Why the fuss?

[SteveGC]

My reply wasn’t to anything you said, Steve.It was a reply to 'the fly’s 'argument for continiuity in the country. If we follow The Fly’s logic, then celibacy should be illegal.

Yes, I know you weren’t addressing me. And I did realize what your reply was in response to. And after some thought, I will concede. If we limit the argument to that logic alone, then I can see your counter-argument, yes. Which is why we have to present the full spectrum of valid arguments in sociopolitical discussions. Although The Fly did have a secondary rebuttal that should be addressed.

As a matter of fact, as an atheist, I have respect for more things than you have.

What a bold, unsubstantiated comment that is. By “you” are you inferring “me” personally? What do you propose it is that you have respect for that I personally do not? Not that I think I respect more things, but I certainly wouldn’t presume to say so without knowing who you were.

 

[copperblade]

Is the government paying special benefits for the Catholic priesthood?

I think tax exempt is better than filing jointly

 

[The_Fly]

I think tax exempt is better than filing jointly

Haha yes I think so too. I do not understand why the government should have to pay benefits to same sex couples if their unions produce absolutely zero benefits for the country? If you think about it heterosexual married couples are doing their country a service by having children. You couldn’t validly argue against Catholic priests as if they are on the same level as same sex couples since the Catholic priests aren’t asking for any special benefits from the government for their way of life. Maybe the same sex couples could learn something from the priests.

Abortion should be illegal not just because its murder but also because it’s the killing of a countries citizens that have already been created and which therefore have the same rights as everyone else…one of them being the right to live! But since abortion is another topic for another time I will leave that there.

I have heard no valid arguments for why same sex marriages should be allowed other than “equality”. Yet if the same sex marriages cannot do what the opposite sex marriages can do then they are not the same and should therefore NOT get the same benefits. There is nothing unfair about that.

 

[belorg]

Is the government paying special benefits for the Catholic priesthood?

In my country; yes.

 

[LaSainte]

Better a father and mother proper family model than two fathers or two mothers. Saying “two parents are better than one” is just a justification to settle for less than what is best for children in our society.

Not true. LOTS of homosexual couples adopt children that nobody else wants (handicapped children, babies with AIDS, etc.) because they want to love a child and it is often more difficult for them to adopt healthy babies. What would you say to those kids? Die in the orphanage or hospital?

 

[copperblade]

I have heard no valid arguments for why same sex marriages should be allowed other than “equality”. Yet if the same sex marriages cannot do what the opposite sex marriages can do then they are not the same and should therefore NOT get the same benefits. There is nothing unfair about that.

I think it’s more about rights that are on the books that refer to marriage and/or family members. (Maybe not even the latter.) For example, visitation rights in hospitals, or inheritance rights/claims, etc.

I take a different viewpoint of the situation: I think sexual relationships shouldn’t be implied requirements for contracts in our secular law. In other words, spouses have certain rights, I should be able to confer those same rights to another person (in lieu of having a wife) regardless of my relationship to them. This goes back to the difference you’re making about priests–priests too should be allowed to designate someone who has similar rights as a spouse. Why should anyone be punished for being single?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

In my country; yes.

Which country is that and exactly how is the government extending benefits to Catholic priests?
,

Not true. LOTS of homosexual couples adopt children that nobody else wants (handicapped children, babies with AIDS, etc.) because they want to love a child and it is often more difficult for them to adopt healthy babies. What would you say to those kids? Die in the orphanage or hospital?

LOTS or mere showcase adoptions by advocates of pro-gay causes? Do you have reliable and independent studies or statistics (not anecdotes) for your claim?
,

 

[copperblade]

Not true. LOTS of homosexual couples adopt children that nobody else wants (handicapped children, babies with AIDS, etc.) because they want to love a child and it is often more difficult for them to adopt healthy babies. What would you say to those kids? Die in the orphanage or hospital?

Actually that’s a good point, because it’s not just what gay people might do to help kids who would have it worse off anyway, but also because gay couples having children are a self-selecting population. If all things were equal, then the argument that children are better off not having gay parents is a reasonable position. But all things are not equal. Gay couples can’t have children of their own, so they must make an effort to have children, and are therefore statistically going to be better prepared to take care of them. But straight people can become parents even when they didn’t really want to, or were prepared to.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Actually that’s a good point, because it’s not just what gay people might do to help kids who would have it worse off anyway, but also because gay couples having children are a self-selecting population. If all things were equal, then the argument that children are better off not having gay parents is a reasonable position. But all things are not equal. Gay couples can’t have children of their own, so they must make an effort to have children, and are therefore statistically going to be better prepared to take care of them. But straight people can become parents even when they didn’t really want to, or were prepared to.

ARe you saying that people who actually want to be parents are better for kids than peole who don’t, regardless of sexuality? What a progressive thing to say

 

[copperblade]

ARe you saying that people who actually want to be parents are better for kids than peole who don’t, regardless of sexuality? What a progressive thing to say

Maybe not exactly. I’m willing to say that all things being equal, it’s a little better to have heterosexual parents. When people compare gay to straight parents (in their mind) this is exactly the kind of comparison they make (usually). But I think in reality there are probably a lot more “unfit” straight parents. So, I just think it’s not a strong argument since no one is advocating to grant legal marriage based on how fit the couple is to have children.

 

[LaSainte]

Which country is that and exactly how is the government extending benefits to Catholic priests?
,

LOTS or mere showcase adoptions by advocates of pro-gay causes? Do you have reliable and independent studies or statistics (not anecdotes) for your claim?
,

What is rong with you? So you’re saying that these people adopt sick children and raise them and care for them throughout their (often short) lives specifically to further the “gay agenda”?

From the catechism:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way

 

[InSearchofGrace]

What is rong with you? So you’re saying that these people adopt sick children and raise them and care for them throughout their (often short) lives specifically to further the “gay agenda”?

From the catechism:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way

No, you are the one rushing into judgment and being defensive. I asked, and did not say what you are attributing to me about gay couples who adopt handicapped children. There are Christian heterosexual couples who quietly do the same with no group like the LGBT seeking the headlines to further its cause, nor a left leaning media that puts the spotlight on their stories. The question is how many homosexual couples adopt handicapped kids in the total adoption picture.

If you had sources (studies, not anecdotes) to provide, please do so. When one makes statements like you have in this forum, you should not be surprised if you are asked for your basis.
,

 

[The_Fly]

Actually that’s a good point, because it’s not just what gay people might do to help kids who would have it worse off anyway, but also because gay couples having children are a self-selecting population. If all things were equal, then the argument that children are better off not having gay parents is a reasonable position. But all things are not equal. Gay couples can’t have children of their own, so they must make an effort to have children, and are therefore statistically going to be better prepared to take care of them. But straight people can become parents even when they didn’t really want to, or were prepared to.

Unfortunately it’s not a good point. Heterosexual couples are better for the children because a child needs both a father and a mother in order to understand how the two genders should live and act. Single families, homosexual couples, and orphanages are all environments which are not ideal for a child’s growth. Orphanages are somewhat exempt only because they try to find a good home consiting of a father and mother.

It’s beyond me how people can view homosexuality as not being a real issue since this sexuality openly promotes a way of living which will lead to the extinction of the human race. Everyone always wants to go to the defense of homosexuality with claims that its “normal” behavior in animals, however they won’t admit that its normal behavior when the conditions for the animals are abnormal or that the same zoologists that note homosexual behavior in animals would also be very concerned if the small percentage of those animals which practice homosexuality were to increase within their species. We as humans should also be concerned about an increase within our species but no on the contrary we would rather support this increase because everyone is so concerned about human respect. Let them think their way of life is normal so we dont hurt anyones feelings. Funny how people will do this for homosexuals but they wont do it for fat people.

ARe you saying that people who actually want to be parents are better for kids than peole who don’t, regardless of sexuality? What a progressive thing to say

Progressive? Ha I bet you would also call a society that promotes birth control, abortion, and other ways of life which lead to either the extinction of the human race or the avoidance of personal responsibility as progressive.

 

[belorg]

Which country is that and exactly how is the government extending benefits to Catholic priests?

Belgium. Catholic priests are paid by the government.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

InSearchofGrace;8190912:

Which country is that and exactly how is the government extending benefits to Catholic priests?

Belgium. Catholic priests are paid by the government.

Okay, that’s interesting, but not clear. Is the Belgian government paying priests for parish work (pastoral care, officiating Mass, etc.?) or for non-religious services that helps the community?

Just to back up, you brought up the matter in reply to a post by (Fly)

A non-religious reason for why the government should not support gay marriage is because these unions do nothing to contribute to the continuity of the country. Children = citizens, citizens = the future of the country. This is the same reason for why abortion should be illegal as well.

and your question

And why Catholic priesthood should be illegal as well?

then his

Is the government paying special benefits for the Catholic priesthood?

to which you say, your country, Belgium, where the government pays Catholic priests.

Please do not confuse subsidies or tax benefits by governments to Church organizations for running schools, hospitals, and adoption services. That is also done here in the U.S. Obviously, educational, health and social services (areas where the Catholic Church is active) help produce good citizens in an ordered society.
,

 

[copperblade]

Unfortunately it’s not a good point. Heterosexual couples are better for the children because a child needs both a father and a mother in order to understand how the two genders should live and act. Single families, homosexual couples, and orphanages are all environments which are not ideal for a child’s growth. Orphanages are somewhat exempt only because they try to find a good home consiting of a father and mother.

So do you think that every heterosexual couple is better than every homosexual couple? Homosexuality trumps everything, including alcoholism, physical abuse, destitution, etc?

That’s my only point–if we advocate that marriage only be for heterosexual couples based on the premise that it’s better for their children, then we must also advocate that there should be no legal marriage for alcoholics, the poor, etc.

 

[The_Fly]

So do you think that every heterosexual couple is better than every homosexual couple?

I think that heterosexual couples are more ideal for a childs growth.

Homosexuality trumps everything, including alcoholism, physical abuse, destitution, etc?

NO it doesnt trump them it is listed among the others as environments which are not ideal for children.

That’s my only point–if we advocate that marriage only be for heterosexual couples based on the premise that it’s better for their children, then we must also advocate that there should be no legal marriage for alcoholics, the poor, etc.

Personally I think alcoholics and poor people shouldn’t get married for the sake of the future children they might have. People who can manage a family should have children and those who cannot manage should not have children. If you’re an alcoholic or too poor to take care of yourself then keep your pants zipped up and your legs closed. We shouldnt have to make something illegal when it should be common sense. Couples that are not open to life have no business being married in the first place. Now that’s progressive.

 

[belorg]

belorg;8191394:

Okay, that’s interesting, but not clear. Is the Belgian government paying priests for parish work (pastoral care, officiating Mass, etc.?)

Yes.

Please do not confuse subsidies or tax benefits by governments to Church organizations for running schools, hospitals, and adoption services. That is also done here in the U.S. Obviously, educational, health and social services (areas where the Catholic Church is active) help produce good citizens in an ordered society.

I do not confuse these.

But note that I have nothing against catholic priests, my reply was just to show that under The Fly’s logic, catholic priesthood should not be legal since catholic priests by definition do not have children, and, according to The Fly “Children = citizens, citizens = the future of the country”.

That’s all.

 

[SteveGC]

Not true. LOTS of homosexual couples adopt children that nobody else wants (handicapped children, babies with AIDS, etc.) because they want to love a child and it is often more difficult for them to adopt healthy babies. What would you say to those kids? Die in the orphanage or hospital?

Certainly we would want children to have a happy family life, especially those with severe ailments and challenges. Of course, our desire for that cannot manifest itself in an advocation for homosexual marriage, or any type of widespread formal recognition of homosexual lifestyles. But certainly we all have work to do to help make society a place where orphanage numbers decrease, and adoptions within heterosexual marriages increase.

 

[EasterJoy]

So do you think that every heterosexual couple is better than every homosexual couple? Homosexuality trumps everything, including alcoholism, physical abuse, destitution, etc?

That’s my only point–if we advocate that marriage only be for heterosexual couples based on the premise that it’s better for their children, then we must also advocate that there should be no legal marriage for alcoholics, the poor, etc.

Better for children? Heterosexuals are where children come from. It takes male and female, and the fact that some of us are comfortable with making a child’s parent into a throw-away “surrogate” or that some of us consider children a “choice” rather than an intrinsic part of the full context of human sexuality doesn’t change that.

We contend that marriage is by its nature for heterosexual couples because human bodies were made for heterosexual sex, which finds its moral expression when the partners bind not just for transitory mutual enjoyment and support, but for the sake of the children which usually (but not always) are the natural result, so that those children might be reared securely within their own families among their own brothers and sisters, eventually becoming an extended family, and so on.

It is a sign of the absolute disentegration of marriage and sexual mores that these things are not immediately clear and that the exception to this does not prove the rule. It has gotten to the point that we think certain members of a family are entirely dispensible, that any member of the family need only be there as the expression of a preference. It is not that we realize that a family might have to soldier on in the absence of this member of the family or that one, due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control. No! These days, we think that doing without this one or that one in order to suit the preferences of the adults in the family can be a fully positive choice!

That is indescribably sad.