Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brandon_Rimmer_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which brings us to the issue of living in a pluralistic diverse society. As long as those children of Nazi’s, hate mongers, KKK are not complaining AND are being taken care of with no abuse occuring…I see not too much furor among the more “conservatives” to remove these children…or prevent the members of these sub-groups from having or adopting children. Ideology may be damanging more so in our society…but no one seems to be advocating the removal of these children. We may not like how they are being rasied or like the ideology they are being taught BUT as long as they are well cared for and provided for we leave them alone…and all the examples you provided are very “anti-gay” in belief and policy and for the most part…unless “in the closet” straight in sexual orientation.
No one is saying it’s wrong to hold a certain point of view - you can have all the gay views you want - but it doesn’t mean that the government should recognize gay marriage as legitimate. Nevertheless, the speech of Nazis/KKK is often highly regulated (see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)). So, I think your analogy actually works against you. We don’t want to “normalize” hate speech, and neither do we want to “normalize” same-sex marriage.
 
It is an impossibility for homosexual “marriage” to become normal. It will always be abnormal even if it does become the law of the land.
It may always be “abnormal” for man Catholics…but even among Catholics…same sex marriage is slowly being accepted…it will eventually become normal in our society…how it fares in the conservative religious communities is another issue.
 
It may always be “abnormal” for man Catholics…but even among Catholics…same sex marriage is slowly being accepted…it will eventually become normal in our society…how it fares in the conservative religious communities is another issue.
It will always be abnormal for all people, not just Catholics. To clarify, the definition of abnormal is “deviating from the normal or average.” Since homosexuals are 2%-10% of the population, depending on sources, that means they are not average and not the norm. Add to that that some people with SSA do not act on their inclinations and will not attempt to “marry” or have a same sex relationship.

Some folks may be accepting of homosexual “marriage,” but that does not mean it can ever be truly normal.
 
“gay” sexual orientation is NOT 'bisexual" orientation. From what I have read and learned form those bisexuls I know…not many by the way as most bisexuals stay “in the closet”, bi-sexuals donot ‘jump the fence’ from one partner to another. They may have same sex partners for a time…then “switch” back ot opposite sex partners. That a bisexual may have a same sex partner tonight and an opposite sex partner tomorrow is “straight” myth…oh…I’m sure it does occur with more hedonist individuals…but for the communitiy at large…not as much as straight people think and speak about.

In the case of some marriage arrangements, a bisexual man my be faithful to his wife the entire length of their marriage. Upon that marriage ending, they may then become involved in a same sex relationship…that doesn’t mean they “changed” their sexual orientation, they have the same sexual orientation…bisexual.

I have a good friend who is bisexual. He has been with his wife for 18 years…have two children…he before meeting his wife was involved with a man for almost a decade…that didn’t make him gay…his wife knows he is bisexual and trusts him to keep faithful. She also recognizes the fact IF she shoud die or their marriage end, he may decide to find a same sex partner and be quite content.
This is a disingenuous conversation if you take away the premise that a person can divorce from a traditional marriage and enter into homosexual union whose finances may actually be better than the forsaken partner who is engaged in a legal custody battle for the children. Generally, this is a battle that could not have been foreseen if the bisexuality was hidden. Now you have a forsaken “odd man out” parent whose child protection instincts are in full combat mode.
 
It will always be abnormal for all people, not just Catholics. To clarify, the definition of abnormal is “deviating from the normal or average.” Since homosexuals are 2%-10% of the population, depending on sources, that means they are not average and not the norm. Add to that that some people with SSA do not act on their inclinations and will not attempt to “marry” or have a same sex relationship.

Some folks may be accepting of homosexual “marriage,” but that does not mean it can ever be truly normal.
I see your point…African Americans or any other minority are “abnormal” in a predominantly caucasion society…it stretches ‘abnormal’ a bit…but I do see your point…whether it is no longer considered ‘abnormal’ is the issue I guess.
 
It may always be “abnormal” for man Catholics…but even among Catholics…same sex marriage is slowly being accepted…it will eventually become normal in our society…how it fares in the conservative religious communities is another issue.
… which brings me to a question I want to ask you, Publisher. You seem to be on a mission on CAF to help change minds towards your belief favoring same sex ‘marriage.’ In fact, you could not praise Obama enough for his recent pronouncement and your glee was overflowing. Have you tried proselytizing in forums of people of other faiths like in Muslim and Baptitst sites, or are you just focusing on us Catholics at CA?
,
 
This is a disingenuous conversation if you take away the premise that a person can divorce from a traditional marriage and enter into homosexual union whose finances may actually be better than the forsaken partner who is engaged in a legal custody battle for the children. Generally, this is a battle that they could not have been foreseen if the bisexuality was hidden. Now you have a forsaken “odd man out” parent whose child protection instincts are in full combat mode.
“disingenuous”…???

The financial stablility of the couple seeking custody is a factor…not the only factor…I’m not sure the parents sexuality would be used to determine who was best suited to care for the child…the child’s welfare would be uppermost in the judge’s verdict…whether he/she rendered a verdict suitable for your religious convictions is another matter I woud think.🤷
 
“disingenuous”…???

The financial stablility of the couple seeking custody is a factor…not the only factor…I’m not sure the parents sexuality would be used to determine who was best suited to care for the child…the child’s welfare would be uppermost in the judge’s verdict…whether he/she rendered a verdict suitable for your religious convictions is another matter I woud think.🤷
I asked about custody battles with switch hitters from dual gender to single gender marriages. You tap-danced around it. Let me ask you some direct questions:

Do you believe kids should be taken from a faithful spouse in a stable marriage (at least in terms of caring for the kids) and awarded to an unfaithful spouse who has a mid-life crisis and enters into a same-sex marriage?

Should the custody battle be based on financial considerations when often divorce and re-marriage is contracted to better one’s financial position in the first place?

Do you see no difference on the kids compared to traditional divorce and re-marriage? Do the kids instantly adapt to a new sense of gay pride?
 
Please enlighten me! Which one of you has had their marriage destroyed by the gays! :rolleyes:
The reply from Coptic Christian had to do, not with the destruction of anyone’s marriage, but with Catholic Charities being forced to close as a result of the legalization of homosexual marriage. There are a lot of social consequences other than directly personal ones.

No one’s marriage would be individually affected by the marriage of polygamists, or the marriage of adults and minors, or the marriage of fathers and daughters or mothers and sons, but none of these are socially desirable, and would have adverse social consequences.
 
I asked about custody battles with switch hitters from dual gender to single gender marriages. You tap-danced around it. Let me ask you some direct questions:

Do you believe kids should be taken from a faithful spouse in a stable marriage and awarded to an unfaithful spouse who has a mid-life crisis and enters into a same-sex marriage?

Should the custody battle be based on financial considerations when often divorce and re-marriage is contracted to better one’s financial position in the first place? Seems like marriage hunting could be more beneficial than job hunting in a tough economic climate.

Do you see no difference on the kids compared to traditional divorce and re-marriage? Do the kids instantly adapt to a new sense of gay pride?
Personally the parents should be given joint custody…the parent who choses to go live with his or her same sex partner has nothing to do with who is better suited to raise and provide for the child.

I would not be so quick to relegate such a situation as simply a “mid-life crisis”. If the couple had a good marriage to begin with, the marriage would not have been in jeapordy. That the bisexual partner has options not open to the straight partner is beside the point…“mid-life crisis” happens in straight people too…so unless one begins with the opinion that a same sex couple is 'disordered"…that wouldn’t enter into my opinion…I don’t believe it’s “disordered”…just different than my own.

Financial stablility is a concern I’m sure for the judge granting custody…but I just can’t wrap my mind around it being the primary factor…from my experience with friends and family divorcing…the child is given a say in whom they wish to live with if they have reached the age of 12.

I see no difference between a “traditional divorce and re-marriage” whether with same sex partner or opposite sex…a breach in the marriage has occured and that divorce is as devastating on the child…as well as the parents involved.

But a parents sexual orientation in no way offers a clue as to whom is better suited to care and provide for the child as primary care giver.
 
The sky has not fallen in Canada where SS’M’ has been legalized since 2005. This is what pro-gay ‘marriage’ folks assert. As if the consequence to children and their future can really be gleaned in a few years instead of decades and several generations to look at the real cost, the real social consequence of gay ‘marriage.’

Never mind that a large body of social scientific research indicates that children thrive best with a mother and father who teach them gender identity and sex role expectations. This was the conclusion of a Committee of the French National Assembly, which recommended, in January 2006, that France not accept same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on children. The French Committee criticized studies on same-sex parenting that claimed it had no ill effects on children, on the basis that these studies lacked scientific rigor, included inadequate sampling, and showed a lack of objectivity.

Further, let’s see what the organization Real Women of Canada has submitted.

Sixth Anniversary of Legalization of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
September/October 2011


June marked the sixth anniversary of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada by the passing of the Civil Marriage Act. Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that the passing of this legislation has had no detrimental effect on society: this argument ignores its fall out and is highly inaccurate.

Same-sex marriage was legalized by way of questionable procedures by the Liberal Prime Minister, Paul Martin. Even though legal, this does not make samesex marriage acceptable to many Canadians. Traditional marriage has been supported for over 2000 years of history by law, and its definition transcends all cultures and religions, for good reason.

The consequences of same-sex marriage have deeply affected children. It has caused the indoctrination of children in the school system to accept the normalization of homosexuality, while denying them any truthful information about the physical and psychological consequences of same-sex sexual activity.

This indoctrination in favour of homosexuality has also produced a hostile environment for parents holding differing social and/or religious views on the issue, even though their children are their ultimate responsibility, not the state’s.

The legalization of same-sex marriage has also led to the social experiment of adoption and foster care by samesex couples.

Homosexual/lesbian advocacy research asserts there is no difference for children raised by same-sex couples. This, however, is not supported by impartial research, which discloses that same-sex relationships are not fundamentally equivalent to heterosexual relations due to shorter duration of such relationships, higher rate of infidelity (which is part of the homosexual culture), increased health problems, reduced life expectancy and increased sexual interference with involved children.

Further, the same-sex marriage legislation exempts clergy from performing same-sex marriages, but it does not protect the use of church facilities for such purposes. Moreover, even though freedom of religion is a protected right in the Charter of Rights, many individuals, such as marriage commissioners, limousine drivers, florists, caterers, disk jockeys, and photographers, etc., are obliged to assist at same-sex marriages against their conscience, or lose their jobs.

The legalization of same-sex marriage has also had an impact on the polygamy law. In the B.C. Supreme Court Polygamy Reference, it was indeed argued, by George K. Macintosh, Q.C., who was appointed by the court as Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) to oppose the polygamy provision in the Criminal Code, that same-sex marriage legislation extends and legalizes polygamist relationships. This argument was also made by several of the intervenors, including the Canadian Association for Free Expression and the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association. In short, they argued, that, if the state allows same-sex couples to legally marry, then why not allow three or more? That is, once the walls protecting marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman are breached, then marriage means anything or nothing.

It has been only six years since same-sex marriage was legalized. Yet, as a result, society has already experienced serious difficulties. Such difficulties are just the beginning.
 
Also From REAL Women of Canada

HOMOSEXUALS DEMAND CHANGES TO CRIMINAL CODE

**Members of the homosexual community have also long been agitating for unrestricted sexual access to minors.
This requires an amendment to the Criminal Code, which now prohibits pedophilia.
**

Homosexual activists are never satisfied. They are constantly pushing the envelope, slowly and incrementally, making demands on society to adapt to and accept their behaviour and counter culture.

They have been greatly assisted in this by former Liberal governments and by the courts, which have bent over backwards to accede to their demands. The former, notorious Court Challenges Program, which funded only left-wing organizations, paid for all the homosexual legal challenges, which opened the door to their acquiring their many privileges, which they could never have obtained through Parliament.

The Supreme Court of Canada “read in” protection for homosexuals in S.15 of the Charter (the equality section) in the 1995 Egan case. Following this, sexual orientation protection was added to the Human Rights Act, in 1996, by the Liberal government, under the left-wing Attorney General, Allan Rock. These two decisions served as the foundation for the political and legal enforcement of homosexual rights in Canada. This included the legalization of same-sex marriage and the social experiment of the adoption and foster parenting by same-sex couples. It also led to the forcing of faith-based individuals and organizations to adapt in the public square to the “equality” demands of homosexuals, contrary to their religious consciences, and to the normalization of homosexuality in our school system, despite the detrimental medical and psychological consequences of homosexual behavior

**What Lies Ahead **

Homosexual activists are now setting their sights on amendments to the Criminal Code. Specifically, they want to amend S. 159, in the Code, which restricts homosexual activity to those 18 years and older; the prohibition of sex acts taking place in pubic or when more than two persons are present (S. 173) and the removal of the provision about “indecent acts” performed in bawdy houses (S. 210). This latter provision is used by police to raid homosexual bathhouses—centres of unrelentingly promiscuous and unprotected sex.

In short, homosexual activists want society to provide absolute sexual license for them whenever, wherever and with whomever they choose, without restraint.

**Pedophilia on the Homosexual Agenda **

Members of the homosexual community have also long been agitating for unrestricted sexual access to minors. This requires an amendment to the Criminal Code, which now prohibits pedophilia. Homosexual activist, Gerald Hannon, wrote an article in the now defunct Toronto homosexual paper, “The Body Politic”, in 1977, supporting child/adult sex. He further expounded on this in an article published in July 1994, in the homosexual newspaper, Xtra, in which he stated:

*… I could never understand before how children’s hockey differed from an organized child-sex ring. Both involved children and adults. Both involved strenuous physical activity (adult coaches taking the role of the adult lover). Both involved danger. Both involved pleasure. Yet we approve of children’s hockey and deplore child-sex rings. *

The demand to normalize pedophilia is assisted by the so-called “intellectual” elites i.e., misguided, confused professors. For example, in February 2011, a professor from the University of Montreal, psychologist, Hubert Van Gijseghem, testified before the House of Commons Justice Committee that pedophilia is merely another sexual orientation and should be regarded as normal and acceptable since it is an orientation which cannot be changed.

[Con’t]
 
[Con’t]

Pedophile Conference

A group of pedophile activists recently formed an organization called B4U-Act in Baltimore, Maryland and sponsored a conference in that city on August 17, 2011, with speakers from several prominent US universities, such as Harvard Medical School, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, University of Louisville, University Texas Southwestern Medical Center, the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of Illinois.

The conference themes were that pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society; children are not inherently unable to consent to sex with adults; an adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative”; and pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another, the majority of pedophiles are gentle and normal, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile and should have a “minimal focus on social control” rather than obsessing about “the need to protect children”.

In short, the conference speakers were sexual anarchists. Groups like B4U-Act, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, and Planned Parenthood are consistently utilizing academia, in order to brainwash and indoctrinate the public as occurred here.

The specific objective of this conference was to present papers normalizing pedophilia, in order to bring pressure on the American Psychological Association (APA) to re-classify pedophilias so as to reduce the “stigma” attached to its practioners. According to B4UAct, “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. This cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group goes on to say, “that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents”.

This all sounds too familiar. It is a repeat of the arguments previously used for the legal recognition of homosexuality in the courts and the federal Human Rights Act.

The APA, whose members include many homosexual activists, under political pressure, declassified homosexuality, as a mental disorder in 1973 and declared, in 2010, that counselling homosexuals in order to alter their orientation is “unethical”.

Consequently, declassifying pedophilia as a disorder won’t be a problem for it since it always puts politically correct ideology before science and professional integrity.

Media Jumping on the Pedophile Bandwagon

The media worked effectively in the past to make such repugnant acts as abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage acceptable to the mainstream. It has now begun its campaign to make pedophilia morally, socially and legally acceptable.

For example, the BBC recently created a program called “Torchwood”, in which one of the characters is a pedophile—in fact, a convicted pedophile-murderer, released from prison on a technicality. He is depicted in this series in such a way as to prompt audiences to root for him, as he is portrayed as “cool” and eminently likeable.

The audience, as a result, is expected, because of his charm, to overlook what he did, i.e., the horror of the crime of the sexual abuse of young children. The program, as a result, normalizes child abuse.

Another example of the media promoting pedophilia is in the fashion industry, which is presenting child models dressed in striped bras and panties, sunglasses and streams of pearls lounging on deck chairs, reclining in seductive poses and with seductive gazes. That is, presenting children as sex objects. For example, French Vogue Magazine recently published controversial and salacious photos of the 10-year-old model, Thylane Lena-Rose Blondeau, portrayed as a seductive adult.

There is a well-established connection between the proliferation of pornographic images of children and pedophilia. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology included a report (2006, Vol. 115, No. 3, 610-615), by Canadian researchers, Michael Seto, James M. Cantor and Ray Blanchard, of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in Toronto, which concluded that child pornography offenders are almost twice as likely to be identified as pedophiles.

We know from experience that yesterday’s unthinkable taboos are today’s “alternative lifestyles”. The journey to normalize pedophilia has begun.
 
… which brings me to a question I want to ask you, Publisher. You seem to be on a mission on CAF to help change minds towards your belief favoring same sex ‘marriage.’ In fact, you could not praise Obama enough for his recent pronouncement and your glee was overflowing. Have you tried proselytizing in forums of people of other faiths like in Muslim and Baptitst sites, or are you just focusing on us Catholics at CA?
,
I enjoy being here at CAF…it is one of the more…“considerate” religious sites…there are exceptions of course in any discussion.🙂

I simply wish to share my opinion…interesting how one’s shared opinion becomes “proslytizing” when it’s not shared by some people.

You are certainly within your rights to petition the moderators I be “disiplined” or even banned.

I am very glad that President Obama came “out of the closet” in regards to same sex marriage…

Your question “Have you tried proslytizing in forums of people of other faiths like in Muslim…” sounds very close to my Quaker ears “When did you quit beating your wife?”
No matter how it is answered is damning IMO…at best it would mean I need to defend myself…I don’t need to IMO. How you wish to portray my motives and feelings is certainly within your perogative friend.

Peace to you.
 
We know from experience that yesterday’s unthinkable taboos are today’s “alternative lifestyles”. The journey to normalize pedophilia has begun.[/INDENT]
Yesterday’s taboos? Marrying a 13 year old was legal in the US in the 1950s, look at Jerry Lee Lewis.

Ages of consent have been extremely variable over time.

rossum
 
… inadequate sampling, …
Nothing like taking one data point and extrapolating a whole universe. 👍

What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.
 
Never mind that a large body of social scientific research indicates that children thrive best with a mother and father who teach them gender identity and sex role expectations.
Would you mind telling me where these published, peer-reviewed studies are? I’m genuinely interested in reading such studies and comparing/contrasting them to the studies that demonstrate that children adopted by same-sex couples are just as well off in every category tested as those adopted by their straight counterparts (besides the homophobia they have to face from other people).
 
Personally the parents should be given joint custody…the parent who chooses to go live with his or her same sex partner has nothing to do with who is better suited to raise and provide for the child.

I would not be so quick to relegate such a situation as simply a “mid-life crisis”. If the couple had a good marriage to begin with, the marriage would not have been in jeopardy. That the bisexual partner has options not open to the straight partner is beside the point…“mid-life crisis” happens in straight people too…so unless one begins with the opinion that a same sex couple is 'disordered"…that wouldn’t enter into my opinion…I don’t believe it’s “disordered”…just different than my own.
Do you agree that some kinds of sex are disordered? How do you know if it is just different from your own? OK with incest, paedophilia, bestiality, etc? If not (my assumption), then what is the criteria?

True, ‘mid-life crisis’ is all too common - that is, divorce & re-marriage - and that is the hallmark of our ‘disordered’ society. It is why co-habit relationships are very common.
Financial stability is a concern I’m sure for the judge granting custody…but I just can’t wrap my mind around it being the primary factor…from my experience with friends and family divorcing…the child is given a say in whom they wish to live with if they have reached the age of 12.

I see no difference between a “traditional divorce and re-marriage” whether with same sex partner or opposite sex…a breach in the marriage has occurred and that divorce is as devastating on the child…as well as the parents involved.
It is my experience that very young children want to be with their mother, no matter what the courts say. It is my experience that the courts will award the child to the mother automatically unless there are proven care-giving issues. If gay marriage is normalized, it may be our collective experience, I fear, that the mother still gets the child and a new lesbian marriage will not be factored at all.
But a parents sexual orientation in no way offers a clue as to whom is better suited to care and provide for the child as primary care giver.
Simply, not true. You have to be clueless to make such a statement, especially in the case of someone who wants to confuse a child by breaking up a real family to be re-established in a faux family.
 
I enjoy being here at CAF…it is one of the more…“considerate” religious sites…there are exceptions of course in any discussion.🙂

I simply wish to share my opinion…interesting how one’s shared opinion becomes “proslytizing” when it’s not shared by some people.

You are certainly within your rights to petition the moderators I be “disiplined” or even banned.

I am very glad that President Obama came “out of the closet” in regards to same sex marriage…

Your question “Have you tried proslytizing in forums of people of other faiths like in Muslim…” sounds very close to my Quaker ears “When did you quit beating your wife?”
No matter how it is answered is damning IMO…at best it would mean I need to defend myself…I don’t need to IMO. How you wish to portray my motives and feelings is certainly within your perogative friend.

Peace to you.
No question, CAF is a charitable or “considerate” (the word you used) compared to others. CAF is so considerate that you feel much at home here, that you feel so free to post as much as you have, with the ardor you have, in proposing, in effect, that Catholics should just accept that homosexual behavior is normal and SS’M’ is just great. So, I really don’t think the use of the word proselytizing is incorrect to describe your activity at CAF. Was it an assignment given to you in a Quaker/Friends meeting? Do you have an ardent Catholic at a Quaker forum who does what you do at CAF, repeating that you guys were wrong when you changed your minds about the wrongness of homosexual acts and decided to bless homosexual unions?

The thing is, Publisher, even as you know by now that the Catholic teaching on homosexual acts is an unchanging doctrine by your participation in scores of threads, you have become this “gnat” who keeps landing …

Oh, as for petitioning the moderators? Please don’t think it has not been done or will not be considered. Just sayin’ … 🙂
,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top