The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[ASimon]

Mmmm, nah it doesn’t quite work that way. Nice try though.

Alright, tell me how it works.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing up religion. I am deliberately keeping religion OUT of this because I understand that not everyone has the same religion as me.

Until you give me a framework that justifies your resistance to something that would have no practical effect on you, then religion is all we have to work with. If your religion isn’t driving your thinking, then your opinions don’t even have a basis in a hypothetical reality.

 

[buffalo]

And yet he’d still be prepared to roast me alive for eternity.

Some love.

Oh, a survey done by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate? I’m sure it’s very unbiased. Not.

Better to have an atheist group do it.

Why is it that every time information is presented atheists always discredit the source without even addressing its content?

Watch what happens:

Homosexual Behavior & Pedophilia
Homosexual Activists Work To Normalize Sex With Boys

Kevin Bishop, an admitted pederast (pedophile), is promoting the wo rk of the North A m e ri c a n
M a n - B oy Love A s s o c i ation (NAMBLA) in South A f rica. Bishop, who was molested at the age of six, i s
also an admitted homosexual who is blunt about the re l ationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.
“ S c rat ch the ave rage homosexual and you will find a pedophile,” said Bishop in an interv i ew with
the E l e c t ronic Mail & Guard i a n ( June 30, 1 9 9 7 ) .1

 

[CopticChristian]

So why do you care at all if they don’t come up with their own word?

Asimon,

You bring up a good point…it would satisfy everyone if they called it

an UnMarriage…worked for the Mad Hatter…a very merry unbirthday to you…to you…

 

[jimmy]

Alright, tell me how it works.

Until you give me a framework that justifies your resistance to something that would have no practical effect on you, then religion is all we have to work with. If your religion isn’t driving your thinking, then your opinions don’t even have a basis in a hypothetical reality.

Whose religious views don’t guide them? The fact that your an atheist guides your views. That point aside though, a persons arguments don’t have to have a religious basis even if their faith determines wich side of an argument they fall on.

The fact that marriage has had a specific definition for thousands of years basically makes it inevitable that it will be a religious issue when you try to change it, no matter what side you are on. The question is what is our guiding principle. Is atheism supposed to be the presumed truth when it comes to culture and law? It seems that is what youthink. A Christian shouldn’t be able to be led by his faith when it comes to law. They must assume atheism to be true, and consequently agree to a change in culture that would go against everything they believe. That is not what the first ammendment was designed for. It is actually the exact opposite of the intent. People were meant to be able to believe as they see fit and be able to follow that belief.

We could also bring up nambla and ask why the laws shouldn’t be changed to fit their desires. After all, the laws are discriminatory towards them.

 

[ASimon]

Whose religious views don’t guide them? The fact that your an atheist guides your views. That point aside though, a persons arguments don’t have to have a religious basis even if their faith determines wich side of an argument they fall on.

Same question applies. If religion isn’t the basis for your opinion of SSM, what is it?

The fact that marriage has had a specific definition for thousands of years basically makes it inevitable that it will be a religious issue when you try to change it, no matter what side you are on.

So now I’m confused all over again. Is this a religious issue for you, or isn’t it?

For my part, I’m not for SSM because the opposition of it is based in religion (to which I am opposed). I’m for SSM because I know lots of gay people. They’re good citizens, they care about others, and they want the most they can get out of life. But my government has determined that they cannot be afforded the exact same rights as straight couples, despite no compelling evidence that they be denied them.

The question is what is our guiding principle. Is atheism supposed to be the presumed truth when it comes to culture and law? It seems that is what youthink. A Christian shouldn’t be able to be led by his faith when it comes to law. They must assume atheism to be true, and consequently agree to a change in culture that would go against everything they believe. That is not what the first ammendment was designed for. It is actually the exact opposite of the intent. People were meant to be able to believe as they see fit and be able to follow that belief.

And you can. What can’t happen, however, is the government allowing religious faith to dictate legislative policy. This is the part you keep pretending not to understand. You can live out the rest of your life believing exactly what you believe right now, and your church can keep re-asserting its doctrine on SSM for the rest of eternity. It makes no difference to me (or the government) at all. The only thing that can’t happen, is the government to legislate solely on the basis of a theology, with no other accompanying societal interest in play.

We could also bring up nambla and ask why the laws shouldn’t be changed to fit their desires. After all, the laws are discriminatory towards them.

Good point - since there no compelling evidence to suggest that young boys having sex with grown men has any negative consequences, right?

 

[Lochias]

If homosexual activists assert that we (Catholics) can call marriage whatever we want…why change the definition in the first place? Wouldn’t it be easier for the activists to simply let the definition remain “one man, one woman” and call their unions something else?..

…or do they simply want their way regardless of how tolerant they claim to be, mm?

 

[Crescentinus]

If homosexual activists assert that we (Catholics) can call marriage whatever we want…why change the definition in the first place? Wouldn’t it be easier for the activists to simply let the definition remain “one man, one woman” and call their unions something else?..

…or do they simply want their way regardless of how tolerant they claim to be, mm?

The homosexualists want their way regardless of any semblance of tolerance that they say that they have.

 

[ASimon]

If homosexual activists assert that we (Catholics) can call marriage whatever we want…why change the definition in the first place? Wouldn’t it be easier for the activists to simply let the definition remain “one man, one woman” and call their unions something else?..

Sure, it would be easier. “Separate, but equal” is always easier.

As long as we want to make things easy, the government should stop issuing “marriage” licenses altogether - and just issue ‘civil union’ licenses for everyone. Then we’d have equal rights and equal nomenclature.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sure, it would be easier. “Separate, but equal” is always easier.

As long as we want to make things easy, the government should stop issuing “marriage” licenses altogether - and just issue ‘civil union’ licenses for everyone. Then we’d have equal rights and equal nomenclature.

Asimon,

What is the history of the issuance of “civil union” licenses in antiquity?

 

[ASimon]

Asimon,

What is the history of the issuance of “civil union” licenses in antiquity?

Irrelevant, of course. For the same reason that “marriage has been this way for thousands of years” isn’t a good enough reason (on its own) to keep it that way.

 

[JimG]

In my opinion when engagine in same-sex marriage discussions it is best to shy away from discussing homosexuality altogether (beleive it or not) …they beleive in love and see nothing wrong with two people who love each other getting married. I recommend staying away from debates about how “homosexuality is disordered” with most people because it usually doesn’t get you anywhere. Try and find common ground where you actually AGREE and most of us do! Expand on the idea that love will be the only requirement for marriage and go from there.

If marriage is changed from one-man-one-woman to simply “people who love each other” then the floodgates are open as they will most certainly be which will impact society in a profound way over time. What is to stop a man from marrying his sister? I am not joking, really what if they love one another…to deny them marriage would be discrimanatory would it not? Or how about three people that love one another? Clearly love can be between more then two people…wouldn’t it be discrimination to deny marriage to a threesome that loved each other?

What if I am older and widowed and alone and have no medical care. Couldn’t my adult son marry me? Really, why not, if he loves me? That way I could be covered under his medical benefits and many other things. You could argue that that would be a disordered marriage however if the only criteria is love then to deny marriage based on the fact that mother-son-marriage are historically unacceptable as a social norm would be discrimination.

Even those sympathetic to gay-marriage can see that changing criteria to “people who love one another” will (over time) clearly open the door for any one to marry any one else or any number of other people. Churches and religious organizations will be forced by law to recognize these marriages or perhaps even perform ceremonies or be in trouble for discrimination.

Many people have gay friends and sympathize…I am saying try and approach it from this perspective. You might beleive in gay marriage but do you beleive in polygamy and most importantly would you be willing to see law enforcement for churches to perform these ceremonies? You might not change anyones mind but it’s worth bringing up and thinking about. God bles.

I agree with everything you say here. And yet when it comes to marriage, the primary issue is that same sex couples have no capacity to engage in the marital act–simply because they are the same sex. The marital act requires sexual complementarity. It it is impossible, marriage is impossible. It is for this reason, for example, that the Catholic Church views an attempted marriage in which one or both parties is permanently, incurably, and antecedently impotent as not valid. The couple in such a case is incapable of marital intercourse, and thus incapable of marriage. This is true as well of same sex couples.

And yet it is not simply a matter of Catholic theology. It is a matter of biology. Without sexual complementarity, marriage cannot exist. This has been taken as self-evident throughout all of recorded history. Some societies have tolerated homosexual behavior. They have seldom if ever recognized homosexual marriage, simply because it was seen as an impossibility, as it is.

 

[ASimon]

I agree with everything you say here. And yet when it comes to marriage, the primary issue is that same sex couples have no capacity to engage in the marital act–simply because they are the same sex. The marital act requires sexual complementarity. It it is impossible, marriage is impossible. It is for this reason, for example, that the Catholic Church views an attempted marriage in which one or both parties is permanently, incurably, and antecedently impotent as not valid. The couple in such a case is incapable of marital intercourse, and thus incapable of marriage. This is true as well of same sex couples.

And yet it is not simply a matter of Catholic theology. It is a matter of biology. Without sexual complementarity, marriage cannot exist. This has been taken as self-evident throughout all of recorded history. Some societies have tolerated homosexual behavior. They have seldom if ever recognized homosexual marriage, simply because it was seen as an impossibility, as it is.

Biology has no opinion on what makes a marriage a marriage. Your opinion on this is entirely a matter of Catholic theology. You’re simply appropriating selective biological facts to try and lend credibility to your theology.

 

[Lochias]

Sure, it would be easier. “Separate, but equal” is always easier.

As long as we want to make things easy, the government should stop issuing “marriage” licenses altogether - and just issue ‘civil union’ licenses for everyone. Then we’d have equal rights and equal nomenclature.

Nope! No need to change anything, your logic agrees. It can all stay just as it is, and the homosexual activists, those paragons of tolerance and virtue, can be perfectly ok with it because that is just how tolerant, all-encompassing and kind they are. They can call it Singing in the Rain, we can call it Marriage, and nothing needs change at all. Simplest solution, everyone’s happy…

…IF they’re as tolerant as they say they are.

 

[ASimon]

Nope! No need to change anything, your logic agrees. It can all stay just as it is, and the homosexual activists, those paragons of tolerance and virtue, can be perfectly ok with it because that is just how tolerant, all-encompassing and kind they are. They can call it Singing in the Rain, we can call it Marriage, and nothing needs change at all. Simplest solution, everyone’s happy…

…IF they’re as tolerant as they say they are.

Well, that depends. Are you opposing the change because you’re wholly intolerant, and proud to be so? Because then, everything fits. And then we could debate whether being tolerant actually means you tolerate intolerance (Hint: It doesn’t.).

But first things first. How intolerant are you?

 

[JimG]

Biology has no opinion on what makes a marriage a marriage. Your opinion on this is entirely a matter of Catholic theology. You’re simply appropriating selective biological facts to try and lend credibility to your theology.

No, sexual complementarity is a matter of biology, not theology. And for thousands of years, biological complemtarity between men and women have led to the family structure of husband, wife, and children.

Obviously, in the absence of marital relations, no future generations can be produced, and society will die out. Same sex couples as a matter of biology are incapable of marital relations. Other types of sexual experiences than marital are possible, but have no value to society, as does marriage.

But society has never demanded proof of fertility, as opposed to simply biological capacity. If the capacity for marital relations is present, the generation of children will generally take care of itself. But if biological capacity is simply not present, marital relations, and marriage, are impossible. One might call it marriage, but that would just be pretending that something is what it isn’t.

 

[ASimon]

No, sexual complementarity is a matter of biology, not theology. And for thousands of years, biological complemtarity between men and women have led to the family structure of husband, wife, and children.

Obviously, in the absence of marital relations, no future generations can be produced, and society will die out. Same sex couples as a matter of biology are incapable of marital relations. Other types of sexual experiences than marital are possible, but have no value to society, as does marriage.

But society has never demanded proof of fertility, as opposed to simply biological capacity. If the capacity for marital relations is present, the generation of children will generally take care of itself. But if biological capacity is simply not present, marital relations, and marriage, are impossible. One might call it marriage, but that would just be pretending that something is what it isn’t.

Who decides that the ability to reproduce is the defining characteristic of a marriage? It’s not biology. It’s theology. And your opinion is based on theology, which appropriates specific facts from biology (and other disciplines) to confirm its original thesis.

Incidentally, biology also tells us that the human prostate, which can be felt by pressing against the inner wall of a male’s rectum, actually has nerve ends, which, when stimulated, are capable of producing pleasurable sensations. Isn’t that weird? That a gland located right up against the human rectum would be capable of that? What possible use could that have?

 

[Lochias]

Incidentally, biology also tells us that the human prostate, which can be felt by pressing against the inner wall of a male’s rectum, actually has nerve ends, which, when stimulated, are capable of producing pleasurable sensations. Isn’t that weird? That a gland located right up against the human rectum would be capable of that? What possible use could that have?

Are you saying that, just because something CAN be pleasurable, it should be, no matter what?

 

[ASimon]

Are you saying that, just because something CAN be pleasurable, it should be, no matter what?

Well, if we’re all made in God’s image - what is He trying to tell us with this? You think, if homosexual sex was such a perversion of His Plan, he could’ve done better than engineer us with pleasure nerve endings that close to our rectums.

The question is for you to answer, not me. For someone who doesn’t find anything intrinsically sick or immoral about gay sex, this sort of biological fact makes perfect sense.

 

[CopticChristian]

Irrelevant, of course. For the same reason that “marriage has been this way for thousands of years” isn’t a good enough reason (on its own) to keep it that way.

Asimon,

I am heterosexual. I think it is relevant. Why do you dismiss my question. Do you treat all heterosexuals this way? I find this disturbing. It causes me sadness to suggest that a notion of mind is just thrown to the ground because I am a heterosexual and now what I say is irrelevant. Please be more explicit as to why?

 

[stewstew03]

Irrelevant, of course. For the same reason that “marriage has been this way for thousands of years” isn’t a good enough reason (on its own) to keep it that way.

Why is sexual orientation “equality” a reason for change?