Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[wynnejj]

No kids and broken homes is the cause of basic economic unrest…

You pointed out my stated thesis quite accurately…
No kids and broken homes is the cause of basic economic unrest.

Gay marriage and divorce are only a subset of “no kids and broken homes” superset.
There are many single mother households (with or without transient boy friend).
Ageing population over-taxing our welfare systems.
etc.

 

[CopticChristian]

What do you think they will be?

Let’s imagine the Constitution is amended to allow for gay marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?

Brandon,

You started 3 threads.

1. Post denominational Christianity
2. How Far can we go
3. Gay marriage…

You have formulated and declared yourself to be a Christian of a certain type. You say you worship and I truly wonder what that means. You believe in a God but what are the attributes of this God you believe in? You ask for opening a communion and the question is what is it you want. I see only debate and disagreement, not dialogue.

I am a post-denominational Christian. I worship during the week with a group at my university (non-denominational), p ray the morning prayer at a Scottish Episcopalian Church, and attend contemporary Presbyterian worship on Sundays (while twice a month going to Catholic Mass on Saturday evening). I have made meaningful connections within these communities, and am starting to build bridges.

A more provocative question… what do you think about opening communion to post-denominational Christians?

You denigrate the OHCAC. This is denigrating.

I don’t put much stock in human authority. And human authority is all the authority I believe the Catholic Church has.

You declare that gay marriage causes no problems and state ignorance in spite of being offered dialogue that is contrary. You state your views are based on knowledge of God from the Bible and Philosopy.

What I believe is that I don’t know what is causing problems. I don’t see any reason to think that gay marriage has or will cause problems, but I’m pretty ignorant about this, so that’s why I’m asking you guys.

My view is based on knowledge I have about God, from the Bible, from philosophy and my understanding of God’s nature, and from what I know about the world God designed.

You were asked the following…

So, you think God would instead prefer two men or two women live in perversion or abomination?

You responded as follows…

Idon’t think it is perversion or an abomination.

So here is my question for you.

Are you gay?

If you believe in God and the Bible what is your understanding of the issue of Homosexuality as you retrieve information from the Bible? Support your view.

Here is the view you should take into account. You cannot claim ignorance after reading this. If you can read. If you can type. If you can post then you are no longer ignorant. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with it. You cannot claim ignorance after reading this and if you post after this then you just avoided it and that would cause me to wonder about you.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Last but not least you can search the Catholic answer site as found here and read about homosexuality…

catholic.com/search/content/homosexuality

to alleviate your ignorance.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I’ve found the “children NEED a mother and father argument” to be based more on gender stereotyping than actual fact. …

No. It is based on actual fact. For the children just to be. At no time in the history of mankind has a child been conceived and born to two men or two women. It always takes one man and one woman. Always.

…It also assumes that LGBT people don’t have opposite-sex relatives. In my own family, for example, I have:

A dad
Two brothers

On my father’s side, I have four uncles and one grandfather. On my mother’s side, I have two uncles.

I also have a stepdad, who is my biological mother’s common-law partner, an uncle, a maternal grandfather, and my biological father.

My (hypothetical) son has plenty of potential positive role models, as well as two mothers who would love him to pieces.

Sure, positive male role models in addition to a father are beneficial for a child, just as positive female role models in addition to a mother are beneficial to a child. Too, male and female role models are beneficial if a calamity takes a mother or a father from a child, but a child needs both a mother and a father in the home for formation and guidance and for the most ideal development.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

No. It is based on actual fact. For the children just to be. At no time in the history of mankind has a child been conceived and born to two men or two women. It always takes one man and one woman. Always.

Sure, positive male role models in addition to a father are beneficial for a child, just as positive female role models in addition to a mother are beneficial to a child. Too, male and female role models are beneficial if a calamity takes a mother or a father from a child, but a child needs both a mother and a father in the home for formation and guidance and for the most ideal development.

They have done repeated studies and nothing is an adequate replacement for a stable home with a mother and a father raising the kids.

 

[SwizzleStick]

They have done repeated studies and nothing is an adequate replacement for a stable home with a mother and a father raising the kids.

Yep.

 

[St_Francis]

I do have the sense that I am unable to understand both you and other responders on this thread. I don’t know why this is…

In any case, thank you for the attempt.

I read an interesting thing recently, that people in the city have access to a wide range of people, but because there are so many people, they can pick and choose, and they generally end up picking and choosing people who are very much like themselves. My brother and sister, who each live in different cities? Their friends are just like them, in the same or similar fields, around the same ages, similar philosophies, everything the same.

I live in a small town. there are not enough people like me for me to hang out exclusively with people like me. I know people on welfare, and one of the richest people in the area. I know people of all ages, from little kids to people in their 90s. I know people of all different occupations, mechanics, electircal linemen, people who work in offices, small business owners, teachers…

I would never have known what I know about parenting before I had children. Oh, I knew it in a general way; it seemed like it would be helpful to have two people involved instead of just one, but the reality? No. I’d been to college.

And those studies? When I read about a study that polled college students who had experienced sexual abuse as children, they said that they were fine. This was the study about long-term negative effects of sexual abuse!

Well of *course *they are going to say that! At that time of their lives, they are trying to put that stuff behind them; they are brand-new adults and have no idea what normal adulthood is much less whether they have achieved it despite such a terrible experience. Did this study *test *the psychological states of the students? Did they ask them agai n whrn they were older, when they were married and had children? No. And the headline read: Study Shows Sexual abuse has no Long Term Effects.

That’s when I stopped believing in those man-made studies you put so much credence in, despite your distrust of human authority.

Sorry, I rambled on and I’m on my Ipod so it will be hard to edit. Maybe this will help clarify something…

 

[wynnejj]

I think that in the Catholic Church there is neither a proscription nor prohibition on prosecuting extra-marital or homosexual relationships at all. This is left to the prudential judgement of the society involved.

“Tolerance” in the Catholic sense is understanding that prosecution of an evil would cause more civil problems than allowing it to be. So, for example, not every lie uttered is illegal, because then *either *every time someone lied it would become a court case, which would be crazy; *or *people would lose respect for the law by continually breaking it. Therefore, lying is “tolerated,” in the Catholic sense.

That would seem to cover my question about whether if fornication, adultery, or sodomy laws on the books were in the process of being repealed, it might be OK for a Catholic politician to support repeal for reasons of prudential judgement — maybe, too difficult to prosecute without injustice. That is, removal of such laws would not necessarily constitute formal cooperation in intrinsic evil.

(BTW, good post overall. Makes sense to me.)

 

[LostChemist]

While there are too many comments on this thread to address them all (I wish I had stumbled upon here sooner!) I will wanted to make a few points. I think that the notion that the traditional family as being the best is just that: tradition. While gay couples cannot have kids, they can adopt and there is a need for loving parents out there. I don’t think that two men raising a kid to be any worse then a single parent. Will a gay couple show their kid the same love, compassion, and kindness than a traditional family? Most likely yes. If anything, they may also teach their child the type of tolerance lacking in traditional families.

I don’t think that the goverment is trying to regulate ANY religious freedoms. I think that the gay marriage debate is the government trying to protect individual freedoms. How many Christians once believed that slavery was ok? How many Christian husbands once treated their wives more like property then equals? Times change, and the government tries their best to make sure that people are treated fairly across the board. Now, marriage in the governments eyes is more of a contract and nothing more. It’s religion that defines marriage as something deeper. The government would NEVER be able to force a church to marry a gay couple. So, a gay couple can be married by the state but not before God. So, I ask… What’s the problem?

I don’t think that gay marriage has had any detriment on our society as a whole. Sure there has been the stress and money spent debating the issue. But other than that? Gay couples seem to get married and live as happy of a life as heterosexual couples do. They seem to raise families without detriment. I cannot see the problem here.

I think that I might be offended if the church started marrying gay couples simply because it is against the faith and beliefs. But outside of that? I try not to judge others for their beliefs. If gay marriage is something that God frowns upon, the the couple will have to take it up with Him when the time comes.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Gay couples seem to get married and live as happy of a life as heterosexual couples do… I cannot see the problem here.

…until you actually look at the research (instead of just believing the twisted hype and propaganda) about how unstable these relationships are, overall, how unsatisfying they are, how un"monogamous" they are, etc.

 

[rossum]

…until you actually look at the research (instead of just believing the twisted hype and propaganda) about how unstable these relationships are, overall, how unsatisfying they are, how un"monogamous" they are, etc.

Do you have a link to comparative divorce rates for countries/states which recognise same sex partnerships?

rossum

 

[St_Francis]

While there are too many comments on this thread to address them all (I wish I had stumbled upon here sooner!) I will wanted to make a few points. I think that the notion that the traditional family as being the best is just that: tradition. While gay couples cannot have kids, they can adopt and there is a need for loving parents out there. I don’t think that two men raising a kid to be any worse then a single parent. Will a gay couple show their kid the same love, compassion, and kindness than a traditional family? Most likely yes. If anything, they may also teach their child the type of tolerance lacking in traditional families.

I don’t think that the goverment is trying to regulate ANY religious freedoms. I think that the gay marriage debate is the government trying to protect individual freedoms. How many Christians once believed that slavery was ok? How many Christian husbands once treated their wives more like property then equals? Times change, and the government tries their best to make sure that people are treated fairly across the board. Now, marriage in the governments eyes is more of a contract and nothing more. It’s religion that defines marriage as something deeper. The government would NEVER be able to force a church to marry a gay couple. So, a gay couple can be married by the state but not before God. So, I ask… What’s the problem?

I don’t think that gay marriage has had any detriment on our society as a whole. Sure there has been the stress and money spent debating the issue. But other than that? Gay couples seem to get married and live as happy of a life as heterosexual couples do. They seem to raise families without detriment. I cannot see the problem here.

I think that I might be offended if the church started marrying gay couples simply because it is against the faith and beliefs. But outside of that? I try not to judge others for their beliefs. If gay marriage is something that God frowns upon, the the couple will have to take it up with Him when the time comes.

Several of the points you bring up have already been addressed earlier in the thread. If you were to quote a reply and ask a question about someone’s response, then we wouldn’t have to write the same thing all over again.

 

[CopticChristian]

While there are too many comments on this thread to address them all (I wish I had stumbled upon here sooner!) I will wanted to make a few points.** I think **that the **notion **that the traditional family as being the best is just that: tradition. While gay couples cannot have kids, they can adopt and there is a need for loving parents out there. **I don’t think **that two men raising a kid to be any worse then a single parent. Will a gay couple show their kid the same love, compassion, and kindness than a traditional family? Most likely yes. If anything, they may also teach their child the type of tolerance lacking in traditional families.

I don’t think that the goverment is trying to regulate ANY religious freedoms**. I think **that the gay marriage debate is the government trying to protect individual freedoms. How many Christians once believed that **slavery **was ok? How many Christian husbands once treated their wives more like property then equals? Times change, and the government tries their best to make sure that people are treated fairly across the board. Now, marriage in the governments eyes is more of a contract and nothing more. It’s religion that defines marriage as something deeper. The government would NEVER be able to force a church to marry a gay couple. So, a gay couple can be married by the state but not before God. So, I ask… What’s the problem?

**I don’t think **that gay marriage has had any detriment on our society as a whole. Sure there has been the stress and money spent debating the issue. But other than that? Gay couples seem to get married and live as happy of a life as heterosexual couples do. They seem to raise families without detriment. I cannot see the problem here.

I think that I might be offended if the church started marrying gay couples simply because it is against the faith and beliefs. But outside of that? I try not to judge others for their beliefs. If gay marriage is something that God frowns upon, the the couple will have to take it up with Him when the time comes.

Lost,

What you think and don’t think is not relevant to any notion as it pertains to what is proper and right. To equate slavery to homosexuality is what you think and I don’t think you understand that slavery and homosexuality are both wrong.

If you believe that we should let God take care of things when the time comes then why do away with slavery if times change. If times change and we recognize slavery as wrong then we don’t let God decide or take it up with Him when the time comes. That is why wives are not beaten and we don’t approve of slavery. Homosexuality is still not approved yet practiced. Somethings not approved will remain unaproved and somethings will change. Not all things.

Slavery is an abomination as is Homosexuality and you are lost.

Thank you for your thoughts. What you think is relevant to you and your conclusions do not fit your recognition of the changing times or we should as you say take up beating wives and slavery with God when the time comes. You are wrong.

 

[fix]

Gay couples seem to get married and live as happy of a life as heterosexual couples do. They seem to raise families without detriment. I cannot see the problem here.

People who work for planned parenthood seem happy. People who cheat on their taxes are happy. People do all types of disordered things and seem happy.

I try not to judge others for their beliefs.

Do you judge the beliefs? Do children get a say?

If gay marriage is something that God frowns upon, the the couple will have to take it up with Him when the time comes.

Can you imagine using that standard for other things?

 

[wynnejj]

Hasn’t this question been asked tbefore in essence?

Q. What do you (the Church) think they will be?
Let’s imagine the -]Constitution/-] Christian World is amended to allow for -]gay marriage/-] contraception in marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?

A. Thank you all for your insights and thoughts and I must say that I agree with many of your points, but being guided by the Holy Spirit I am bound to tell you what He thinks. Go figure?

Humanae Vitae

Concern of the Church

1. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a “sign of contradiction.” (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

 

[Lokabrenna]

No. It is based on actual fact. For the children just to be. At no time in the history of mankind has a child been conceived and born to two men or two women. It always takes one man and one woman. Always.

Yes, and there are plenty of mothers and fathers who abandon the children they create, children which could then have the opportunity to grow up in a stable and loving home. The ability to procreate does not guarantee that the people in question will be good parents.

Besides, if baby making is all anyone cares about, why isn’t anyone trying to keep infertile and elderly couples from marrying? Neither of my mothers are able to have children anymore, and my grandmother remarried after divorcing (she’s Protestant). If the only purpose of marriage is to procreate, then half my family is obviously doing it wrong.

Sure, positive male role models in addition to a father are beneficial for a child, just as positive female role models in addition to a mother are beneficial to a child. Too, male and female role models are beneficial if a calamity takes a mother or a father from a child, but a child needs both a mother and a father in the home for formation and guidance and for the most ideal development.

Even if the mother and father abuse their children?

Sorry, but I’d rather the child grow up in a home with parents who will love and care for them (regardless of sex) to heterosexual couples who will hurt them. Somehow, my professor and her partner have managed to raise two great boys on their own, with no father in evidence. I remember they were into superheroes.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, and there are plenty of mothers and fathers who abandon the children they create, children which could then have the opportunity to grow up in a stable and loving home. The ability to procreate does not guarantee that the people in question will be good parents.

Besides, if baby making is all anyone cares about, why isn’t anyone trying to keep infertile and elderly couples from marrying? Neither of my mothers are able to have children anymore, and my grandmother remarried after divorcing (she’s Protestant). If the only purpose of marriage is to procreate, then half my family is obviously doing it wrong.

Even if the mother and father abuse their children?

Sorry, but I’d rather the child grow up in a home with parents who will love and care for them (regardless of sex) to heterosexual couples who will hurt them. Somehow, my professor and her partner have managed to raise two great boys on their own, with no father in evidence. I remember they were into superheroes.

You are comparing apples to oranges when you say things like this. There is no shortage of heterosexual couples wanting to adopt, so there is no necessity to allow people otherthan heterosexual couples to adopt, is there?

Naturally a “perfect” homosexual couple comes off better than a drug-addicted single parent home–but when it comes to adoption, few children are actually placed with families like the ones you describe, are they? And there are homosexual couples who do drugs and engage in heinous behavior, aren’t there?

It is wromg to compare the worst of one group with the best of another group and then claim anything based on that false comparison.

 

[SwizzleStick]

You are comparing apples to oranges when you say things like this. There is no shortage of heterosexual couples wanting to adopt, so there is no necessity to allow people otherthan heterosexual couples to adopt, is there?

Naturally a “perfect” homosexual couple comes off better than a drug-addicted single parent home–but when it comes to adoption, few children are actually placed with families like the ones you describe, are they? And there are homosexual couples who do drugs and engage in heinous behavior, aren’t there?

It is wromg to compare the worst of one group with the best of another group and then claim anything based on that false comparison.

You did a great job answering, so I have nothing to add. Thank you!

 

[peace2u2]

Romans 1:1-32
Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God,
which he promised previously through his prophets in the holy scriptures,

the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh,

but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Through him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles,

among whom are you also, who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;

to all the beloved of God in Rome, called to be holy. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world.

God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in proclaiming the gospel of his Son, that I remember you constantly,

always asking in my prayers that somehow by God’s will I may at last find my way clear to come to you.

For I long to see you, that I may share with you some spiritual gift so that you may be strengthened,

that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by one another’s faith, yours and mine.

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I often planned to come to you, though I was prevented until now, that I might harvest some fruit among you, too, as among the rest of the Gentiles.

To Greeks and non-Greeks alike, to the wise and the ignorant, I am under obligation;

that is why I am eager to preach the gospel also to you in Rome.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek.

For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous by faith will live.”

The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.

For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;

for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

While claiming to be wise, they became fools

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips

and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.

They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

[LostChemist]

Lost,

What you think and don’t think is not relevant to any notion as it pertains to what is proper and right. To equate slavery to homosexuality is what you think and I don’t think you understand that slavery and homosexuality are both wrong.

If you believe that we should let God take care of things when the time comes then why do away with slavery if times change. If times change and we recognize slavery as wrong then we don’t let God decide or take it up with Him when the time comes. That is why wives are not beaten and we don’t approve of slavery. Homosexuality is still not approved yet practiced. Somethings not approved will remain unaproved and somethings will change. Not all things.

Slavery is an abomination as is Homosexuality and you are lost.

Thank you for your thoughts. What you think is relevant to you and your conclusions do not fit your recognition of the changing times or we should as you say take up beating wives and slavery with God when the time comes. You are wrong.

And all I see in your post is the notion that you think that you are right, that homosexuality is wrong, and won’t even entertain the possibility of anything else. If you have a problem with what I think, then why are you responding? Times will change and what will happen to your beliefs if suddenly the Pope comes out in favor of gay marriage? I’m serious here. Let’s say that one day he approves of it. Will you?

Being tolerant of others is not being lost. I choose not to condemn people for the choices they make. Just because I don’t agree with it doesn’t mean that I’m going to try to convince others that it’s wrong. It right for them. Why do the rest of us care so much? Are they infringing upon your rights? How?

 

[LostChemist]

You are comparing apples to oranges when you say things like this. There is no shortage of heterosexual couples wanting to adopt, so there is no necessity to allow people otherthan heterosexual couples to adopt, is there?

Naturally a “perfect” homosexual couple comes off better than a drug-addicted single parent home–but when it comes to adoption, few children are actually placed with families like the ones you describe, are they? And there are homosexual couples who do drugs and engage in heinous behavior, aren’t there?

It is wromg to compare the worst of one group with the best of another group and then claim anything based on that false comparison.

We don’t need to compare the worst in any situation. The fact remains (as we stand now), that homosexual couples are in no way WORSE (or necessarily better) than heterosexual ones. I haven’t seen a single good argument as to why they shouldn’t adopt other than “they are an abomination”. Labeling them evil doesn’t make them evil.