With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change

[rossum]

Cheap rhetoric is very damaging.

Logic can be devastating also.

If the argument is “Same sex marriage cannot be allowed because children are impossible”, then it is logical to apply the same argument to other similar situations where children are impossible.

There are valid arguments against same sex marriage being allowed by the Catholic Church, but that is not one of them. The Catholic Church does allow some marriages where children are impossible.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

So, you are saying that marriage should be impossible for all women who have passed the menopause, since they cannot have any children?

What about infertile men and women, should they also be forbidden to marry?

rossum

The marital act between infertile husband and wife is still ordered towards procreation.

Sex between 2 men is not.

 

[fix]

Logic can be devastating also.

If the argument is “Same sex marriage cannot be allowed because children are impossible”, then it is logical to apply the same argument to other similar situations where children are impossible.

There are valid arguments against same sex marriage being allowed by the Catholic Church, but that is not one of them. The Catholic Church does allow some marriages where children are impossible.

rossum

That is not the argument.

 

[rossum]

That is not the argument.

It was jmcrae’s argument, to which I was responding:

“Common sense” would seem to dictate that marriage is about the establishment of families and dynasties. Since homosexuals are not physically capable of this, it seems as if “common sense” would dictate that marriage is impossible for homosexuals - even if they are faithful to one partner for their entire lives.

“the establishment of families and dynasties” requires children. Post menopausal women, and other infertile people, cannot establish dynasties.

Please read the actual post I am responding to, not the post that I didn’t respond to.

rossum

 

[epan]

Regular,

I see your problem…

This should read…It is a microcosm of the gay lifestyle that I observed in San Francisco in the Castro Valley.

I’ve been to the Castro a few times. It is a pretty wild place. I don’t think that the behavior one sees there is characteristic of what I have seen in other gay neighborhoods. I was actually propositioned four times, simply minding my own business crossing the street at a crosswalk. That surprised me.

I understand that now there are naked men running around on the street, and that the San Francisco City Council is considering adopting an ordinance banning public nudity everywhere in the City, other than at festival and events such as the Bay to Breakers Race. It used to be that one rarely saw a naked person on the street, and nobody gave it a second thought. But now, the behavior of these guys in the Castro is causing a backlash.

I can’t say that I have seen a neighborhood like it anywhere else.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve been to the Castro a few times. It is a pretty wild place. I don’t think that the behavior one sees there is characteristic of what I have seen in other gay neighborhoods. I was actually propositioned four times, simply minding my own business crossing the street at a crosswalk. That surprised me.

I understand that now there are naked men running around on the street, and that the San Francisco City Council is considering adopting an ordinance banning public nudity everywhere in the City, other than at festival and events such as the Bay to Breakers Race. It used to be that one rarely saw a naked person on the street, and nobody gave it a second thought. But now, the behavior of these guys in the Castro is causing a backlash.

I can’t say that I have seen a neighborhood like it anywhere else.

E,

I believe that these are called “gay villages” and according to Wikipedia there are many around the world…see here…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay_villages

Silver Lake and West Hollywood in Los Angeles are tame compared to Castro Valley…

 

[FightingFat]

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?

:dts:

 

[edwest2]

Sad. What is legal is not necessarily moral.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Crescentinus]

Sad. What is legal is not necessarily moral.

Peace,
Ed

It’s pathetic that the homosexualists will use the very same thing that you had just said in order for them to convert all of us.

 

[sedonaman]

I think it’s kind of situations like this when the claim of Catholics, or strong Christians in general, being bigoted (or, at least, the claim that they are attempting to dehumanize homosexuals) is justified. …

That statement reminds me of something Orwell once said.

I find that this idea of all, or even most, homosexuals being deviant monsters that wish only for sex and feel only lust is absurd. It doesn’t really take a genius to notice this. It’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory - the claim that homosexual activists seek to do little more than turn the world into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. …

But thirty-five years [sic] have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners. ibid

 

[JimG]

Actually, it is not the inability to procreate that makes gay marriage impossible. It is the inability to have marital relations. Only opposite sex couples are capable of consummating a marriage–because, to put it crudely, the parts fit and are designed for marital consummation. If marital relations are inherently impossible, as they are with same sex couples, so is marriage impossible.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

That statement reminds me of something Orwell once said.

Why does it matter what Orwell said? Also, in reply to Orwell’s quote, I don’t understand why that’s shocking. The homosexuals that wanted to create “spaces” would obviously do that. Homosexuality is nothing more than sexual desires or attractions.

The homosexuals that have my respect are those that, for lack of a better term, blend in to society more. Ones that live more normally. I don’t see homosexuals, or homosexuality, as being a group of people, or a movement. It’s not like religion, or a political view. It’s not a description of what someone believes, or necessarily how someone acts. It’s just a single characteristic. To claim that there is a homosexual agenda makes no more sense than claiming that there is a brown-haired agenda, or an agenda for people who like trains. I don’t have respect for homosexuals, I have respect for individuals, and claiming that someone is a homosexual says nothing about that individual’s personality or beliefs.

What I’m trying to say is that to say someone is a homosexual does not define who they are, unlike claiming that someone is a Christian or a Democrat. Those previous labels do describe someone’s agenda, or how someone acts, but being a homosexual is simply a single trait. No assertions can be made about how someone acts, or what their beliefs are. To claim that ‘homosexuals’ are responsible for those “spaces” makes no sense. Because they weren’t. Some homosexuals were, but certainly not all of them. Really, to use claims like this against homosexuals or homosexuality is nothing more than an association fallacy.

Regular,

Your thinking is irregular… I provided clarification of a sentence and your response here is why do I argue…Look again at what I said…that you conclude is an argument…

Now your premise is that your opinions are based on “common sense”…Look here…

There appears to be no consistency in the understanding of “common sense”. What you see and believe and what I see and believe can both be attributed to “common sense” so then the question is this. Is “common sense” something innate? Is “common sense” understood by one person exactly the same as understood by another? What exactly is “common sense”. In looking at the related topics seen as follows:

it is clear that we are talking about beliefs, frames, folklore and opinions. What we are dealing with is nominalization such that to do so causes difficulty in thinking on your part and difficulty in understanding for the reader causing mental cacaphony.

Can you show me a wheel barrel full of common sense? Can you buy common sense? Is common sense tangible? The answer is decidedly no. You labor over something that is an enigma and intangible and subject to explanation that unless you provide leaves a discussion void and in my opinion is not common sense at all but nonsense.

I said common sense is subjective. Did you not read what I wrote? It is, however, generally considered wrong, a fallacy, to argue that the actions of a group of individuals will also be present in different individuals that share the same characteristics. That’s what I meant. However, you weren’t trying to argue that, so I’m rather confused as to why you felt the need to mention your experiences in Castro Valley if you acknowledge the fact that they’re worthless when deciding on how homosexuals, as a whole, act. Unless, of course, you were not debating but were just making conversation?

 

[edwest2]

Why does it matter what Orwell said? Also, in reply to Orwell’s quote, I don’t understand why that’s shocking. The homosexuals that wanted to create “spaces” would obviously do that. Homosexuality is nothing more than sexual desires or attractions.

The homosexuals that have my respect are those that, for lack of a better term, blend in to society more. Ones that live more normally. I don’t see homosexuals, or homosexuality, as being a group of people, or a movement. It’s not like religion, or a political view. It’s not a description of what someone believes, or necessarily how someone acts. It’s just a single characteristic. To claim that there is a homosexual agenda makes no more sense than claiming that there is a brown-haired agenda, or an agenda for people who like trains. I don’t have respect for homosexuals, I have respect for individuals, and claiming that someone is a homosexual says nothing about that individual’s personality or beliefs.

What I’m trying to say is that to say someone is a homosexual does not define who they are, unlike claiming that someone is a Christian or a Democrat. Those previous labels do describe someone’s agenda, or how someone acts, but being a homosexual is simply a single trait. No assertions can be made about how someone acts, or what their beliefs are. To claim that ‘homosexuals’ are responsible for those “spaces” makes no sense. Because they weren’t. Some homosexuals were, but certainly not all of them. Really, to use claims like this against homosexuals or homosexuality is nothing more than an association fallacy.

That is almost incredibly funny, but it is definitely ludicrous. Homosexuals identify as homosexuals. It affects their personality and beliefs. For proof, just read the various posts and threads here.

hrc.org/americansformarriageequality?gclid=CPeb6YCAyrMCFao7MgodIWcA7Q

marriageequality.org/

advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/11/07/maryland-officially-becomes-gay-marry-land

iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/home/index.html

Please note the focus on sodomy law.

That is like saying gay marriage is a trait anybody can have.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Chrish1975]

Says much about how convinced you are of your beliefs

I’m not going to argue about this topic. My beliefs are my beliefs and your beliefs are your beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not going to argue about this topic. My beliefs are my beliefs and your beliefs are your beliefs.

You don’t try to offer reasons for your beliefs to someone who disagrees with you (in the context, of course, of a dialogue. I am not talking about having a down-and-out fight with someone in the grocery store here.)?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

That is almost incredibly funny, but it is definitely ludicrous. Homosexuals identify as homosexuals. It affects their personality and beliefs. For proof, just read the various posts and threads here.

hrc.org/americansformarriageequality?gclid=CPeb6YCAyrMCFao7MgodIWcA7Q

marriageequality.org/

advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/11/07/maryland-officially-becomes-gay-marry-land

iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/home/index.html

Please note the focus on sodomy law.

That is like saying gay marriage is a trait anybody can have.

Peace,
Ed

I fail to see how it affects their personality. You’ll have to explain that one to me, but I’ll acknowledge the fact that it will influence their beliefs, but it certainly can’t be used to make any large assertions about what they believe. Homosexuality isn’t a belief system or a world view. You are aware that there are homosexuals that oppose same-sex marriage, yes?

And not all homosexuals identify as homosexuals, no matter what definition of the word ‘homosexual’ you use.

People seem to have found the comment about common sense quite comical, so I’d like to address it. What I really meant was that to claim the behaviour of the homosexuals in Castro Valley says much about the behaviour of homosexuals in general is silly, and is really a logical fallacy. A fallacy by association. I didn’t think I’d have to explain that, and I thought it would be common knowledge, so I just wrote it off as being “common sense”. Of course, CopticChristian has now assured me that this was nothing more than a misunderstanding, so it’s all good.

 

[edwest2]

OKaaaaaay. So a homosexual is not a homosexual in some cases?

The logic there is what?

I’m straight but I could be totally unaware of it?

Peace,
Ed

 

[sedonaman]

… I don’t see homosexuals, or homosexuality, as being a group of people, or a movement. It’s not like religion, or a political view. It’s not a description of what someone believes, or necessarily how someone acts. It’s just a single characteristic. To claim that there is a homosexual agenda makes no more sense than claiming that there is a brown-haired agenda, or an agenda for people who like trains. …

Have you been living in a remote cave somewhere in Shangri-La?

This non-movement sure got a lot of homophilic laws passed in the last 40 years, including SS"M" in three states just last week. And SS"M" is the current cause célèbre of academia. Any student or teacher who doesn’t toe the line is ostracized. This non-religion also gave our schools textbooks like Heather Has Two Mommies to ensure that our children grow up with the proper “dispositions”.

---

“When activists ask for tolerance, they are implicitly admitting that there is something wrong with their behavior. After all, you don’t need to ask people to ‘tolerate’ good behavior. Mother Teresa never had to ask for tolerance.” – F. Turek, Correct, Not Politically Correct

 

[rossum]

OKaaaaaay. So a homosexual is not a homosexual in some cases?

The logic there is what?

I’m straight but I could be totally unaware of it?

The logic is that some homosexuals are not like other homosexuals. Just like some heterosexuals are not like other heterosexuals.

All heterosexual marriages last a few hours, just like heterosexual Britney Spears. All heterosexuals have affairs, like heterosexual General Petraeus.

The logic is that not all heterosexuals are like Britney Spears or General Petraeus.

rossum

 

[epan]

I fail to see how it affects their personality. You’ll have to explain that one to me, but I’ll acknowledge the fact that it will influence their beliefs, but it certainly can’t be used to make any large assertions about what they believe. Homosexuality isn’t a belief system or a world view. You are aware that there are homosexuals that oppose same-sex marriage, yes?

And not all homosexuals identify as homosexuals, no matter what definition of the word ‘homosexual’ you use.

People seem to have found the comment about common sense quite comical, so I’d like to address it. What I really meant was that to claim the behaviour of the homosexuals in Castro Valley says much about the behaviour of homosexuals in general is silly, and is really a logical fallacy. A fallacy by association. I didn’t think I’d have to explain that, and I thought it would be common knowledge, so I just wrote it off as being “common sense”. Of course, CopticChristian has now assured me that this was nothing more than a misunderstanding, so it’s all good.

It stands to reason that such a large part of the population will be diverse in their views, and personalities.

I agree that it is unfair, and inaccurate to try to characterize such a large and diverse people as having a particular agenda, except of course that gay people want what they view as their own civil rights to be protected. I imagine you would find at least some diversity within the population as to what those rights should be.