Why do gays want marriage? What do they hope gain from it?

[qui_est_ce]

I think same-sex advocates would argue against those cases but it’s not clear on what grounds.

I don’t think they really object to it at all. They are currently dealing with the ick factor of those who oppose ss “marriage.” We are being conditioned to accept more and more deviant behavior.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The thought just crossed my mind. Why not get over it and just dispense with all these prudish taboos and go do whatever you want.

 

[scipio337]

The thought just crossed my mind. Why not get over it and just dispense with all these prudish taboos and go do whatever you want.

If we are willing to redefine marriage into just “love” If "why are we limiting the union to being “monogamous”, or even to two people?

Surely, if we are throwing out such bourgeois notions of “heterosexual marriage”, we can do away with the Victorian limitations regarding number and monogamy.

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

 

[markeverett49]

I don’t think they really object to it at all. They are currently dealing with the ick factor of those who oppose ss “marriage.” We are being conditioned to accept more and more deviant behavior.

I think some gay people want to marry because a) they think they have the right and b) they think they have found the right partner. I oppose same-sex marriage but I don’t assume bad faith on the part of all those advocating in its behalf. So far, arguments for same-sex marriage tend to restrict it to two people, a couple, and when asked why, they tend to fumble a bit and say, well, that’s what marriage is, two people. They see the two people part as essential but not the opposite sex part.

But of course, if marriage is redefined as a commitment between two people, it will be hard to argue that it shouldn’t go for three people, perhaps two of one sex and one of the other.

I don’t mention this as a scare tactic. (“If we allow THIS, next thing you know, they’ll want THAT.”) I would oppose same-sex marriage even if I were convinced that marriage would be redefined no further. It’s bad enough in itself. But once we take children out of marriage—they’re just a feature some like but others don’t—it is not obvious why marriage should be limited to couples.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think some gay people want to marry because a) they think they have the right and b) they think they have found the right partner. I oppose same-sex marriage but I don’t assume bad faith on the part of all those advocating in its behalf. So far, arguments for same-sex marriage tend to restrict it to two people, a couple, and when asked why, they tend to fumble a bit and say, well, that’s what marriage is, two people. They see the two people part as essential but not the opposite sex part.

But of course, if marriage is redefined as a commitment between two people, it will be hard to argue that it shouldn’t go for three people, perhaps two of one sex and one of the other.

I don’t mention this as a scare tactic. (“If we allow THIS, next thing you know, they’ll want THAT.”) I would oppose same-sex marriage even if I were convinced that marriage would be redefined no further. It’s bad enough in itself. But once we take children out of marriage—they’re just a feature some like but others don’t—it is not obvious why marriage should be limited to couples.

There is no Constitutional right to marriage. Family is reserved to the states.

 

[Seeker1961]

You and I may view marriage as a sacrament because we are Catholic, but it’s not a sacrament for those who don’t believe in them. To those who don’t believe in sacraments, or have not made a commitment to a faith tradition, it’s a contract between two consenting adults who have joined themselves together because of mutual feeling. We can talk about sacraments, natural order and God’s plan for life until we are blue in the face, but it’s never going to mean anything to people who don’t believe in God and don’t have a commitment to any faith tradition.

You want to end the fight over gay marriage-end the governmental and private industry benefits that go with it. Make a level playing field for everyone regardless of marital status and the fight for gay marriage disappears overnight.

 

[SuperLuigi]

They weren’t forced to shut down at all. They were denied government funding for their operations. They shut down because the faithful don’t give them enough money to operate and protect the poor children from the evil SS couples. So, essentially, YOU forced them to shut down.

Remember, Catholic charities is not the Church. Neither are hospitals or universities.

Not the Church. And they aren’t, BTW. They can opt for insurance coverage that doesn’t include this in the plan. Individuals can contact the insurance companies on their own for those benefits. The burden is on the sinner.

Well, if people in this county weren’t taxed to death, we wouldn’t have to go beg the government for money back to give to charity, would we?

That is especially true in the declining New England states.

That’s a pretty cold answer on your part, and yes, Catholicism does teach that homosexual acts done by people regardless of their orientation are gravely sinful.

There is substantial evidence to suggest that children are off worse with same-sex parents.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You and I may view marriage as a sacrament because we are Catholic, but it’s not a sacrament for those who don’t believe in them. To those who don’t believe in sacraments, or have not made a commitment to a faith tradition, it’s a contract between two consenting adults who have joined themselves together because of mutual feeling. We can talk about sacraments, natural order and God’s plan for life until we are blue in the face, but it’s never going to mean anything to people who don’t believe in God and don’t have a commitment to any faith tradition.

You want to end the fight over gay marriage-end the governmental and private industry benefits that go with it. Make a level playing field for everyone regardless of marital status and the fight for gay marriage disappears overnight.

The Founding Fathers would probably say let the states decide.

That is how a constitutional republic is supposed to work. Those who advocate for “gay rights” are not doing anything special or revolutionary. Homosexuality has been around for a very long time.

The only reason its an issue is because of the core entitlement mentality of modern society.

Notice how someone wants something and doesn’t get it. Then it becomes a need. Still not getting it?

Then it’s a “right”.

There are a lot of things in this country called “rights” that are actually not rights.

 

[Wildkit]

Why can’t we get back to economics? If a company chooses to have a policy to reimburse an employee for his partner,……why does one have to change the language and vocabulary of what a marriage is? Let the market choose what it wants,…I believe God has spoken.

 

[markeverett49]

You want to end the fight over gay marriage-end the governmental and private industry benefits that go with it. Make a level playing field for everyone regardless of marital status and the fight for gay marriage disappears overnight.

I don’t think that would work. For one thing, the married couples used to certain benefits would complain. For another, those who have come to SEE same-sex marriage as a right would want to see it recognized, whether they married or not. (It’s not as if every gay person who advocates for same-sex marriage wants to marry.) The solution lies in helping them see there is no such rite and that conjugal sex is only possible between one male and one female. In a strict sex, what homosexuals do in their beds isn’t sex! (I’ve abandoned all hope of getting anyone under 30 to even THINK about that that idea.)

 

[Seeker1961]

I don’t think that would work. For one thing, the married couples used to certain benefits would complain. For another, those who have come to SEE same-sex marriage as a right would want to see it recognized, whether they married or not. (It’s not as if every gay person who advocates for same-sex marriage wants to marry.) The solution lies in helping them see there is no such rite and that conjugal sex is only possible between one male and one female. In a strict sex, what homosexuals do in their beds isn’t sex! (I’ve abandoned all hope of getting anyone under 30 to even THINK about that that idea.)

I’ve never been heterosexual so i have to ask this question. Is sex the entirety of your relationships? I have a past that includes homosexual relationships and I can tell you for a fact that our lives did not revolve around it. We went to work, we cleaned the house, we went grocery shopping, we went to the park, to the theatre, to the movies…we weren’t thinking about, or having sex 24/7. The relationships I had were primarily about the time we spent together and the things we liked to do together-things that were done in public while fully clothed. Yes, there was intimacy, it was a part of our lives and not even the largest part.

The reason I ask is because whenever the subject comes up, immediately the conversation turns to sex and the mechanisms thereof. It seems like that’s the only thing that straight people think that gay relationships are about. So, I have to wonder if that’s all that straight relationships are about.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think some gay people want to marry because a) they think they have the right and b) they think they have found the right partner. I oppose same-sex marriage but I don’t assume bad faith on the part of all those advocating in its behalf. So far, arguments for same-sex marriage tend to restrict it to two people, a couple, and when asked why, they tend to fumble a bit and say, well, that’s what marriage is, two people. They see the two people part as essential but not the opposite sex part.

But of course, if marriage is redefined as a commitment between two people, it will be hard to argue that it shouldn’t go for three people, perhaps two of one sex and one of the other.

I don’t mention this as a scare tactic. (“If we allow THIS, next thing you know, they’ll want THAT.”) I would oppose same-sex marriage even if I were convinced that marriage would be redefined no further. It’s bad enough in itself. But once we take children out of marriage—they’re just a feature some like but others don’t—it is not obvious why marriage should be limited to couples.

Hi Markevertt I agree with what you are saying. I think there are sincere gay people who innocently just want to commit. My point - and yours - is the argument can’t just stop at “between two consenting adults” because that is already a redefinition of “between one man and one woman.”

Agreed as to

I don’t mention this as a scare tactic. (“If we allow THIS, next thing you know, they’ll want THAT.”)

I’m arguing from a purely logical POV.

 

[markeverett49]

I’ve never been heterosexual so i have to ask this question. Is sex the entirety of your relationships?

The reason I ask is because whenever the subject comes up, immediately the conversation turns to sex and the mechanisms thereof. It seems like that’s the only thing that straight people think that gay relationships are about. So, I have to wonder if that’s all that straight relationships are about.

No, sex is not the entirety of my relationships. In fact, it’s no part of them, as I am single and celibate!

One reason sex comes up when same-sex marriage is discussed is that so many same-sex marriage advocates suggest there is no difference between a man having sex with another man and a wife having sex with her husband. Pointing out the differences between men and women and the fact that conjugal sex is only possible between a man and a woman seems to be information they are missing.

It’s curious that you seem to think sex is only an occasional activity, whereas with heterosexual couples, it is a way to generate a new life, which may spend several years complicating the coupling designs of mommy and daddy. You have no idea what it is like to make love to a partner knowing a new life may result. As differences go, this one is gargantuan.

 

[Seeker1961]

No, sex is not the entirety of my relationships. In fact, it’s no part of them, as I am single and celibate!

One reason sex comes up when same-sex marriage is discussed is that so many same-sex marriage advocates suggest there is no difference between a man having sex with another man and a wife having sex with her husband. Pointing out the differences between men and women and the fact that conjugal sex is only possible between a man and a woman seems to be information they are missing.

It’s curious that you seem to think sex is only an occasional activity, whereas with heterosexual couples, it is a way to generate a new life, which may spend several years complicating the coupling designs of mommy and daddy. You have no idea what it is like to make love to a partner knowing a new life may result. As differences go, this one is gargantuan.

I’ve never had any interest whatsoever in generating a new life. I find other people’s children mostly adorable and charming, and I spend my working life in a place that is all about children-but I’m glad to live a life without them. I used to think that was part of being gay, but then I started meeting gay people who had children and really loved everything to do with parenting. I’ve also got straight friends who have no interest whatsoever in becoming parents, so in my experience sexual orientation doesn’t come with or without a biological clock. Most of my straight friends have kids though and are terrific parents as far as I can see.

I don’t understand the whole new life thing and would never claim to, but at the same time you can’t understand what it was like to live my life before or what it’s like to live it now that I’ve made a commitment to live without a partner. I’ve lived almost as long without one as I did with one now, and it’s gotten easier. There are still many things I miss, but sex is actually the least of them.

 

[markeverett49]

I’ve never had any interest whatsoever in generating a new life…

Fine, but that is not the point. We are a sexually reproducing species and same-sex relations cannot bring that about. If marriage were primarily about the emotional bonding of adults, the state would have no interest in it. (The state doesn’t license friendships, for example, though friendships are profoundly important to people.) That so many heterosexuals have taking to using contraceptives and turning to abortionists when the contraceptives fail is the only reason the same-sex marriage debate got off the ground-----too many heterosexuals have a homosexual’s view of sex (-“it has nothing to do with procreation.”) This is why ‘same-sex marriage’ makes sense to them: 'hey, whatever floats your boat, right?"

 

[Faithdancer]

Fine, but that is not the point. We are a sexually reproducing species and same-sex relations cannot bring that about. If marriage were primarily about the emotional bonding of adults, the state would have no interest in it. (The state doesn’t license friendships, for example, though friendships are profoundly important to people.) That so many heterosexuals have taking to using contraceptives and turning to abortionists when the contraceptives fail is the only reason the same-sex marriage debate got off the ground-----too many heterosexuals have a homosexual’s view of sex (-“it has nothing to do with procreation.”) This is why ‘same-sex marriage’ makes sense to them: 'hey, whatever floats your boat, right?"

Very cogent argument, markeverett49!

 

[Julia_Mae]

Once we’ve established “sameness” in the realm of marriage, how long before the first public accomodation lawsuits are filed against churches of any denominiation?

You know, we have had the Americans with Disabilities Act for quite a long time. You still can’t get into the basement of my parish if you are disabled unless someone carries you. As I said, all this talk meant to scare everyone is just that. The sky is not falling.

I swear every time something like this comes up I am reminded of the flouridation terror of the 50s. No one is going to try and force priests to administer illicit Sacraments. Or rent out our Parishes to gay couples for marriage ceremonies. Or any other of this stuff.

Oh I know, “Not the Church”.

Correct. Regardless of what you or anyone thinks, there are legal definitions and they apply to all churches. Now, these things could be Church, easily. It’s the Church itself that has things arranged so that these institutions are legally separate from the Church in America.

The fact that you defend these acts (Catholic Charities forced to stop adoptions, unconstitutional HHS mandate) only make the reality of gay “marriage” being used against the Church or “Not the Church” institutions or “Not the Church” individuals even more likely.

I didn’t “defend” a thing, I was only describing the events in a more accurate way. Stop taking government money and get the faithful to financially support these efforts and you can give orphans to anyone you want,. Here’s the other solution: decent heterosexual Catholic couples all flood their Social Service departments asking to adopt a child. No orphans, no problem.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, if people in this county weren’t taxed to death, we wouldn’t have to go beg the government for money back to give to charity, would we?

That is especially true in the declining New England states.

That’s a pretty cold answer on your part, and yes, Catholicism does teach that homosexual acts done by people regardless of their orientation are gravely sinful.

There is substantial evidence to suggest that children are off worse with same-sex parents.

1 - taxation is no excuse for lack of charity as long as you have cable

2- I live in New England - people in my parish donated the 22k spent retooling for the EF, soooo, maybe better spent saving a child from a same sex adoption?

3- I am aware of catholic teaching and facts might seem cold to you n but at least they are honest

4 - we’ll see when the study is replicated which it has not been

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m not asking about the moral issues of same sex marriage. What I am wondering is, why is this such a big deal for homosexuals? What are they trying to accomplish?

I’m not sure, myself- “equality?” That cannot be because gender A plus gender A can never be the same as gender 'A plus gender B. At any rate, I will make the bold prediction that they aren’t going to get “marriage” in the Catholic Church, or “marriage” performed elsewhere to be recognized in the Catholic Church…not now, nor ever. Deo gratias!

 

[Seeker1961]

I’m not sure, myself- “equality?” That cannot be because gender A plus gender A can never be the same as gender 'A plus gender B. At any rate, I will make the bold prediction that they aren’t going to get “marriage” in the Catholic Church, or “marriage” performed elsewhere to be recognized in the Catholic Church…not now, nor ever. Deo gratias!

This may shock you, but I strongly doubt that gay couples wanting to marry are really interested in joining the Catholic church in the first place. When I returned to the Church, most of my gay friends didn’t understand why I would ever consider such a thing.

The gay couples I know that have married have done so in front of JOP’s or ministers from Churches that accept their unions.