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

[JackyB]

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?"

It’s responses like this brilliant one which helps rationalise my jumbled thoughts.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Furthermore, as a scientist myself,

We have that in common, then.

interviews are a very poor way of following the scientific method. The studies of interviewing same-sex parents and their children is ridiculous. That would be no different than me sending out seventh graders to take water samples in the environment and publishing their results.

Or maybe not if you don’t know the difference between how one kind of research is done as opposed to another, and no, it would not “be like” what you described.

The study wasn’t of children raised by same-gender married couples. It focused on same-gender parental figures in the hone environment. Why do you have to interview the couple? Because why they have the child in their home and their attitude towards the child and their general lifestyle is a significant factor. The culture in which gay persons exist in this country has changed radically in the last 30- years. And that culture affects the development of the child.

The fact that a group of people who had one thing in common are having more problems than others actually does not prove that the one element they had in common was the root cause. That’s like saying that since black men are more likely to have been arrested by the time they reach the age of 25 that being black ca is the cause.

I have no idea what sort of science you work in, but my field is anthropology, and social sciences are worlds apart from hard sciences. So, yeah, you interview.

To receive Communion, one must be in a state of grace and the Catholic Church has made it clear that those who support homosexuality or practice it are in danger of committing mortal sin.

No, I don’t think the Church has ever said anything about anyone “supporting homosexuality.” Nor does the Church condemn homosexuality. And I’m really really sure you have no idea what state of sin I may or may not be in. So, in future, maybe keep these personal comments to yourself, as they are WAY off-topic here.

Taxation should only be used to fund a limited role of government. It should never be used to cater to special interest emotional needs.

I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to anything we have been discussing.

 

[Julia_Mae]

For some of them, it is.

Scientist? You have a bit of evidence to back up such an assertion?

 

[interestedman]

For some of them, it is.

There are lots of people that want to destroy the Catholic church. For many gay people the Catholic Church has been a source of hate, stress, unneeded guilt, psychological damage, etc. I would imagine if I was gay I would want a church that stated that acting on it was evil and opposed my rights to marry to be dismantled.

 

[Julia_Mae]

It will not. The biological basic of stability such as sexual fulfillment and procreation are simply not there, long story short.

That is why gay divorce rates in states that recognize their relationships are comparable to or higher than straight ones and why homosexuals are more likely to have multiple (in some cases hundreds) of sexual partners of both sexes.

So do NBA players. But this is not true of gay men in stable relationships and has never been true of gay women. For a scientist you really do spread a lot of cultural mythology.

Changing social policy to make yourself or others feel better will not change millions of years of developing biology.

Careful, water man. My specialty was paleoanthropology and you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about there.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Did you read my entire post or just that one part?

When you answer a question with a question it means you don’t have an answer.

 

[Dale_M]

So is the USA, and our Constitution does not give anyone the right to marry.

That is a whole different question, and one which has been addressed many times here at CAF. For the sake of staying on-topic, I will leave the matter aside.

 

[pete_29]

If what I said here isn’t true then why aren’t civil unions sufficient. Especially if they offer the same protection under the law./

 

[Faithdancer]

pete 29;9745784:

If what I said here isn’t true then why aren’t civil unions sufficient. Especially if they offer the same protection under the law./

Perhaps civil unions don’t sufficiently provide the illusion of moral legitimacy which they seem to crave.

 

[Julia_Mae]

f what I said here isn’t true then why aren’t civil unions sufficient. Especially if they offer the same protection under the law.

They should be. For everyone.

 

[pete_29]

pete 29;9748556:

Perhaps civil unions don’t sufficiently provide the illusion of moral legitimacy which they seem to crave.

And since, many religions would not find their “marriage” morally legitimate the next step would be to try and force them through legal action. Sooner or later, this will happen.

 

[pete_29]

They should be. For everyone.

Then why all the hubbub about calling it a “marriage”?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Then why all the hubbub about calling it a “marriage”?

I don’t know Pete, why do you want to call it marriage?

 

[pete_29]

I don’t know Pete, why do you want to call it marriage?

I don’t and you know better than that.

 

[BobCatholic]

Could you please list the lawsuits against the church in states like NY that already allow gay marriage? Especially the ones that have resulted in churches shutting down. I tried Googling them myself and didn’t come up with any. I must be looking them up incorrectly.

You’re not looking good enough, you choose to entertain your bias against religious freedom instead of searching.

Arrested for reading the Bible and thrown in jail: PENNSYLVANIA thanks to homosexuals
jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Police%20State/bible_banned_and_labeled_as_hate.htm

Canada court rules Bible as hate speech: (yes, about homosexuality)
wnd.com/2003/02/17314/
(you know what governments do against people who do “hate speech” - fines and jail time)

In addition Canada has a law on the books - up to 5 years in prison (same reason)
wnd.com/2004/04/24407/

Bible is hate speech in california: (guess why?)
rense.com/general78/calif.htm

Washington state bishop warned to shut up about anti-gay marriage issue: (no freedom of speech or religion if you are a Catholic, says the homosexuals!)
news.yahoo.com/washington-state-catholic-bishop-warned-over-anti-gay-021202054.html

Case after case this happens in Europe and Canada where homosexuals go their agenda pushed through.
truthtellers.org/hatelawsflyermailer.pdf

Homosexuals can force people to not only NOT say something against homosexuality, but also force you to speak on their behalf! Compulsory speech!
volokh.com/2012/04/04/may-the-government-force-you-to-print-ideological-materials-you-dont-want-to-print/

So no freedom of speech or religion allowed for Catholics and other Christians. First shut down the speech. First step. Then force others to speak on the gays behalf, against their beliefs.

And again, Catholic Charities made the choice that Federal Funds were more important than staying open and following civil law. Not anyone else’s choice. If all these committed Catholics were really that concerned, they would have made up the loss and kept the places open. If it is a priority for you, you’ll find the money. Don’t blame the government for your personal choices.

What are you talking about federal funds?

I’m talking about discriminating by the government against the Catholic Church because of religious dogma.

Illinois cancels foster care referral contracts:
articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/15/nation/la-na-gay-adoptions-20111115

Massachusetts shuts down adoptions by Catholic Charities (no federal funds here!)
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm

And this is happening AROUND THE COUNTRY
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41680

Feel free to ignore the facts here. Homosexuality is used as a battering ram by cultural Marxists to force their beliefs on others and to shut down any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle - this means shutting down Catholic and Christian groups who help others but don’t have the “correct viewpoints”

First Amendment is dying in the USA.

 

[BobCatholic]

There are lots of people that want to destroy the Catholic church. For many gay people the Catholic Church has been a source of hate, stress, unneeded guilt, psychological damage, etc. I would imagine if I was gay I would want a church that stated that acting on it was evil and opposed my rights to marry to be dismantled.

And this is why cultural Marxists use homosexuals to shut down freedom of speech and religion in every country gay marriage or homosexual laws are on the books.

 

[BobCatholic]

When you answer a question with a question it means you don’t have an answer.

If you are asking a question that is answered by my post, it shows you didn’t read it fully and expect me to repeat myself again.

 

[BobCatholic]

pete 29;9748556:

Perhaps civil unions don’t sufficiently provide the illusion of moral legitimacy which they seem to crave.

Cultural Marxists (using homosexuals) don’t want tolerance. They don’t just want acceptance. They want to impose their viewpoint on those who disagree with them.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Scientist? You have a bit of evidence to back up such an assertion?

lifesitenews.com/news/angry-queers-smash-church-windows-in-portland

speroforum.com/a/17513/Gays-vandalize-San-Francisco-church

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Julia Mae;9748404]

Or maybe not if you don’t know the difference between how one kind of research is done as opposed to another, and no, it would not “be like” what you described.

It already is as I described. The numbers speak for themselves and that is why most states do not invest in gay relationships.

The fact that a group of people who had one thing in common are having more problems than others actually does not prove that the one element they had in common was the root cause. That’s like saying that since black men are more likely to have been arrested by the time they reach the age of 25 that being black ca is the cause.

I could take that same argument and use it against the pro-gay rights studies and suggest that just because they were raised by gay parents and did well did not mean that the gay parenting had anything to do with it.

In the case of the U-Texas study, having a gay parent showed increased negative results due almost entirely to a more representative sample, and many politically correct folks in your field would argue that Black men are often unfairly singled out as suspects.

I have no idea what sort of science you work in, but my field is anthropology, and social sciences are worlds apart from hard sciences. So, yeah, you interview.

I see.

The problem with the samples of previous studies indicating that gay parenting is fine is that those studies did not have good sample populations. The sample population in some cases was recruited from political forums.

Regardless of what methodology is used, there needs to some sort of statistical analysis and accounting for error and in the case of social sciences it is imperative to have a representative sample.

I do hope that these studies are further replicated, and yes, that is important but it needs to be done without bias from either side.

The University of Texas study was an early study, but my hypothesis on the matter is that after some time we will see a more negative impact on society from so-called “gay marriage” and the trends will be similar to that of co-habitation. In that case, people in the 1960s who co-habitated were interviewed and didn’t “see the big deal”, naturally. However, findings in the 1980s showed a sharp contrast to that.

I think that states that embrace same-sex rights are going to find it to be a waste of time and resources. Whether they admit to it or stubbornly defend it is for the politicians to decide but it’s clear to me where the science on this is heading.

No, I don’t think the Church has ever said anything about anyone “supporting homosexuality.” Nor does the Church condemn homosexuality. And I’m really really sure you have no idea what state of sin I may or may not be in. So, in future, maybe keep these personal comments to yourself, as they are WAY off-topic here.

I never said I was certain.

I don’t need to know what state of sin you are in to indicate that homosexuality, done with full consent, full knowledge and free will is a mortal sin.

Catechism:

Chastity and homosexuality

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

americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp