With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change

[CopticChristian]

An ex-gay. And in other works by him, he draws on research from the widely discredited Paul Cameron and makes use of slippery slope arguments. You’ll notice that the book addressed in the link features the same article. The article itself also draws on one experience of one homosexual, and is a massive over generalisation. It also seems strange that you should accept his story as being true, and believe that is how all (or most) homosexuals live, and yet ignore the stories or lives of homosexuals who live monogamously, or what most people would consider acceptably.

This article, and the man writing is, is nothing special. I’ve read the same kind of stuff before. The claims that he makes are no different to any other anti-gay activists are making, be them Paul Cameron, or Peter LaBarbera, or any of the others. It’s the same broad statements, the same discredited research, the same conspiracy theories.

Regular,

I have not been in a gay bookstore. I have lived in San Francisco and seen the gay open life style. I seen the men wearing black leather with their behinds in view. I have been propositioned by gays. I find that distasteful. I have seen gays publically do what most people in heterosexual environments don’t do, ie grabbing crotches and using language that is not necessary. It is adolescent at best. I went to restaurants that I later discovered were gay and understood why I was hearing men whistling. I attended a gay concert because a nurse I was dating knew the band members and invited me to attend with her. I listened to songs like “he’s just right for me” and never returned again. I made no broad sweeping generalizations about anything from this article. It is what it is, one persons experience and a point of view. When I contrast that with my experience it has some consistincies.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

I have not been in a gay bookstore. I have lived in San Francisco and seen the gay open life style. I went to restaurants that I later discovered were gay and understood why I was hearing men whistling. I attended a gay concert because a nurse I was dating knew the band members and invited me to attend with ther. I made no broad sweeping generalizations about anything from this article. It is what it is, one persons experience and a point of view. When I contrast that with my experience it has some consistincies.

I know heterosexuals who lost their virginity at 13/14/15. I know heterosexuals who have attended orgys, or who caught chlamydia before they reached the age of consent. Of course, I admit that I haven’t lived as long as you, and I am far less experienced, but I’ve already seen a lot of similar stuff amongst heterosexuals that you’ve seen amongst homosexuals. It doesn’t mean anything.

I think it’s also hard to make a judgement based on gay restaurants or gay concerts. I can’t really see any reason that a homosexual would go to such a place other than to find cheap sex, otherwise you’d go to a normal concert/restaurant. It’s like going to a brothel and then complaining about how the customers are only interested in fornication.

I’ve read stories of other people on the internet, on open forums like this one, that tell a completely different story. There was a guy on Sodahead who I recall claimed that he felt that homosexuals were generally quite decent people, and he reported on his experience working in prisons and such. Neither your story or his are any less reliable from what I know, and yet you tell different stories. All I’m getting from these claims is that homosexuals live a very diverse range of lifestyles.

 

[CopticChristian]

I know heterosexuals who lost their virginity at 13/14/15. I know heterosexuals who have attended orgys, or who caught chlamydia before they reached the age of consent. Of course, I admit that I haven’t lived as long as you, and I am far less experienced, but I’ve already seen a lot of similar stuff amongst heterosexuals that you’ve seen amongst homosexuals. It doesn’t mean anything.

I think it’s also hard to make a judgement based on gay restaurants or gay concerts. I can’t really see any reason that a homosexual would go to such a place other than to find cheap sex, otherwise you’d go to a normal concert/restaurant. It’s like going to a brothel and then complaining about how the customers are only interested in fornication.

I’ve read stories of other people on the internet, on open forums like this one, that tell a completely different story. There was a guy on Sodahead who I recall claimed that he felt that homosexuals were generally quite decent people, and he reported on his experience working in prisons and such. Neither your story or his are any less reliable from what I know, and yet you tell different stories. All I’m getting from these claims is that homosexuals live a very diverse range of lifestyles.

Regular,

The Peoples Republic of China, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Australia, Phillipines, Canada, Colombia…and other places that I have been are not comparable to the openly gay San Francisco Castro Valley where all of this stuff takes place.

Living in San Francisco there are some good restaurants and sometimes driving causes you to drive by the Castro Valley or through the Castro Valley. It is a microcosm of the gay lifestyle.

I saw none of this openly gay stuff in the other ares of the world I travelled. Like attracts like. Those that want to be flamboyant and openly gay go to the Castro Valley.

I saw drug addicts and prostitutes in San Francisco downtown. So what. This thread is about Gay Marriage and not about heterosexuals.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

The Peoples Republic of China, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Australia, Phillipines, Canada, Colombia…and other places that I have been are not comparable to the openly gay San Francisco Castro Valley where all of this stuff takes place.

Living in San Francisco there are some good restaurants and sometimes driving causes you to drive by the Castro Valley or through the Castro Valley. It is a microcosm of the gay lifestyle.

I saw none of this openly gay stuff in the other ares of the world I travelled. Like attracts like. Those that want to be flamboyant and openly gay go to the Castro Valley.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. Other than the fact that the San Francisco gay scene is promiscuous and hypersexual, which stands to reason, I don’t see what kind of point you’re trying to make. In fact, you seem to be arguing against the idea that all or most homosexuals are hypersexual as you have said that you’ve only witnessed such stuff in San Francisco. You could also be trying to state that all openly gay people go to San Francisco. You seem to be basing your entire view of homosexuals upon one place. Why?

Oh, and there’s not really any such thing as the homosexual lifestyle, other than the rather broad definition of any lifestyle involving same-sex relationships. Homosexuals live a range of lifestyles. They’re not all hypersexual, and they don’t all go to Castro Valley.

I saw drug addicts and prostitutes in San Francisco downtown. So what. This thread is about Gay Marriage and not about heterosexuals.

You have had experiences that seem to suggest that all or most homosexuals are promiscuous or hypersexual. Likewise, I have had experiences that could be taken to mean that all or most heterosexuals are hypersexual or promiscuous. That doesn’t make it true, by any standard.

 

[jmcrae]

Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love. I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?

Marriage is not only about committed relationships - rather, committed relationships in marriage are about providing a safe and stable home in which to raise the next generation.

Homosexuals can’t have children - not even by accident.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t understand what you’re saying. Other than the fact that the San Francisco gay scene is promiscuous and hypersexual, which stands to reason, I don’t see what kind of point you’re trying to make. In fact, you seem to be arguing against the idea that all or most homosexuals are hypersexual as you have said that you’ve only witnessed such stuff in San Francisco. You could also be trying to state that all openly gay people go to San Francisco. You seem to be basing your entire view of homosexuals upon one place. Why?

Oh, and there’s not really any such thing as the homosexual lifestyle, other than the rather broad definition of any lifestyle involving same-sex relationships. Homosexuals live a range of lifestyles. They’re not all hypersexual, and they don’t all go to Castro Valley.

You have had experiences that seem to suggest that all or most homosexuals are promiscuous or hypersexual. Likewise, I have had experiences that could be taken to mean that all or most heterosexuals are hypersexual or promiscuous. That doesn’t make it true, by any standard.

Regular,

You have a distinct problem in understanding lots. You have a distinct problem in generalizations. I don’t understand why you believe you speak for homosexuals in general or specifically.

 

[Giants]

You could only prove it using axia that the judge accepts.

If the judge refused to accept the axia, then he will, by definiton, not accept your proof.

But my point was that judges are really under no obligation to accept any reality they disagree with, moral , mathematical or otherwise.

Thus the decisions of the courts cannot be talken as proof of reality…

Why stop there? Maybe the judge isn’t really a judge. I’m under no obligation to accept his job title, or the presumed authority that goes with it.

Come to think of it, maybe gay marriage is already legal. Sure, “The Law” might not agree, but who says “The Law” is the ultimate arbiter of what’s “Legal?”

 

[CopticChristian]

Why stop there? Maybe the judge isn’t really a judge. I’m under no obligation to accept his job title, or the presumed authority that goes with it.

Come to think of it, maybe gay marriage is already legal. Sure, “The Law” might not agree, but who says “The Law” is the ultimate arbiter of what’s “Legal?”

Giants,

You make a good point. Courts as you read do not decide proof of reality. So, gay marriage legal or not is not really marriage.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

You have a distinct problem in understanding lots. You have a distinct problem in generalizations. I don’t understand why you believe you speak for homosexuals in general or specifically.

I don’t speak for homosexuals. I’m just saying that your experiences do not say anything about the lives of so many homosexuals. There are a diverse amount of lives led by homosexuals, many promiscuous, many not. You’ll notice that I’m not arguing that all homosexuals are lovely people who live healthy lives.

Giants,

You make a good point. Courts as you read do not decide proof of reality. So, gay marriage legal or not is not really marriage.

Then why do you oppose it? After all, it isn’t really marriage, so what’s the problem?

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t speak for homosexuals. I’m just saying that your experiences do not say anything about the lives of so many homosexuals. There are a diverse amount of lives led by homosexuals, many promiscuous, many not. You’ll notice that I’m not arguing that all homosexuals are lovely people who live healthy lives.

Then why do you oppose it? After all, it isn’t really marriage, so what’s the problem?

Regular,

If you conclude that my experiences do not say anything about the lives of so many homosexuals then may I ask are you speaking from fact and knowledge or experience?

 

[Giants]

Giants,

You make a good point. Courts as you read do not decide proof of reality. So, gay marriage legal or not is not really marriage.

According to you and your theology. And that’s fine. But I’m not you, and I don’t agree with your theology. Nor, in principle, does the U.S. government.

You are free to split hairs between things that are “legal” vs. things that are “moral,” but this is ultimately irrelevant. Once gay marriage is legal, it’s legal, and your objections become null and void.

The mistake you’re making is to believe that the goal of the gay marriage movement is to convince you. It’s not.

 

[jmcrae]

No…but…an adulterer is allowed to get married in the church.

A *former *adulterer who has repented from his or her adultery, and who is not entering into an adulterous marriage, can get married in the Church. Someone who is presently committing adultery, or who has an ongoing lifestyle of adultery, would not be permitted to be married in the Church.

Equally, a former homosexual who repented of his or her homosexual acts could marry a person of the opposite sex in Church.

But neither an adulterer nor a homosexual would be permitted to continue in a sinful lifestyle, nor would the Church give any kind of approval to such a thing.

 

[fix]

Why stop there? Maybe the judge isn’t really a judge. I’m under no obligation to accept his job title, or the presumed authority that goes with it.

Come to think of it, maybe gay marriage is already legal. Sure, “The Law” might not agree, but who says “The Law” is the ultimate arbiter of what’s “Legal?”

I guess when slavery was legal that was acceptable. Judges need reason informed with moral truth. If not, we have what we have today.

 

[fix]

Giants,

You make a good point. Courts as you read do not decide proof of reality. So, gay marriage legal or not is not really marriage.

Indeed, and this shows why the law is so important. The law is a teacher. If it teaches evil then we get more people accepting evil.

 

[Giants]

It’s ironic that people keep referencing slavery, since the defenders of slavery used the Bible and Christian theology as the basis for their defense. So did the abolitionists, of course, but I imagine this is cold comfort to folks who think they can divine moral precepts from their religion.

 

[fix]

It’s ironic that people keep referencing slavery, since the defenders of slavery used the Bible and Christian theology as the basis for their defense. So did the abolitionists, of course, but I imagine this is cold comfort to folks who think they can divine moral precepts from their religion.

Slavery was abolished due to the Christian influence.

What is really ironic is to claim some court is the authentic authority in these matters. Some judge may issue some ruling but reality does not change.

 

[Giants]

Slavery was abolished due to the Christian influence.

And it was defended using the Bible. Just an example of faith being played on both sides of the board.

What is really ironic is to claim some court is the authentic authority in these matters. Some judge may issue some ruling but reality does not change.

A court is the legal authority, and like it or not, that is where the game is being played. Nobody’s suggesting that the courts have any jurisdiction over your Church’s view of such matters, and nobody is interested in changing your mind.

 

[PRmerger]

No…but…an adulterer is allowed to get married in the church.

I am trying to understand what you mean here.

If he’s an adulterer (or she), then he’s already married. He would not be allowed to get married again.

 

[LilyM]

And it was defended using the Bible. Just an example of faith being played on both sides of the board.

A court is the legal authority, and like it or not, that is where the game is being played. Nobody’s suggesting that the courts have any jurisdiction over your Church’s view of such matters, and nobody is interested in changing your mind.

But that’s exactly what the OP was suggesting - that the fact SSM has become legal (amkng other things of course) indicates that it is the Church that is somehow wrong and needs to reexamine its teaching. The title of the thread practically states it in so many words.

 

[CopticChristian]

According to you and your theology. And that’s fine. But I’m not you, and I don’t agree with your theology. Nor, in principle, does the U.S. government.

You are free to split hairs between things that are “legal” vs. things that are “moral,” but this is ultimately irrelevant. Once gay marriage is legal, it’s legal, and your objections become null and void.

The mistake you’re making is to believe that the goal of the gay marriage movement is to convince you. It’s not.

Giant,

You are wrong. My objections remain what they are, objections. You have made an assumption that is not convincing or true and it is not.