Sarah Sokolowski!

Nope, no relationships for around 20 years, I made a commitment to the Church and I’m honoring it. Interestingly enough, nobody knew about that. The only thing that mattered was that I had told the truth about my orientation in a response to a question of why I had never married and had no children. I thought her question was a bit rude…but anyway-my answer was: “No, I haven’t married or had kids because I’m not attracted to the opposite sex” I wasn’t asked if I currently had or was planning to have a partner.

Honestly, if I knew about someone committing adultery and saw them go to Communion, I would not say anything to anyone. Their worthiness to receive is between them, their Confessor and God. I do not belong in that equation.

 

[Seeker1961]

See, I still think homosexual behaviour is ultimately immoral, but I don’t believe it is the governments job to dictate every last rule of morality to the people. However, it surely is the job of the government to help ensure that there are stable, commited, and fruitful unions which will produce its future citizens. The absolute best, and to be honest least expensive for the government, way of achieving this is through encouraging stable unions between men and women who will procreate and raise their own biological children in a stable environment. So it make sense for a government to have a special legal position encouraging this. It is simply a matter of a government looking out for its own continued survival. Beyond this interest I really don’t see why it should matter to the government that I have commited mself to someone and promised to live with him and for him for the rest of my life. That is my personal and private life and not something that the government should be poking into. I guess I am rather rambling on now, but the point is that I find it very frustrating when people assume that just because you are against legalized gay marriage you must be some bigoted homophobic lump of trash, which is certainly the way some people behave whenever they hear that you are against legalizing gay marriage. There are many generealizations and assumptions on both sides that lead to much misunderstanding. But the issue of legalizing gay marriage is not as black and white as some people seem to think that it is.

Sometimes I think people believe that if gay marriage is legal, suddenly heterosexual marriage will end.

There are more straight people than gay people, there will be more straight marriages than gay ones…no matter what. People aren’t going to suddenly start marrying people of the same sex just because it’s legal. They’re still going to follow their orientation.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Sometimes I think people believe that if gay marriage is legal, suddenly heterosexual marriage will end.

There are more straight people than gay people, there will be more straight marriages than gay ones…no matter what. People aren’t going to suddenly start marrying people of the same sex just because it’s legal. They’re still going to follow their orientation.

This and the “homosexuality so horrible and so evil that no person with a moral upbringing would do it and that we must ban it because if our children hear about it they will become homosexual” attitude really bother me.

 

[thewanderer]

Sometimes I think people believe that if gay marriage is legal, suddenly heterosexual marriage will end.

There are more straight people than gay people, there will be more straight marriages than gay ones…no matter what. People aren’t going to suddenly start marrying people of the same sex just because it’s legal. They’re still going to follow their orientation.

Oh, I understand that, I just don’t see why govt. Spending should be expanded to include more completely sterile couples, when the only real reason the govt should have an interest is for the sake of its future citizens. yes there are already some sterile couples getting benefits, but why in the world should we expand the benefits? If people are really upset about it then wouldn’t the correct response be to reduce them to fertile couples only? (The one problem being that many couples don’t know whether or not they are fertile until they start trying to have children, and it would be expensive, time-consuming, and just more red tape to try and test each couple before getting married, not to mention that a lot of couples that test as infertile are actually still able to have children…)

I don’t think straight marriage would end, but I see no reason to extend govt spending at taxpayers expense for this.

 

[Dale_M]

Oh, I understand that, I just don’t see why govt. Spending should be expanded to include more completely sterile couples, when the only real reason the govt should have an interest is for the sake of its future citizens.:

I think that argument would be more compelling if it actually were the law, rather than just an opinion. However, I haven’t seen any movement tor restrict such benefits to couples who are raising children. Instead it is given to all married couples, whether they are delaying having children, incapable of having children, or no longer are raising children.

If saving the government money is the rationale, imposing such a restriction would be more productive than restricting same-sex marriage (given the low number of homosexuals, and only a fraction of them would like to marry.) Besides, some homosexual couples are raising children.

 

[thewanderer]

I think that argument would be more compelling if it actually were the law, rather than just an opinion. However, I haven’t seen any movement tor restrict such benefits to couples who are raising children. Instead it is given to all married couples, whether they are delaying having children, incapable of having children, or no longer are raising children.

If saving the government money is the rationale, imposing such a restriction would be more productive than restricting same-sex marriage (given the low number of homosexuals, and only a fraction of them would like to marry.) Besides, some homosexual couples are raising children.

Yes, the fact that it would add more expense is why I don’t push for the govt enforcing such a thing. But I am not against such a restriction for people who are known to be sterile.

Also, I think the claim that just because it’s no the way govt does things we shouldn’t try and accomplish it is silly. Yes there are some in govt who view marriage as being all about validating a romantic attachment and nothin to do with kids, but that doesn’t change the fact of whether or not that is best for our country. I am still goin to work for what o see as being best even if everyone in govt disagrees with me. This is what every good citizen should do. Vote according to the good of the country as best as they can see it rather than voting for something because it will be personally beneficial. Even I I had SSA I would still be against SSM because I do not think it is the govt’s place to sanction purely romantic relationships. That is not govt business.

 

[stewstew03]

HA HA. I may frame this.

I would

 

[stewstew03]

I do not know about your other posts, but I must say that on this thread you have come across in a very antagonistic manner.

I think Glennford’s posts have added some levity

 

[nickybr38]

I’ll play.

What do you think of the theory that homosexuality is basically a mental disorder, just like depression or bipolarism - it’s not healthy?

There was a guest on CAL once who put forth the theory that people are not BORN homosexual. This is something that happens after birth. Whether because of problems in the family (an absentee father, abusive mother, broken family, etc) or abuses or whatever. All of these things are entirely environmental and out of the hands of the person who ends up with the disorder but all in all it is not something that one is ‘hard wired’ for.

I’d be curious to know what you think of this theory?

After reading up on it I feel it has some real merit but today the message being pushed is that homosexuality is natural and good and I know if I were to try and share THIS particular theory that I would be shouted off the roof tops because oh my goodness, how offensive to say it’s a disorder!

But depression isn’t something to be ashamed of. Nor are other mental problems. So why, if homosexuality is truly a disorder, would it be something to be ashamed of?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

…] the only real reason the govt should have an interest is for the sake of its future citizens.

Wanderer, I think there’s very little to support the assertion that the real reason government should be interested in marriage is for the sake of its future citizens. In terms of American democracy, the “future” is only the period of time between general elections, and the state of healthcare, education, the growing gap between rich and poor, and the monstrous level of debt in America (not to mention the fact of abortion) is such that any notion that the government is concerned with future citizens or future anything can quickly be put to bed as purely fantastical thinking.

Moreover, the idea of citizenship in a global economy dominated by relatively stateless multinational corporations requires re-evaluating. Borders are an impediment to the free flow of capital, which means that borders must be rearranged or become more porous in order for the money to go where its masters desire it to go. A nation has become little more than a series of hoops and hurdles through which capital must pass–the incentive, therefore, is for nations to provide as few hoops and hurdles as possible in order to become more instrumental to the flow of capital. In the process, however, a nation becomes little more than a brand and citizenship becomes just another form of brand loyalty. But that’s the way it is. At this point, most states know this. Most governments know this. Same sex marriage in New York City alone brought an extra $259 million into the municipal coffers. Whatever the future means has more to do with $259 million than with “future citizens.”

In fact, citizenship is already far less valuable than consumerism in the modern state, the latter having largely eclipsed the former in terms of denoting anything either politically or economically meaningful. Breeding a good consumer doesn’t necessarily require a specific type of family, nor does it require a concern for procreation in itself. (And anyway, if the birth rate falls to levels considered too low, altering immigration policies can incentivize human traffic and boost the labor force.) All it requires are that conditions (social, cultural, economic, political) be such that that the desired sort of consumer/worker be produced. Or, looked at from another perspective, all it requires is the right story, told by the right people to the right audience to ensure maximum saturation of the narrative and popular identification with it. To large extent, and from any perspective, all of those conditions currently obtain.

All of which is to say: we don’t live in the land of “should.” Indeed, as the saying goes, “should,” “would,” and “could,” are the sorriest words in any language. THis might sounds bitter, but if we’re going to talk meaningfully about the future, a better understanding of our present would be more useful than fantasizing about what the government “should” be interested in.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[thewanderer]

Grace & Peace!

Wanderer, I think there’s very little to support the assertion that the real reason government should be interested in marriage is for the sake of its future citizens. In terms of American democracy, the “future” is only the period of time between general elections, and the state of healthcare, education, the growing gap between rich and poor, and the monstrous level of debt in America (not to mention the fact of abortion) is such that any notion that the government is concerned with future citizens or future anything can quickly be put to bed as purely fantastical thinking.

Moreover, the idea of citizenship in a global economy dominated by relatively stateless multinational corporations requires re-evaluating. Borders are an impediment to the free flow of capital, which means that borders must be rearranged or become more porous in order for the money to go where its masters desire it to go. A nation has become little more than a series of hoops and hurdles through which capital must pass–the incentive, therefore, is for nations to provide as few hoops and hurdles as possible in order to become more instrumental to the flow of capital. In the process, however, a nation becomes little more than a brand and citizenship becomes just another form of brand loyalty. But that’s the way it is. At this point, most states know this. Most governments know this. Same sex marriage in New York City alone brought an extra $259 million into the municipal coffers. Whatever the future means has more to do with $259 million than with “future citizens.”

In fact, citizenship is already far less valuable than consumerism in the modern state, the latter having largely eclipsed the former in terms of denoting anything either politically or economically meaningful. Breeding a good consumer doesn’t necessarily require a specific type of family, nor does it require a concern for procreation in itself. (And anyway, if the birth rate falls to levels considered too low, altering immigration policies can incentivize human traffic and boost the labor force.) All it requires are that conditions (social, cultural, economic, political) be such that that the desired sort of consumer/worker be produced. Or, looked at from another perspective, all it requires is the right story, told by the right people to the right audience to ensure maximum saturation of the narrative and popular identification with it. To large extent, and from any perspective, all of those conditions currently obtain.

All of which is to say: we don’t live in the land of “should.” Indeed, as the saying goes, “should,” “would,” and “could,” are the sorriest words in any language. THis might sounds bitter, but if we’re going to talk meaningfully about the future, a better understanding of our present would be more useful than fantasizing about what the government “should” be interested in.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I’m not trying to deny any of the above (although I am not necessarily admitting that it is all correct, or an entire picture of the situation at hand). I’m not even trying to convince people that I am right in the way that I think. I am just looking for recognition that not everyone who opposes the legal marriage of homosexuals is opposing it because of an anti-gay bias.

And I still stand by my earlier point. Either the government should get out of the marriage buisness completely or it should stay in it for the purpose of encouraging the best possible environment for its future citizens. Thats it, the government has no buisness acting as though it has the power to “allow” people to commit themselves to each other for life. I do not need either the governments permission or recognition to commit myself to someone and neither does anybody else. That is not the place of the government.

As for the notion that we shouldn’t care about what the government should be doing, I have to ask, why not? Shouldn’t we be working towards making our own governments the best that they can be? In order to do that we need to ask the question ‘what should the government be doing?’. I’m not saying that we should be unrealistic about what the present is, but we have to know what we are aiming towards, or else how can we possibly even begin to go anywhere?

 

[fastenatingguy]

Wow, I’m a little surprized at that.

Love the sinner but not if it upsets Mrs. Sokolowski, our largest donor

Interesting perspective on the universal claim.

Sarah x

So now the Polish are the bigots?

That makes me a half bigot (half Polish).

 

[atheistgirl]

So now the Polish are the bigots?

:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

Mrs. Sokolowski is a good Catholic Irish woman

That makes me a half bigot (half Polish).

I’m sure there’s not a bigoted bone in your body

Sarah x

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

Mrs. Sokolowski is a good Catholic Irish woman

I’m sure there’s not a bigoted bone in your body

Sarah x

He is probably confused because Sokolowski means the person is from Sokolow Poland, the -ski has roughly the same meaning as “de” (it denotes place name like d’Orléans)

 

[Poseidon]

I’ll play.

What do you think of the theory that homosexuality is basically a mental disorder, just like depression or bipolarism - it’s not healthy?

There was a guest on CAL once who put forth the theory that people are not BORN homosexual. This is something that happens after birth. Whether because of problems in the family (an absentee father, abusive mother, broken family, etc) or abuses or whatever. All of these things are entirely environmental and out of the hands of the person who ends up with the disorder but all in all it is not something that one is ‘hard wired’ for.

I’d be curious to know what you think of this theory?

After reading up on it I feel it has some real merit but today the message being pushed is that homosexuality is natural and good and I know if I were to try and share THIS particular theory that I would be shouted off the roof tops because oh my goodness, how offensive to say it’s a disorder!

But depression isn’t something to be ashamed of. Nor are other mental problems. So why, if homosexuality is truly a disorder, would it be something to be ashamed of?

Hey! I’m not Lokabrenna (the OP) but I am also a homosexual, and I figured I’d take a stab at your question. (Not trying to steal your thunder or anything, Lokabrenna, just putting my two cents in)

The idea of whether it’s a disorder or not to me doesn’t really matter. It certainly isn’t the normal function of a biological being, because biologically we are intended to reproduce, and homosexuality isn’t working (directly) towards that. So you could classify it as a disorder, but ultimately it’s your second point that’s more important - whether or not it’s harmful.

I only see one way that homosexuality could possibly be harmful, and that’s the increased risk of STD’s such as AIDS. It doesn’t harm society, doesn’t cause breakdowns of other peoples’ marriages, doesn’t do anything like that. Increased risk of STD’s is definitely a downside, but it’s not enough that we should re-institute sodomy laws and illegalize gay marriage. By that logic we’d also have to make promiscuity, alcohol, one-night-stands, and all other risky behavior illegal.

As for whether it’s natural and good - well, it’s obviously natural because it occurs as a natural part of biology (and not only in humans). Whether it’s good - I think that unless you can come up with a compelling reason for why it’s bad (not sinful according to Catholic theology but actually bad in a purely rational sense) then we can accept that it’s at least in a neutral good-bad zone.

 

[thewanderer]

I have another question for the OP, or anyone else out there whoh would like to answer it. I am very curious what your thoughts on this blog post are.

joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

Pleasse understand that I am not at all trying to imply that everyone with SSA should marry someone of the opposite sex, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the article.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

As for the notion that we shouldn’t care about what the government should be doing, I have to ask, why not? Shouldn’t we be working towards making our own governments the best that they can be? In order to do that we need to ask the question ‘what should the government be doing?’. I’m not saying that we should be unrealistic about what the present is, but we have to know what we are aiming towards, or else how can we possibly even begin to go anywhere?

Wanderer, for me, the question is: what is it that’s worth caring about? I have a very dim view of government and believe all governments are doomed to failure–all will disappoint, all will make and break promises, all will behave inhumanly and will do so in the name of the people they claim to represent, all will use evil means to accomplish supposedly good ends, or pervert good means to further wicked ends. And in the end, all empires fall, all governments change, and all things mortal pass away–human government included. The answer to the question “what should government be doing?” is a list so absurdly long and impractical (in terms of practical governance or the exigencies of realpolitik) that the question itself becomes farcical or useless.

(Also, whenever I hear people saying, “Government should do x y or z,” it’s usually just another way of saying, “Why does reality not conform to my vision for it, given that my vision is preferable to reality?” So the subjunctive “should” carries with it a sense of principled and delusional impotence to me. In the end, nothing “should” be anything other than what it actually is. )

But if we believe that government is capable of some good, then instead of asking, “what should government be doing?” I think we’re better off with the following: 1) coming to a realistic understanding of current realities; 2) compellingly articulating a reasonable and actionable alternative which starts from and takes into account current realities; 3) describing the actionable steps needed to accomplish the articulated alternative, showing in the process how the various conflicting claims made on public resources are better or more reasonably harmonized in this alternative and are more clearly directed to serve the interests of the common good.

To me, though, the better questions are these: what are my responsibilities to the people around me? How can I meet those responsibilities and serve others best? What is hindering me from loving my neighbor as God loves him or her? How can I remove those hindrances?

thewanderer:

I have another question for the OP, or anyone else out there whoh would like to answer it. I am very curious what your thoughts on this blog post are.

As for that post, I’ve very little to say–they sound like they have a really beautiful family built on love, honesty, understanding… It’s wholly unobjectionable and is entirely worthy of praise. Is such a life for everyone in a similar situation to that of the principal author? Of course not. And the author is decent and honest enough to say so! It’s lovely.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!