What if the Church did this in response to the same-sex "marriage" debate?

[mitex]

I am sorry you suffer from SSAD

A homosexual orientation is not a mental illness (SSAD). The Church specifically teaches although it’s “disordered” it does not mean the person themselves are disordered or have a disorder. It’s hurtful quite honestly.

Honestly I feel my entire last post didn’t ring a bell with some people. So I’ll repost it.

Can we stop comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? I’m a celibate homosexual and I find pedophilia to be abhorrent. Please stop making that kind of comparison; it’s hurtful to me. But addressing the topic at hand same-sex marriage can’t happen. God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman period. Marriage is a sacred institution and celebration.

But at the same time we can defend marriage without making desperate comparisons to the “Man Boy Love Association.” I find both that organization and pedophilia to be abhorrent (not to mention illegal) and I can find plenty of other homosexuals (celibate or not) who would agree with me.

Honestly sometimes Catholics are just as ill informed on homosexuality as my Evangelicals brethren are. I never affirmed homosexuality (I believe homosexual acts are sinful) and I mentioned I’m celibate but stop treating me as if I’m someone who needs to lectured. I want to be treated with love, dignity, and respect.

Not labelled as having “SSAD.”

 

[down_under]

The jews have a saying

if a man writes a book and tells you he is going to kill you believe him.

I recommend a similar saying here

if a group writes large bodies of digital text telling you how they are going to change society to allow the first same sex marriage, then others group write for YEARS how they are going to use that movement to get even more strange unions legal believe them. No one who has responded has even come close to meeting my argument on its merits. You want to act like these things don’t exist. Or they are simply absurd because the hurt your feelings. right now in Canada and the UK religious freedom is going out the window because someone changed the definition of marriage. Right now in Washington state using this exact logic (as ssm) a man is calling himself a women and lounging in a women’s bathroom where young girls have to go. yes weather you want to admit it or not. These things are all part and parcel. No one wants to argue the Legal consequences that fall once you take marriage away from its natural definition. You just want to pretend that everything will be alright. Have you even been to a Gay parade. Have you even seen one in passing. You are talking about that becoming the norm. Public sex acts in front of children are common. they do things that heterosexual people would be and have been arrested for. You want to talk like its no big deal. sorry I don’t follow you logic.

oh that’s right you haven’t made a logical argument. One made an emotional argument the other simply denies everything without any substantial comment as to how this logically follows. in short your wrong so there. well debate the merits of the argument please. there is a bunch of facts directly tied to the LGBT movement that you cannot deny. the very reason the lump them all together in the acronym is because they are all of a kind.

 

[atheistgirl]

What exactly is life affirming about a homosexual union? By the very intrinsic nature of it, it is closed to life completely.

Will you please stop avoiding the question I asked you, for the third time now, and back up your claim I have publicly stated, on this forum, I am cohabiting, by posting the link to the post I made such a statement in.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

By the very intrinsic nature of it, it is closed to life completely.

You do know the very nature of some couples getting validly and licitly married means that union is closed to life, right?

Or do you think a 22 year woman who has had a radical hysterectomy, or a sterile male, or a couple in their 80s, shouldn’t be allowed to get married

Being ‘‘closed to life completely’’ is not the best argument to bring up here

Sarah x

 

[down_under]

You do know the very nature of some couples getting validly and licitly married means that union is closed to life, right?

Or do you think a 22 year woman who has had a radical hysterectomy, or a sterile male, or a couple in their 80s, shouldn’t be allowed to get married

Being ‘‘closed to life completely’’ is not the best argument to bring up here

Sarah x

Those are exceptions to the rule and not the rule itself nor are they the ideal relationship. Yes it is a valid argument to bring up here in that the very definition of marriage that we live under now involves couples raising children. contraception has blurred this line to a great degree, but it has not changed the nature of the relation in its essence as complimentary couples marrying and having kids which are the future of society. every deviation from this rule has been fraught with disaster. huge percentages of children don’t know or live with there dad and it has been shown precisely these kids who are the subjects of high levels of violent crime.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf

This is not just about ssm its about leaving what has historically been the norm for society and watching the fall out. SSM is not the top of the hill of the slippery slope (which is a valid argument) we are on the way down the hill SSM is just something we are going to blur by one the rocket ride down the hill. we started down the hill with contraception then abortion, other aberrations going from abhorrent lifestyles to revel in (terrible to suffer from) to the normal and okay are just the logical conclusion of saying that sex is not about children or love.

 

[fix]

You do know the very nature of some couples getting validly and licitly married means that union is closed to life, right?

Or do you think a 22 year woman who has had a radical hysterectomy, or a sterile male, or a couple in their 80s, shouldn’t be allowed to get married

Being ‘‘closed to life completely’’ is not the best argument to bring up here

Sarah x

Heterosexual couples belong to a class that is fertile by design. Same sex couples do not. There is no comparison.

 

[atheistgirl]

Heterosexual couples belong to a class that is fertile by design.

This ‘‘design’’ has ‘‘designed’’ approximately 6m people, in the US alone, to be infertile.

Worldwide some numbers suggest the infertility rate in the general population to be in the region of 7%. (some sources suggest as high as 10%).

I think claiming *exclusivity *for a design with a consistent failure rate of as much as 10% is seriously flawed.

Science and sociology has provided these couples with infertility issues solutions, ranging from IVF to adoption.

Options which are equally available to same sex couples.

Some of these solutions I know and understand are not acceptable to Catholic principles.

Sarah x

 

[down_under]

This ‘‘design’’ has ‘‘designed’’ approximately 6m people, in the US alone, to be infertile.

Worldwide some numbers suggest the infertility rate in the general population to be in the region of 7%. (some sources suggest as high as 10%).

I think claiming *exclusivity *for a design with a consistent failure rate of as much as 10% is seriously flawed.

Science and sociology has provided these couples with infertility issues solutions, ranging from IVF to adoption.

Options which are equally available to same sex couples.

Some of these solutions I know and understand are not acceptable to Catholic principles.

Sarah x

I think you need to go take a few biology classes. Yes the infertility rate is climbing it is an escalating problem that science does not entirely understand. We do know that it has something to do with the rising levels of oestrogen in the environment. IVF is killing 4 kids to make 1 maybe this is not a real option if you are a moral person who understands science.

and here is the point. Children in homosexual unions for more poorly in most measured outcomes. that research is here.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

However the real point here (other than children are people and NOT handbags. You do not have a right to have a kid) is Where are the kids going to come from.

women with SSAD they can have kids. They have to commit adultery to do it but this happens all the time. the point is right from the go they must go outside of there relationship to have a kid because there relation is necessarily biologically sterile (that is more than 7%)
But what about the sterile male SSAD relations where are there kids going to come from. Why, they are going to india finding a finically disadvantaged women and turning her into a slave with no rights so she can feed her family for a few months. If she gets sick she has no medical rights ahead of the child she is carrying because she had to sign a contract or starve. And when sometimes she dies they give her 3 kids and husband 4-8 grand and they have no legal recourse. It does not matter that she only died because instead of treating mother and the baby at the same time. The baby came first with little regard for the mother.
And so finically impoverished Straight women ARE second class citizens of this planet so that SSAD men can look into there own eyes. And that’s the rest of the story.

 

[atheistgirl]

I think you need to go take a few biology classes. .

Do you really?

Please be so kind as to highlight specifically where my lack of knowledge in biology is evident using my own words from the relevant post/posts so I can make the relevant improvements.

I’m always looking to learn and improve.

Thanks.

Oh, and that biased MR reseach (I just KNEW it was going to be him before I even clicked the link) has been taken to pieces

Sarah x

 

[down_under]

Do you really?

Please be so kind as to highlight specifically where my lack of knowledge in biology is evident using my own words from the relevant post/posts so I can make the relevant improvements.

I’m always looking to learn and improve.

Thanks.

Oh, and that biased MR reseach (I just KNEW it was going to be him before I even clicked the link) has been taken to pieces

Sarah x

the only people who claimed this man was biased were people pushing the LGBT agenda in the media and politically therefore they were the biased people and there critique was taken apart by the university who reviewed his findings and found them all valid and publically said they were valid.
utexas.edu/news/2012/08/29regnerus_scientific_misconduct_inquiry_completed

in the last post you gave you opinion that a 7-10% infertility rate made the biological complimentary system a poor design. Like I said go take some classes and tell me where a better system exists for passing on exact DNA (intergenerational) with a failure rate (a recently increasing failure rate I might add) of only 7-10% with an error check and repair identification rate built into the system of greater than 1 part in 1000.

No mam you are mistaken about both points and in my opinion the only person with bias here is you. Not only were this particularly studies findings found valid and unbiased he is one of many studies that have been done that I could have quoted.

here is one that found Gay adoption harmful to children
lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/may/05053106

Here is a study by Kansas state university that shows that if the parents sexual orientation differs from the norm the children are very likely to be similarly adversely affected.
journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7907017&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0021932010000325

At the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23 2007 Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron showed that homosexuality was more dangerous than smoking. according to there research conventional couples lived 24 years longer then Gay counter parts. why would you want to expose kids to something like that? how is it in the child’s best interest. They are nor radios they are people and no one has a right to a child.

 

[atheistgirl]

in the last post you gave you opinion that a 7-10% infertility rate made the biological complimentary system a poor design. Like I said go take some classes

I said:

‘‘I think claiming exclusivity for a design with a consistent failure rate of as much as 10% is seriously flawed’’.

You might well disagree with my opinion, but you’re advice to take a biology class is redundant.

My point was the poster making the claim that men and women marrying is somehow ordained because this process, they implied is open to life, by the very nature of the people concerned, is simply incorrect.

The Church does not refuse to marry a couple because they are sterile, who, to quote the poster again, *by their very intrinsic nature it is closed to life completely *

Kirk Cameron - I can’t take that guy seriously after the banana incident.

Sarah x

 

[down_under]

I said:

‘‘I think claiming exclusivity for a design with a consistent failure rate of as much as 10% is seriously flawed’’.

You might well disagree with my opinion, but you’re advice to take a biology class is redundant.

My point was the poster making the claim that men and women marrying is somehow ordained because this process, they implied is open to life, by the very nature of the people concerned, is simply incorrect.

The Church does not refuse to marry a couple because they are sterile, who, to quote the poster again, *by their very intrinsic nature it is closed to life completely *

Kirk Cameron - I can’t take that guy seriously after the banana incident.

Sarah x

yes but you don’t argue any of the other info I gave you or the fact that you were dead wrong about the other study which was found to have no bias in it.

Also many of the sterile people you are talking about who marry don’t know they are sterile until after they try. they don’t know precisely because there union biologically is open to life even if there particular circumstances make it difficult or impossible. Again you pick on the exception without ever addressing the rule.

No my assertion that you could use a few classes in biology is well founded. As biologically these unions are not sterile and the norm according to biological human nature. No redundancy there and I see no comment about anything I said in my last post. The good old rule if you cannot debate the logical points without loosing the argument deny everything and make counter accusations. That still does not make my points any less valid.

 

[guanophore]

Young couples, children growing up, so disillusioned by the experiences they’ve had through their parents and friends, of ‘‘traditional’’ marriage, is what affects ‘‘traditional’’ marriage.

Divorce rates, underlying problems such as alcoholism, depression, addictions, spousal abuse, child abuse, financial, emotional and physical abuse, neglect - these are all the things that negatively affect traditional marriage.

Martha and Mary most certainly do not.

Sarah x

I agree with you, the failure of Christians to provide a holy example of the sacrament of marriage does more damage than all these other lifestyles all together. I think Christians need to focus on living out their sacramental vows.

One does not give light to the world by trying to fight off the darkness, but by turning on/up the light. Darkness is banished when light shines. Stamping up and down and railing against the dark will not make it go away.

That being said, I do not disagree with the idea of mitigating the darkness. I just think the effort is put in the wrong place.

 

[fix]

This ‘‘design’’ has ‘‘designed’’ approximately 6m people, in the US alone, to be infertile.

Worldwide some numbers suggest the infertility rate in the general population to be in the region of 7%. (some sources suggest as high as 10%).

I think claiming *exclusivity *for a design with a consistent failure rate of as much as 10% is seriously flawed.

Science and sociology has provided these couples with infertility issues solutions, ranging from IVF to adoption.

Options which are equally available to same sex couples.

Some of these solutions I know and understand are not acceptable to Catholic principles.

Sarah x

Not following you. Heterosexual couples are part of a class designed by nature to produce children. Homosexual couples are not. Individual heterosexual couples may be unable to produce children, but they still belong to the class that is by design natural. Again, to compare those to homosexual couples is absurd.

 

[atheistgirl]

yes but you don’t argue any of the other info I gave you or the fact that you were dead wrong about the other study which was found to have no bias in it.

No need to, when you look at who’s funding them

No my assertion that you could use a few classes in biology is well founded.

Oh it’s not, and it’s redundant, but please, do have the last word on the matter as I sense it’s very important to you that you do.

As biologically these unions are not sterile and the norm according to biological human nature.

That wasn’t the point I was making. You missed my point. Twice.

Hey, never mind biology, I’m now thinking I need English class!!!

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Again, to compare those to homosexual couples is absurd.

And using the criteria homosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married, because they’re not open to life, as claimed by the poster I was originally responding to, is equally absurd, when you consider the Church has no problem marrying sterile couples. A woman who has had a radical hysterectomy knows she’s sterile, but she can still get married in the Church.

That was my point.

There’s a ton of arguments one could use against homosexual marriage, but claiming they can’t naturally have children is about the weakest.

Sarah x

 

[down_under]

No need to, when you look at who’s funding them

Sarah x

look the only one with bias here is you. I showed you where the guys own university found no bias in the study that includes funding bias. After a political smear campaign where his guy was mocked by everyone on the other side of the issue his university looked into it formally and found no grounds of bias in the study…I am just now realizing(because no one mentioned it) the link did not work I will paste the article below. my apologies for the broken link, but his research and the research of many others is valid and statistically accurate. NO bias in this good scientific work and really there is a large body of evidence pointing out the problem what they are ALL biased. Now its a conspiracy?

University of Texas at Austin Completes Inquiry into Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

Aug. 29, 2012

AUSTIN, Texas — The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations of scientific misconduct lodged against associate professor Mark Regnerus regarding his July article in the journal Social Science Research.

As required by its Revised Handbook of Operating Procedures, the university conducted an inquiry to determine whether the accusations made by writer Scott Rose had merit and warranted a formal investigation. After consulting with a four-member advisory panel composed of senior university faculty members, the Office of the Vice President for Research concluded in a report on Aug. 24 that there is insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation.

Provost and Executive Vice President Steven Leslie accepted the report on Tuesday and deemed the matter closed from an institutional perspective.

As part of the inquiry, the university hired Dr. Alan Price to ensure that the inquiry was conducted appropriately and fairly. Price, a private consultant, is former associate director of the Office of Research Integrity in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Price found that the inquiry was handled in a manner consistent with university policy and indicated the process was “also consistent with federal regulatory requirements of inquiries into research misconduct.”

The allegations raised by Rose fall under the university’s definition of scientific misconduct, which states, in part, that “ordinary errors, good faith differences in interpretations or judgments of data, scholarly or political disagreements, good faith personal or professional opinions, or private moral or ethical behavior or views are not misconduct.”

As with much university research, Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study touches on a controversial and highly personal issue that is currently being debated by society at large. The university expects the scholarly community will continue to evaluate and report on the findings of the Regnerus article and supports such discussion.

 

[DrTaffy]

I think marriage is a fundamentally Church concept. Religious concept.

Demonstrably false, both historically and in current law. You actually cite civil marriage in your post!

So this situation is fundamentally different because in this redefinition churches would be expected to not only recognize but hold these services of whatever you want to call them even though this is fundamentally against what the very religion in question (pick one it not a catholic issue) believes and professes.

???

As far as I am aware no country proposes laws that would force unwilling churches to perform gay marriages.

On the contrary, there are religions (e.g. Quakers) who want to carry out legal same sex weddings and it is the Roman Catholic Church that is trying to ensure that they continue to be unable to do so.

 

[atheistgirl]

As far as I am aware no country proposes laws that would force unwilling churches to perform gay marriages.

Exactly, and they never will be able to either.

Because religion is a private matter, and you simply can not force a priest to perform a sacramental marriage against his will, or the will of the Church.

I have no doubt that some groups will try, and they’ll lose in each and every single case.

And I would support the Church directly in opposing being forced to do such a thing, even though I am in favor of same sex marriage.

Sarah x

 

[down_under]

Demonstrably false, both historically and in current law. You actually cite civil marriage in your post!

???

As far as I am aware no country proposes laws that would force unwilling churches to perform gay marriages.

On the contrary, there are religions (e.g. Quakers) who want to carry out legal same sex weddings and it is the Roman Catholic Church that is trying to ensure that they continue to be unable to do so.

marriage is a fundamentally religious institution this is demonstrably true historically, in current law there are parallel institutions, but that does not change the fact that it is fundamentally a religious institution created by God for “it is not good that man should be alone.”

why pick the Quakers. No offense to Quakers but this is not representative of a large population. Why did you not pick Muslim or Jews which are representative of huge populations. I mean Quakers have every right to do as they please as much as a bigger denomination. I only mention it here to point out the logical fallacy of you picking you cases. The vast majority of religious people in America have as doctrines of there faith that these ACTS are fundamentally disordered according to nature and biology and therefore against Gods plan.

As to your ignorance of current happenings I will give you a bi. We will say that you did not read, or missed in reading, the rather lengthy thread. Maybe you came in just now. allow me to give you a few examples (some of which were stated before) of the problems these laws are causing in our greater society.

lifesitenews.com/news/lawsuits-against-churches-inevitable-with-gay-marriage-law-uk-independence

I recommend the entire read but as it may or may not work here is a highlight

“[T]here is a very strong likelihood that the Court at Strasbourg will agree that it is an unlawful discrimination on those grounds and order the United Kingdom to introduce laws which will force Churches to marry gay people according to their rites, rituals and customs.”

The party said it is sure that the current government would “swiftly bend the knee to such a ruling and introduce such legislation” forcing churches to conduct gay “marriages.”

---

lets have a look at Denmark

asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/World/Story/A1Story20120607-351201.html

here is a highlight but do read the whole thing.
Denmark, a pioneer in gay rights, on Thursday saw its parliament vote overwhelmingly in favour of allowing homosexuals to marry in the state Evangelical Lutheran Church

here we have a parliament voting “overwhelmingly” to destroy freedom of religion in favour of same sex marriage. Never mind that the Evangelical Lutheran church has dogma against it. they must now perform these “marriage” services regardless of there personal feelings.

---

here is one out of British Colombia where the Knight of Columbus were forced to pay damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to allow the use of there premises for a “wedding” celebration. Unless you are claiming that the Knights of Columbus has no religious affiliation.
bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf

I could just keep going on this. Churches will be affected by the law even the Catholic church in America is saying that the state has officially made Catholic practice illegal in regards to Obama Care. You don’t think Obama is going to continue to destroy the freedom of religion just because we change the subject do you?

No disrespect intended but INHO sir if you think the answer might be yes you are kidding yourself.