10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

[Apathy]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Both are naturally-occurring defects that are contrary to human nature.

So it is natural to be gay.... Tell me did your god ever advocate the stoning of armless infants? Tell me are you told that you are to be tortured forever for being born without arms? Clearly your church thinks there is a difference otherwise they wouldn't be so bigoted towards gays.

It is not a question of whether or not one chooses to "be" gay. Sexuality is a question of behavior, not ontology. One may not have control over one's impulses but one does have control over one's behavior.

Actually actions have little to do with it.

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The bible says that a homosexual must completely repress every single thought of homosexuality (worked great for Ted Haggard) and completely repress who they are... That is like asking a fish not to swim.

It is not merely a behaviour thing as you suggest.

I am asserting that the argument is absurd because the coupling of a human being and an animal would be contrary to natural law. To argue that it bestiality is wrong because animals can't sign contracts is, in fact, very flimsy reasoning intended to hide the fact that bestiality is the logical conclusion of an understanding of "marriage" unmoored from teleological considerations about human nature.

An animal can't consent thus this is pointless to even discuss. But you seemed to have put a lot of thought into this though... Makes me wonder.

The argument from the OP, again, was that marriage has changed to accommodate divorce, and that marriage can and should therefore also change to accommodate homosexuality.

My argument is that divorce has had catastrophic results for the integrity of the family.

I actually agree we should maintain the bronze age traditions of marriage. Like rape victims marrying their rapists for example.*with just a hint of sarcasm*

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I do miss the day of traditional forced marriages where you could sell your daughter to her rapist.

(a) That is an assertion, not an argument.

No it is a statement of fact your opinions of homosexual by definition is bigoted. By the way is assertion the word of the day you seem to like it a lot.

(b) 1)I will thank you for not making insinuations about my character in the future. 2)My position proceeds from a carefully-reasoned reading of classical and scholastic philosophy. As a fledgling Catholic, I do, wish, and think no one any harm.

1) Not an insinuation I came right out and said this is a bigoted view.

2) Hitler's views came from what he considered carefully-reasoned reading of classical and scholastic philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Does that make his views OK?

(c) You clearly are not familiar the classical essentialist/scholasticist basis for morality. A good place to begin rectifying your ignorance might be the first half of s "Classical Natural Law Theory, Property Rights, and Taxation," which is available for download in HTML format here. For a fuller treatment, Feser's "The Last Superstition" is also quite good, and written for a modern educated lay audience.

Present an argument or bugger off don't link me to some obscure wannabe philosopher and call me ignorant. Reference what is relevant to the conversation.

Free speech is a civil right, not a natural one.

Every last enlightenment philosopher would disagree with you there.

But as I'm sure most leftists would agree, it is never moralto speak ill of anyone, including hate speech or incitements to violence.

Fixed it for you, hate speech like all speech is a protected right but it is not moral.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

So it is natural to be gay.... Tell me did your god ever advocate the stoning of armless infants? Tell me are you told that you are to be tortured forever for being born without arms? Clearly your church thinks there is a difference otherwise they wouldn't be so bigoted towards gays.

It is "natural" in the sense that it is "naturally-occurring," in much the same way congenital paraplegia or blindness or schizophrenia is naturally-occurring. Like those things, it is also intrinsically disordered. Again, what is meant when it is said that "homosexuality is unnatural" is not that it does not occur in nature but that it is contrary to human nature as a matter of teleology.

It is not the position of the church (or, to my knowledge, of just about any religion) that homosexual impulses in and of themselves are mortally sinful. They are sinful only if consented to with full knowledge of their graveness. Those with homosexual impulses are called to a life of chastity, and Catholics and non-Catholics alike are called to treat them with the respect and the dignity which accrues to the human person.

Actually actions have little to do with it.

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The bible says that a homosexual must completely repress every single thought of homosexuality (worked great for Ted Haggard) and completely repress who they are... That is like asking a fish not to swim.

It is not merely a behaviour thing as you suggest.

To consent to a thought is an action. And to consent to a disordered thought is therefore a disordered action.

And that it is difficult to live a good life is irrelevant. We are all called to it. As they say, the path of righteousness is narrow, indeed.

An animal can't consent thus this is pointless to even discuss. But you seemed to have put a lot of thought into this though... Makes me wonder.

That an animal can't consent was precisely my point. Hence, bestiality is the logical conclusion of the gay "marriage" movement. You cannot argue otherwise because you do not even have a rational understanding of what "marriage" is or what the requirements of it are, much less one ground in some coherent philosophy.

And yes, I have evidently put a good deal more thought into the logical conclusion of your own principles than you have.

I actually agree we should maintain the bronze age traditions of marriage. Like rape victims marrying their rapists for example.*with just a hint of sarcasm*

I do not propose a reversion to the mores of tribal cultures, but simply the preservation of what natural law demands.

No it is a statement of fact your opinions of homosexual by definition is bigoted. By the way is assertion the word of the day you seem to like it a lot.

I routinely point out that you are making assertions and not arguments because you repeatedly make assertions and not arguments. If you could rise to the level of something greater than vapid, mindless emoting and prolific vulgarity, I would not feel the need to call you out on it so often.

I have exhibited remarkably less bigotry toward homosexuals than you have toward Christians. Once again, my position proceeds from a careful and well-reasoned reading of philosophy, of which you are obstinately and unrepentantly ignorant. I doubt you can even conjure up a meaningful basis on which to predicate the mindless "tolerance" to which you would evidently have the rest of us bow, being as ignorant, poorly-read, and in thrall to your passions as you are.

Homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered; I have spoken no ill of homosexuals themselves, nor would I. To the extent that people are burdened with homosexual impulses, it is a cross they must carry, and not one I would wish on anyone. They go through life with my best wishes and my prayers, sharing with them as I do in the common brotherhood of man.

1) Not an insinuation I came right out and said this is a bigoted view.

2) Hitler's views came from what he considered carefully-reasoned reading of classical and scholastic philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Does that make his views OK?

If your ignorance were not so appalling, you would be aware of the fact that Nietzsche explicitly rejected both classical essentialism and scholasticism as tribal superstitions -- as you do.

Classical essentialism and scholasticism are schools of thought, for the record, not adjectives to be applied willy-nilly. The former was associated with Plato and Aristotle, the latter with Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.

Present an argument or bugger off don't link me to some obscure wannabe philosopher and call me ignorant. Reference what is relevant to the conversation.

But you are ignorant, and your assertion that Nietzche was a classicist and a scholasticist is proof enough of that. Judging by that astounding error, I doubt you've ever even cracked the cover of an introductory philosophy text, much less Nietzsche (or Aristotle or Aquinas, for that matter).

I have already presented a compelling argument that homosexuality is disordered: it is contrary to the essence of human nature, just as sure as a triangle whose angles sum to something other than 180 degrees fails to instantiate the essence of a triangle. You cannot comprehend this argument because of your ignorance and you are prejudicially obstinate in your refusal to remedy it.

Which, incidentally, is the definition of bigotry.

Every last enlightenment philosopher would disagree with you there.

That there is a limited, natural right to free speech?

If they do not agree with me in that regard, it would not surprise me -- they got nearly everything wrong.

Fixed it for you, hate speech like all speech is a protected right but it is not moral.

It is protected as a matter of civil law. It would be perfectly legitimate for the state to prohibit it, if it could do so without infringing on legitimate natural rights. That it probably can't is the sole reason free speech has actually been enshrined as a natural right.

That it cannot be justified as a matter of natural law means there is no natural right to it, and thus to the extent it is a "right" it exists as a concession from a government which cannot lawfully and morally enforce a prohibition against it.

 

[Apathy]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

It is not the position of the church (or, to my knowledge, of just about any religion) that homosexual impulses in and of themselves are mortally sinful. They are sinful only if consented to with full knowledge of their graveness. Those with homosexual impulses are called to a life of chastity, and Catholics and non-Catholics alike are called to treat them with the respect and the dignity which accrues to the human person.

Yes pray the gay out of them.... To think I called you a bigot.

To consent to a thought is an action. And to consent to a disordered thought is therefore a disordered action.

You don't consent to a thought, thoughts just happen. It's not like you have a governing body approving the thoughts that pop into your head.

And that it is difficult to live a good life is irrelevant. We are all called to it. As they say, the path of righteousness is narrow, indeed.

Ironically the good life and the bible are incompatible.

That an animal can't consent was precisely my point. Hence, bestiality is the logical conclusion of the gay "marriage" movement. You cannot argue otherwise because you do not even have a rational understanding of what "marriage" is or what the requirements of it are, much less one ground in some coherent philosophy.

What the are you smoking alter boy? How do you jump from a man raping goats to a consenting relationship between people of the same sex? This is one hell of a non sequitur.

And yes, I have evidently put a good deal more thought into the logical conclusion of your own principles than you have.

Well I don't struggle with the sin of zoophilia as you do... Just pray those urges away.

I do not propose a reversion to the mores of tribal cultures, but simply the preservation of what natural law demands.

So the bible was wrong with this aspect of marriage? I thought the bible was absolute truth?

I routinely point out that you are making assertions and not arguments because you repeatedly make assertions and not arguments. If you could rise to the level of something greater than vapid, mindless emoting and prolific vulgarity, I would not feel the need to call you out on it so often.

Umm yeah assertions are unsupported these are not unsupported learn what the terms mean first yeah.

I have exhibited remarkably less bigotry toward homosexuals than you have toward Christians.

Remarkably less bigotry? Well that implies that you were being bigoted, thanks for implicitly admitting that.

Once again, my position proceeds from a careful and well-reasoned reading of philosophy, of which you are obstinately and unrepentantly ignorant.

argumentum ad hominem

I doubt you can even conjure up a meaningful basis on which to predicate the mindless "tolerance" to which you would evidently have the rest of us bow, being as ignorant, poorly-read, and in thrall to your passions as you are.

My "mindless" tolerance of homosexuals derives from the idea, that maybe it's none of my business what consenting adults do in their own bedroom.

Homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered; I have spoken no ill of homosexuals

Thou shalt not lie? You compare homosexuals to armless babies.

themselves, nor would I. To the extent that people are burdened with homosexual impulses, it is a cross they must carry, and not one I would wish on anyone. They go through life with my best wishes and my prayers, sharing with them as I do in the common brotherhood of man.

Back to the pray the gay away bit how pathetic.

But you are ignorant, and your assertion that Nietzche was a classicist and a scholasticist is proof enough of that. Judging by that astounding error, I doubt you've ever even cracked the cover of an introductory philosophy text, much less Nietzsche (or Aristotle or Aquinas, for that matter).

All right wanker read this closely because this is the the only time I'm gonna type this. AD HOMINEM IS NOT A VALID DEBATE TACTIC. I copied and pasted your sent and applied it the Hitler/Nietzsche bit I was going to cut that bit out so it said simply philosophy. While you were busy being an ass you missed the main point no amount of philosophy and misinterpretation of philosophy justifies bigotry.

I have already presented a compelling argument that homosexuality is disordered: it is contrary to the essence of human nature, just as sure as a triangle whose angles sum to something other than 180 degrees fails to instantiate the essence of a triangle. You cannot comprehend this argument because of your ignorance and you are prejudicially obstinate in your refusal to remedy it.

I get the argument in a biological sense homosexuality is a disorder it serves no procreative purpose. However I don't get how you go from there to treating them as subhuman not deserving of rights and deserving of eternal torture.

That there is a limited, natural right to free speech?

That wasn't what they said.

If they do not agree with me in that regard, it would not surprise me -- they got nearly everything wrong.

Really doesn't matter you are damning an analogy that is irrelevant, rights are not based on morality.

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Yes pray the gay out of them.... To think I called you a bigot.





You don't consent to a thought, thoughts just happen. It's not like you have a governing body approving the thoughts that pop into your head.



Ironically the good life and the bible are incompatible.



What the are you smoking alter boy? How do you jump from a man raping goats to a consenting relationship between people of the same sex? This is one hell of a non sequitur.



Well I don't struggle with the sin of zoophilia as you do... Just pray those urges away.





So the bible was wrong with this aspect of marriage? I thought the bible was absolute truth?




Umm yeah assertions are unsupported these are not unsupported learn what the terms mean first yeah.



Remarkably less bigotry? Well that implies that you were being bigoted, thanks for implicitly admitting that.


argumentum ad hominem



My "mindless" tolerance of homosexuals derives from the idea, that maybe it's none of my business what consenting adults do in their own bedroom.



Thou shalt not lie? You compare homosexuals to armless babies.




Back to the pray the gay away bit how pathetic.




All right wanker read this closely because this is the the only time I'm gonna type this. AD HOMINEM IS NOT A VALID DEBATE TACTIC. I copied and pasted your sent and applied it the Hitler/Nietzsche bit I was going to cut that bit out so it said simply philosophy. While you were busy being an ass you missed the main point no amount of philosophy and misinterpretation of philosophy justifies bigotry.



I get the argument in a biological sense homosexuality is a disorder it serves no procreative purpose. However I don't get how you go from there to treating them as subhuman not deserving of rights and deserving of eternal torture.




That wasn't what they said.



Really doesn't matter you are damning an analogy that is irrelevant, rights are not based on morality.

Thank you Apathy!

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Yes pray the gay out of them.... To think I called you a bigot.

That does not even approach what I said. If you're going to be snide and vapid, you can at least address the subject matter.

A person saddled with homosexual impulses must bear that cross. It is not a question of "praying it" away (I believe that's mostly a Protestant superstition, anyway -- perhaps you could take it up with them) but of living a life of dignity despite it.

You don't consent to a thought, thoughts just happen. It's not like you have a governing body approving the thoughts that pop into your head.

You do, actually, and it's called your dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

You have no control over the thoughts that enter your mind. You do, however, have control over whether or not you entertain them and allow them to make a home there, or whether you reject them for the intrusive trespassers that they are. This is what it means to consent to a thought, or to refuse to consent to it.

Incidentally, thought-stopping interventions is the bedrock of modern cognitive-behavioral therapy, especially for affect disorders. Surely you're anti-rationality does not rise to the level of rejecting established social science, does it?

Ironically the good life and the bible are incompatible.

Clearly you do not know what "irony" means.

And since you have never read any philosophy, I can only assume you don't know what "the good life" means, either.

At any rate, my argument here has proceeded from natural law and thus from natural revelation (reason), not supernatural revelation (the Bible).

What the are you smoking alter boy? How do you jump from a man raping goats to a consenting relationship between people of the same sex? This is one hell of a non sequitur.

It does, in fact, follow logically.

If marriage does not exist to serve procreative purposes then there is no sense to limit it to two adults, or even to human beings. There's nothing magical about the number two, after all.

You literally cannot conjure up a reason why we ought to outlaw bestiality but tolerate homosexuality. There isn't one that makes sense. And the OP's vain grasping at the straw of animal consent -- an argument you have just conceded is nonsense -- is proof-positive of this fact.

So the bible was wrong with this aspect of marriage? I thought the bible was absolute truth?

I have never argued that, nor does the Church.

At any rate, the Old Testament is the book of the Jews, not the Church.

Umm yeah assertions are unsupported these are not unsupported learn what the terms mean first yeah.

Declaring something you disapprove to be "bigotry" is not a supported argument, especially when, as I already demonstrated, the label does not apply.

You, on the other hand, have yet to provide (a) a rational basis for why homosexuality should be tolerated, either morally or legally; (b) a rational explanation for what marriage is, or why it should be endorsed as a matter of legal principle; and (c) why homosexuals should be permitted to participate in that union. My previous efforts to extract the basis of your metaphysics have culminated in you calling a wanker, insinuating that I'm a Nazi, and then resorting to petty (and poorly thought out) appeals to rhetorical terms that I never agreed to, anyway.

argumentum ad hominem

It is an objective fact, judging by the profound error you made in terming Nietzsche a classicist.

At any rate, you have insulted me repeatedly throughout this debate and cannot even be bothered to back up your moralizing with anything like a sound metaphysical foundation.

My "mindless" tolerance of homosexuals derives from the idea, that maybe it's none of my business what consenting adults do in their own bedroom.

And whether or not they "marry" doesn't change what they may consent to do in the bedroom.

Gay marriage as a matter of policy requires society to positively endorse this behavior. Can you conjure up a reason why it ought to?

Thou shalt not lie? You compare homosexuals to armless babies.

I acknowledged that homosexuality is no more consistent with human nature than any congenital birth defect.

At any rate, how in the world would that constitute speaking ill of homosexuals unless I also spoke ill of children with congenital birth defects?

All right wanker read this closely because this is the the only time I'm gonna type this. AD HOMINEM IS NOT A VALID DEBATE TACTIC. I copied and pasted your sent and applied it the Hitler/Nietzsche bit I was going to cut that bit out so it said simply philosophy. While you were busy being an ass you missed the main point no amount of philosophy and misinterpretation of philosophy justifies bigotry.

You have insulted me without basis repeatedly throughout this debate, including expressing unrestrained and irrational bigotry against my faith while applying that label to me.

You have furthermore demonstrated your profound ignorance of rhetoric as well as philosophy: argumentum ad hominen rises to the level of a fallacy only when the assertion is obviously false. Your flimsy rationalization to the contrary, you clearly have 0 knowledge of philosophy. You have repeatedly demonstrated either your ignorance or misapprehension of key elements of classical and scholastic philosophy, including your misunderstanding of the Unmoved Mover argument in the other thread.

Perhaps if you actually took some time to think out your responses than emoting blindly, such typos would not occur.

I get the argument in a biological sense homosexuality is a disorder it serves no procreative purpose. However I don't get how you go from there to treating them as subhuman not deserving of rights and deserving of eternal torture.

I do not treat them as subhuman. As I have said repeatedly (and as you refuse to acknowledge because it does not hew to your bigoted worldview of Catholics), they are my brothers and sisters and are as deserving of compassion and respect as anyone -- even you, mid-temper tantrum though you are.

They have all the same rights I do, including the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I do not and would not deprive them of that or any other (indeed, I cannot -- they are rights that accrue by virtue of human nature). But there is no right to marriage absent natural law; and there is no natural law basis for homosexuality. Recognizing this fact simply requires reconciling oneself to the truth of the ordered world. QED.

As for eternal torture, I believe Hell is not a temporal state but an ontological one: it is simply the condition of living in discordance with the natural order. It is the torment of failing to live up to your potential, and of failing to become what you ought to become.

Really doesn't matter you are damning an analogy that is irrelevant, rights are not based on morality.

What are they based on, then?

Perhaps if I understood where you are coming from it would be possible for us to engage at a higher level of debate. So far, you have been very oblique in terms of where you're coming from metaphysically.

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

That does not even approach what I said. If you're going to be snide and vapid, you can at least address the subject matter.

A person saddled with homosexual impulses must bear that cross. It is not a question of "praying it" away (I believe that's mostly a Protestant superstition, anyway -- perhaps you could take it up with them) but of living a life of dignity despite it.



You do, actually, and it's called your dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

You have no control over the thoughts that enter your mind. You do, however, have control over whether or not you entertain them and allow them to make a home there, or whether you reject them for the intrusive trespassers that they are. This is what it means to consent to a thought, or to refuse to consent to it.

Incidentally, thought-stopping interventions is the bedrock of modern cognitive-behavioral therapy, especially for affect disorders. Surely you're anti-rationality does not rise to the level of rejecting established social science, does it?



Clearly you do not know what "irony" means.

And since you have never read any philosophy, I can only assume you don't know what "the good life" means, either.

At any rate, my argument here has proceeded from natural law and thus from natural revelation (reason), not supernatural revelation (the Bible).



It does, in fact, follow logically.

If marriage does not exist to serve procreative purposes then there is no sense to limit it to two adults, or even to human beings. There's nothing magical about the number two, after all.

You literally cannot conjure up a reason why we ought to outlaw bestiality but tolerate homosexuality. There isn't one that makes sense. And the OP's vain grasping at the straw of animal consent -- an argument you have just conceded is nonsense -- is proof-positive of this fact.



I have never argued that, nor does the Church.

At any rate, the Old Testament is the book of the Jews, not the Church.



Declaring something you disapprove to be "bigotry" is not a supported argument, especially when, as I already demonstrated, the label does not apply.

You, on the other hand, have yet to provide (a) a rational basis for why homosexuality should be tolerated, either morally or legally; (b) a rational explanation for what marriage is, or why it should be endorsed as a matter of legal principle; and (c) why homosexuals should be permitted to participate in that union. My previous efforts to extract the basis of your metaphysics have culminated in you calling a wanker, insinuating that I'm a Nazi, and then resorting to petty (and poorly thought out) appeals to rhetorical terms that I never agreed to, anyway.



It is an objective fact, judging by the profound error you made in terming Nietzsche a classicist.

At any rate, you have insulted me repeatedly throughout this debate and cannot even be bothered to back up your moralizing with anything like a sound metaphysical foundation.



And whether or not they "marry" doesn't change what they may consent to do in the bedroom.

Gay marriage as a matter of policy requires society to positively endorse this behavior. Can you conjure up a reason why it ought to?



I acknowledged that homosexuality is no more consistent with human nature than any congenital birth defect.

At any rate, how in the world would that constitute speaking ill of homosexuals unless I also spoke ill of children with congenital birth defects?



You have insulted me without basis repeatedly throughout this debate, including expressing unrestrained and irrational bigotry against my faith while applying that label to me.

You have furthermore demonstrated your profound ignorance of rhetoric as well as philosophy: argumentum ad hominen rises to the level of a fallacy only when the assertion is obviously false. Your flimsy rationalization to the contrary, you clearly have 0 knowledge of philosophy. You have repeatedly demonstrated either your ignorance or misapprehension of key elements of classical and scholastic philosophy, including your misunderstanding of the Unmoved Mover argument in the other thread.

Perhaps if you actually took some time to think out your responses than emoting blindly, such typos would not occur.



I do not treat them as subhuman. As I have said repeatedly (and as you refuse to acknowledge because it does not hew to your bigoted worldview of Catholics), they are my brothers and sisters and are as deserving of compassion and respect as anyone -- even you, mid-temper tantrum though you are.

They have all the same rights I do, including the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I do not and would not deprive them of that or any other (indeed, I cannot -- they are rights that accrue by virtue of human nature). But there is no right to marriage absent natural law; and there is no natural law basis for homosexuality. Recognizing this fact simply requires reconciling oneself to the truth of the ordered world. QED.

As for eternal torture, I believe Hell is not a temporal state but an ontological one: it is simply the condition of living in discordance with the natural order. It is the torment of failing to live up to your potential, and of failing to become what you ought to become.



What are they based on, then?

Perhaps if I understood where you are coming from it would be possible for us to engage at a higher level of debate. So far, you have been very oblique in terms of where you're coming from metaphysically.

Aren't you being over zealous as a "soon to be" Catholic?
Or did you think that becoming Catholic would give your homophobia a foot to stand on?

Either way, I think you owe it to youself to read the following artice in it's entirety:

American Catholics Support Gay Marriage
Doug Mataconis · Friday, March 25, 2011
www.outsidethebeltway.com

and these other links:

New York Catholics Support Gay Marriage Queering the Church
queeringthechurch.com/.../new-york-catholics-support-gay-marriag... - Cached

New York Catholics Support Gay Marriage. February 4, 2011 — Terence Weldon. Barbara Bush's public support for gay marriage has garnered a lot of press ...
Report: Catholics support gay rights - UPI.com
www.upi.com/...Catholics-support-gay.../UPI-16541300908919/ - CachedMar 23, 2011 – A majority of U.S. Catholics support legal rights for gays and lesbians, a report released Wednesday indicated.

New Poll Shows Strong Catholic Support for Gay Rights | Religion ...
www.religiondispatches.org/.../new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_su... - CachedMar 22, 2011 – New Poll Shows Strong Catholic Support for Gay Rights ... The report also showed strong Catholic support for other gay rights issues with 73 ...

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

I love it. Well done!

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Aren't you being over zealous as a "soon to be" Catholic?
Or did you think that becoming Catholic would give your homophobia a foot to stand on?

Either way, I think you owe it to youself to read the following artice in it's entirety:

American Catholics Support Gay Marriage
Doug Mataconis · Friday, March 25, 2011
www.outsidethebeltway.com

and these other links:

New York Catholics Support Gay Marriage Queering the Church
queeringthechurch.com/.../new-york-catholics-support-gay-marriag... - Cached

New York Catholics Support Gay Marriage. February 4, 2011 — Terence Weldon. Barbara Bush's public support for gay marriage has garnered a lot of press ...
Report: Catholics support gay rights - UPI.com
www.upi.com/...Catholics-support-gay.../UPI-16541300908919/ - CachedMar 23, 2011 – A majority of U.S. Catholics support legal rights for gays and lesbians, a report released Wednesday indicated.

New Poll Shows Strong Catholic Support for Gay Rights | Religion ...
www.religiondispatches.org/.../new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_su... - CachedMar 22, 2011 – New Poll Shows Strong Catholic Support for Gay Rights ... The report also showed strong Catholic support for other gay rights issues with 73 ...

I am not becoming a Catholic because I wish to identify with other Catholics. I am becoming a Catholic because I am concerned with the truth: with what natural law commands of each of us as a necessity for achieving true fulfillment and true happiness.

I do not accept your assertion that bigotry consists in refusing on principle to endorse the political ambitions of the members of some minority. That is rank bullying and I will thank you not to indulge in it further. The tolerance to which we are called is one that treats the brothers and sisters of our common humanity with compassion and dignity, regardless of their infirmity, not one that requires us to acquiesce to their laundry-list of political demands.

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

I am not becoming a Catholic because I wish to identify with other Catholics. I am becoming a Catholic because I am concerned with the truth: with what natural law commands of each of us as a necessity for achieving true fulfillment and true happiness.

I do not accept your assertion that bigotry consists in refusing on principle to endorse the political ambitions of the members of some minority. That is rank bullying and I will thank you not to indulge in it further. The tolerance to which we are called is one that treats the brothers and sisters of our common humanity with compassion and dignity, regardless of their infirmity, not one that requires us to acquiesce to their laundry-list of political demands.

This is where we differ. I do not cosider homosexuality as "an infirmity."
And, while tolerance is, in my eyes, a great improvement over intolerance, it is still far below acceptance and respect of ou God Given free will.

I am a soon to be 61 year old, heterosexual woman, who has been married for 40 years with the same man. I have learn to know gay people while working as a case manager (MSW) for people with AIDS. I have been privileged to come closer within their relationships, and at a time of greater stress an needs, than most heterosexuals (including priests and ministers) would ever have the chance to be, and I came away with a much greater understanding, respect, and admiration for many (not all) of both gay and lesbian individuals and couples.

And this is where I found an harmony between my conscience and my understanding of Jesus unconditional love for all.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

This is where we differ. I do not cosider homosexuality as "an infirmity."
And, while tolerance is, in my eyes, a great improvement over intolerance, it is still far below acceptance and respect of ou God Given free will.

I am a soon to be 61 year old, heterosexual woman, who has been married for 40 years with the same man. I have learn to know gay people while working as a case manager (MSW) for people with AIDS. I have been privileged to come closer within their relationships, and at a time of greater stress an needs, than most heterosexuals (including priests and ministers) would ever have the chance to be, and I came away with a much greater understanding, respect, and admiration for many (not all) of both gay and lesbian individuals and couples.

And this is where I found an harmony between my conscience and my understanding of Jesus unconditional love for all.

Insofar as it stems from a failure to instantiate the true essence of man, it is an infirmity. We have eyes that we might see; and to be unable to see is a deficiency. We have ears to hear; and to be unable to hear is a deficiency. And we have the human sexual configuration that we might procreate; and to be unable to procreate, either through natural sterility, injury, or contrary impulses, is a deficiency.

That homosexuals are otherwise like us in almost every way -- that they cry and suffer and struggle and love and die -- is irrelevant. (I don't think any Catholic, at least any Catholic who isn't a total brute, has ever argued that they are deficient in these respects). Their humanity does not entitle them to have their deficiencies endorsed and their base impulses exulted and worshipped, any more than my humanity entitles me to have my deficiencies endorsed or my impulses exulted.

That homosexuality is a naturally-occurring deficiency is also irrelevant. That simply makes it a cross to be carried with the help of others -- with their compassion and respect and kindness. They are entitled to this compassion by virtue of our common humanity, because they are people qua people, not merely homosexuals.

God is a God of love, of course, but it is the stern and strict love of a father for his children, who wants what is best for them and who will accept nothing less than their living up to their potential. Would you tolerate your children injecting crystal meth or engaging in prostitution, no matter how much they might have the notion in their ill-formed heads that it is good or that it makes them happy? If their desires are disordered, then they must kill their desires. He demands nothing less of us: God the Father, Jesus the King, not God the yuppy or Jesus the kitten.

 

[PLC1]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Insofar as it stems from a failure to instantiate the true essence of man, it is an infirmity. We have eyes that we might see; and to be unable to see is a deficiency. We have ears to hear; and to be unable to hear is a deficiency. And we have the human sexual configuration that we might procreate; and to be unable to procreate, either through natural sterility, injury, or contrary impulses, is a deficiency.

That homosexuals are otherwise like us in almost every way -- that they cry and suffer and struggle and love and die -- is irrelevant. (I don't think any Catholic, at least any Catholic who isn't a total brute, has ever argued that they are deficient in these respects). Their humanity does not entitle them to have their deficiencies endorsed and their base impulses exulted and worshipped, any more than my humanity entitles me to have my deficiencies endorsed or my impulses exulted.

That homosexuality is a naturally-occurring deficiency is also irrelevant. That simply makes it a cross to be carried with the help of others -- with their compassion and respect and kindness. They are entitled to this compassion by virtue of our common humanity, because they are people qua people, not merely homosexuals.

God is a God of love, of course, but it is the stern and strict love of a father for his children, who wants what is best for them and who will accept nothing less than their living up to their potential. Would you tolerate your children injecting crystal meth or engaging in prostitution, no matter how much they might have the notion in their ill-formed heads that it is good or that it makes them happy? If their desires are disordered, then they must kill their desires. He demands nothing less of us: God the Father, Jesus the King, not God the yuppy or Jesus the kitten.

If god is a god of love, and if homosexuality is a deficiency, and if god is the creator, why did he create some of his children to be deficient?

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

Insofar as it stems from a failure to instantiate the true essence of man, it is an infirmity. We have eyes that we might see; and to be unable to see is a deficiency. We have ears to hear; and to be unable to hear is a deficiency. And we have the human sexual configuration that we might procreate; and to be unable to procreate, either through natural sterility, injury, or contrary impulses, is a deficiency.

That homosexuals are otherwise like us in almost every way -- that they cry and suffer and struggle and love and die -- is irrelevant. (I don't think any Catholic, at least any Catholic who isn't a total brute, has ever argued that they are deficient in these respects). Their humanity does not entitle them to have their deficiencies endorsed and their base impulses exulted and worshipped, any more than my humanity entitles me to have my deficiencies endorsed or my impulses exulted.

That homosexuality is a naturally-occurring deficiency is also irrelevant. That simply makes it a cross to be carried with the help of others -- with their compassion and respect and kindness. They are entitled to this compassion by virtue of our common humanity, because they are people qua people, not merely homosexuals.

God is a God of love, of course, but it is the stern and strict love of a father for his children, who wants what is best for them and who will accept nothing less than their living up to their potential. Would you tolerate your children injecting crystal meth or engaging in prostitution, no matter how much they might have the notion in their ill-formed heads that it is good or that it makes them happy? If their desires are disordered, then they must kill their desires. He demands nothing less of us: God the Father, Jesus the King, not God the yuppy or Jesus the kitten.

It sounds like you believe that the true essence of man is procreation.
I'm sorry, if that is the case, we don't have much to debate.
For me, the true essence of mankind is love. Procreation is just a tool to keep mankind alive. Just as food is not the reason for us to live another day, but is the tool allowing us to live another day.

With this basic difference in belief, I can see that we can't come to an agreement. But I thank you for at least engaging in this conversation.
Good luck on your jouney! I also believe that, all people of good will may take different roads, but will end up in the same place: in harmony with the one universal God.

 

[Openmind]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

If god is a god of love, and if homosexuality is a deficiency, and if god is the creator, why did he create some of his children to be deficient?

I do not believe He/She/It created "deficient" people. I believe He/She/It created diversity, so that we could develop a greater understanding, greater acceptance, and learn unconditional love.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

If god is a god of love, and if homosexuality is a deficiency, and if god is the creator, why did he create some of his children to be deficient?

I do not believe God "creates" individual persons. People are born as a result of the conjugal union of man and woman; and men and women procreate without divine compulsion.

I believe (and I think most evolutionary biologists would agree with me on this) that homosexual impulsivity is largely the product of biomechanistic processes in the prenatal milieu. Testerone immune response in the mother (which is strengthened with each successive male child) may be responsible for this by interfering with the sexual differentiation process. Insofar as homosexuality inhibits reproduction and evolution exists to strengthen the survival capacity of individual animals, it should be understood as an evolutionarily maladaptive trait. This is a perfect corollary to the natural law assertion that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.

To answer your question less pragmatically, I do not imagine there would be as much diversity as there is among the human population if God did not have some use for it.

 

[PLC1]

Re: 10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong.

I do not believe God "creates" individual persons. People are born as a result of the conjugal union of man and woman; and men and women procreate without divine compulsion.

I believe (and I think most evolutionary biologists would agree with me on this) that homosexual impulsivity is largely the product of biomechanistic processes in the prenatal milieu. Testerone immune response in the mother (which is strengthened with each successive male child) may be responsible for this by interfering with the sexual differentiation process. Insofar as homosexuality inhibits reproduction and evolution exists to strengthen the survival capacity of individual animals, it should be understood as an evolutionarily maladaptive trait. This is a perfect corollary to the natural law assertion that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.

To answer your question less pragmatically, I do not imagine there would be as much diversity as there is among the human population if God did not have some use for it.

I think you have a good grasp on why some people are born homosexual. How that constitutes a "deficiency" escapes me, unless the biological imperative to pass our genes on to the next generation is of paramount importance, as it is in the lower animals. It seems to me more likely that we humans have a cultural imperative, to pass on our culture, rather than our genes, to the next generation.

And I agree that diversity serves a purpose for god. Does that mean you also agree with Openmind above? That sounds like a divine purpose to me.