Your Religion and Stance on Gay Rights

[mariahloves]

Have you ever seen the antics of Mardi Gras or the behavior of Spring Break?

Yes I have and I found it absolutely disgusting and misogynist.

And lesbians don’t get AIDS, for the most part.

Yes, I know. Which is why I did not mention homosexual women.

And world-wide, AIDS is a greater heterosexual infection than a homosexual one.

I’m not talking about AIDS on a global scale. I’m talking about the United States of America, where I was born, raised, and currently live. We’re talking about legalizing gay marriage (for the most part) in America, not elsewhere in the world. I am pretty sure the majority of the members of this forum are American.

Indeed, the situation is very complicated, but everyone agrees that marriage is a stabilizing, positive factor for couples and communities. Extending it to gays would continue to do the same for more couples.

Marriage is a wonderful stabilizing situation for two consenting adults of the opposite sex.

 

[mariahloves]

The US has a long tradition of promoting egalitarianism. Slaves were vastly outnumbered, yet we freed them. Blacks were and are outnumbered, yet we passed the Civil Rights Act. Catholics are outnumbered but we have freedom of religion. If your argument is that minorities should have no rights, I’m afraid it’s a poor one.

I’m sorry but I find this incredibly offensive. Please do not compare enslaved African Americans and homosexuals. Do not compare slavery with gay people not being allowed to get married. Please.

 

[larkin31]

I’m sorry but I find this incredibly offensive. Please do not compare enslaved African Americans and homosexuals. Do not compare slavery with gay people not being allowed to get married. Please.

You misunderstand the point.

The point is that America has on occasion made efforts to extend justice to subgroups of its citizens who have been denied equal protection heretofore.

 

[larkin31]

Yes I have and I found it absolutely disgusting and misogynist.

Then your point is weakened, because offensive displays of sexuality are NOT used in argument for denial of hetero marriage. In other words, it is a prejudicial point.

Yes, I know. Which is why I did not mention homosexual women.

Then your point is weakened, because it only applies to half the gays.

I’m not talking about AIDS on a global scale. I’m talking about the United States of America, where I was born, raised, and currently live. We’re talking about legalizing gay marriage (for the most part) in America, not elsewhere in the world. I am pretty sure the majority of the members of this forum are American.

Then your point is weakened because this helps demonstrate that gays and heteros transmit HIV, and world-wide, hetero transmission is greater.

Marriage is a wonderful stabilizing situation for two consenting adults of the opposite sex.

And would be for gays too if extended to include them.

Thank you for helping me make my point in each case.

 

[Joe_5859]

You misunderstand the point.

The point is that America has on occasion made efforts to extend justice to subgroups of its citizens who have been denied equal protection heretofore.

Just an FYI, but this type of argument is not sufficient. If it were, then it would mean that any group that claims not to have equal protection would automatically have a right to it (pedophiles, serial killers, etc.).

It makes a good sound bite, but it’s not a compelling argument.

 

[CMatt25]

Just an FYI, but this type of argument is not sufficient. If it were, then it would mean that any group that claims not to have equal protection would automatically have a right to it (pedophiles, serial killers, etc.).

It makes a good sound bite, but it’s not a compelling argument.

I known your post is in reference to a post by Larkin. I don’t think he was comparing slaves and homosexuals to pedophiles, and criminals such as serial killers, etc. The customs in Biblical times were pro slavery and anti gay. We changed the first one.

 

[Justin_Mee]

I fail to see any “respect” in that at all, all you’re telling her is that because she doesn’t believe something “normal”, she doesn’t have a valid opinion.

This forum may be called "Catholic Answers, but this is a section about all religions, and allows people of all beliefs to to discuss holistic matter.

Please, be courteous and respect her beliefs like she respects yours.

I don’t think our Lord requires us to respect all debased beliefs. Some are so far “out there” that they just deserve to be ignored and move on.Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch had no trouble calling a spade a spade.

 

[Joe_5859]

I known your post is in reference to a post by Larkin. I don’t think he was comparing slaves and homosexuals to pedophiles, and criminals such as serial killers, etc. The customs in Biblical times were pro slavery and anti gay. We changed the first one.

I know that he wasn’t making that comparison. I was simply pointing out that the “guilt by association” (or in this case “innocence by association”) is a weak argument. “We used to do this one thing, but now we don’t do it anymore” is not a valid reason to change anything and everything we want to.

 

[larkin31]

Just an FYI, but this type of argument is not sufficient. If it were, then it would mean that any group that claims not to have equal protection would automatically have a right to it (pedophiles, serial killers, etc.).

It makes a good sound bite, but it’s not a compelling argument.

I am not arguing for ANY group. Sexual orientation is more often being recognized as a legally protected group.

And, by the way, criminals DO HAVE legal protections and rights. But homosexuality is not criminal.

 

[larkin31]

I know that he wasn’t making that comparison. I was simply pointing out that the “guilt by association” (or in this case “innocence by association”) is a weak argument. “We used to do this one thing, but now we don’t do it anymore” is not a valid reason to change anything and everything we want to.

No one is arguing for “anything and everything” we want to. Only gay marriage, on this thread. If homosexuality is equivalent to you of, say, serial murder (or one step from it), then I suggest that you start reporting the gays you know to the police and FBI.

 

[Joe_5859]

No one is arguing for “anything and everything” we want to. Only gay marriage, on this thread. If homosexuality is equivalent to you of, say, serial murder (or one step from it), then I suggest that you start reporting the gays you know to the police and FBI.

That’s not at all what I was trying to say. I was only pointing out what I perceived to be a weak argument. If you want to make a case for gay marriage based on something stronger, go right ahead.

I guess I sometimes get flustered because I see so many people (on both sides of the issue) rely on pithy little sayings or trite analogies to make their point. I apologize for singling you out as there have been plenty of other examples on this thread.

 

[larkin31]

That’s not at all what I was trying to say. I was only pointing out what I perceived to be a weak argument. If you want to make a case for gay marriage based on something stronger, go right ahead.

I guess I sometimes get flustered because I see so many people (on both sides of the issue) rely on pithy little sayings or trite analogies to make their point. I apologize for singling you out as there have been plenty of other examples on this thread.

The effort to legalize gay marriage is an attempt to expand a legal form of privilege and status to include men marrying men and women marrying women (age of consent, etc). The basic argument is, that without being able to demonstrate a clear harm to society from expanding it thusly, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify denying gays this same status simply on the grounds of tradition and religious sexual mores around reproductive purpose and genital purpose. Making matters more complicated, there have been some studies that suggest a genetic factor in the determination of human sexual identity (which is no surprise to those of us who have felt strong heterosexual inclinations since we were young). The issue is the broadening of justice and of equal protection in this area that bumps up against tradition and sexual mores, where victimization and criminality were based (still are based, to some degree) only on the notion of being “odd” or “queer”.

 

[CMatt25]

The effort to legalize gay marriage is an attempt to expand a legal form of privilege and status to include men marrying men and women marrying women (age of consent, etc). The basic argument is, that without being able to demonstrate a clear harm to society from expanding it thusly, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify denying gays this same status simply on the grounds of tradition and religious sexual mores around reproductive purpose and genital purpose. Making matters more complicated, there have been some studies that suggest a genetic factor in the determination of human sexual identity (which is no surprise to those of us who have felt strong heterosexual inclinations since we were young). The issue is the broadening of justice and of equal protection in this area that bumps up against tradition and sexual mores, where victimization and criminality were based (still are based, to some degree) only on the notion of being “odd” or “queer”.

Larkin, you mean you didn’t choose to be hetero?

 

[Young_Thinker]

I wonder what Oscar Wilde, who became a Catholic not long before his death, would have thought. Despite his homophilia, he seems to have had some morality(and was apparently ashamed- a concept that is becoming a little rare nowadays).

 

[larkin31]

Larkin, you mean you didn’t choose to be hetero?

In fact, I never heard anyone ever describe “choosing” heterosexuality except for gays who were explaining how they forced themselves to live a public hetero masking life while inwardly and privately they felt, all along, very differently.

 

[CMatt25]

I fail to see any “respect” in that at all, all you’re telling her is that because she doesn’t believe something “normal”, she doesn’t have a valid opinion.

This forum may be called "Catholic Answers, but this is a section about all religions, and allows people of all beliefs to to discuss holistic matter.

Please, be courteous and respect her beliefs like she respects yours.

:clapping:

 

[larkin31]

Respectfully, you are so far outside the mainstream of normal thought and behavior that it lessens your opinion and point of view. I say that not to be mean or dismissive even though I know that’s how it sounds. The fact that you have to define or explain what half of your reply means is evidence enough of its fringe standing. Others may, but I really find it hard to take you seriously.

So you understand the paradox of what you wrote here, Jesus was condemned, basically, for the same reason. And now you worship him! He and his group were fringe and far outside “the norm”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Yes.

Why would any Catholic care whether two Buddhist men or two atheist women marry (or are granted civil unions)? Is it the worry that they might move next door?

Good question. And speaking from what our faith teaches us, we are to love every person, whether they struggle with same-sex attraction or not. So, it is not about the demographics of my neighborhood. It’s about the institution of marriage and whether it is worth maintaining as it has always been. I support the traditional definition of marriage not merely because I believe that Christ raised the union of man and woman to a sacramental level, but also because I believe the institution should be given special recognition and support as the building block of humanity. It is the best possible environment for procreation and rearing of children. This last reason alone is a good enough reason not to redefine it.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Cristian_B]

Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

 

[larkin31]

Good question. And speaking from what our faith teaches us, we are to love every person, whether they struggle with same-sex attraction or not. So, it is not about the demographics of my neighborhood. It’s about the institution of marriage and whether it is worth maintaining as it has always been. I support the traditional definition of marriage not merely because I believe that Christ raised the union of man and woman to a sacramental level, but also because I believe the institution should be given special recognition and support as the building block of humanity. It is the best possible environment for procreation and rearing of children. This last reason alone is a good enough reason not to redefine it.

Peace,
Robert

well, since marriage has withstood far more infertile hetero couples than there are homosexual couples seeking marriage, I don’t really see how your fears for the “institution” and this “building block” are justified. Homosexual marriage is no threat to the overwhelming (say, 97% of marriages) number of heterosexual marriages. Nothing about gay marriage threatens anyone else’s procreative abilities or opportunities to raise children.

This is all really about sensibilities. This is what is in danger here: offended or bruised sensibilities.