Homosexual marriage

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Try most Catholic churches in the United States!
Is it a Tridentine Mass?

It's actually the Anglican Use mass. Has a fancy name that I can't quite remember . But my parish actually has a 'set' priest that will never leave this parish, because he was an Anglican minister before he and his family became Catholics when the pope issued his invite for the anglican ministers to become priests, even if they were married.

If I may ask, do you still consider yourself a traditional Catholic, or a Catholic?

That's a hard one. I still consider myself a Catholic, in that I continue to follow all of the requirements for being a Catholic, and actually do more than the minimum requirements in certain things. However, I disagree with the Church's rulings on homosexuality.

I am also not one of those people who thinks, "Well, if I don't think it's a sin, I can do what I want and still be a Catholic and recieve communion because you have to -know- it's a sin to commit one."

They forget that you also have to follow the laws of the Church to be a Catholic, and in having homosexual relationships you're violating that.

It's not only about having a good time with friends, either. I know a lot of what I do with a friend of mine is to listen to his woes. And as for "love you, but not necessarily like you", it seems to me that that is the proper attitude for all mankind.

I agree, but then in that light there seems to be no reason to get married at all.

I want to also say that I disagree with the idea that marriage should be primarily for procreation. They let people who are unable to have children get married.

[Count Comfect]

Tessar: on the issue of marriage being only for children:

Originally Posted by St. Paul, I Corinthians

9: But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Doesn't say anything about marriage being for children, to me at least. Just about it being for sex, actually.

[The Gaffer]

Tessar, thanks for sharing your experiences. I am sorry to read that they have been difficult, but delighted that you have come to terms with it. This is a major achievement.

I have to add that your experience is very similar to that of almost all the gay people I know, men and women, even the ones who aren't from conservative backgrounds!

The suffering caused by the negative attitudes that exist towards homosexuality is very significant. Self-professed christians would do well to reflect on this, as I can see many of you do.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't care what animals are gay, or not. Since when do we take our orders from dogs?

I believe that God made laws that rein in certain natures, whether it is "natural" (impulsive, whatever) to do it or not may be beside the point.
I guess that pretty much ends this discussion without going into the evolution/creation debate....

It was directed at someone who apparently did care.

Many Christians seem to be arguing that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. Of course, the devil may have corrupted animals as well, but, as Jack once asked, to what point and purpose?

[GreyMouser]

Incest....

The repulsion aginst incest seems to be instinctual as it is pretty near universal, with the usual breakdowns, but it is triggered by the environment. IIRC, studies of biologically unrelated children raised in Kibbutzim showed that if they are together from the age of three (to five?) they regard each other as siblings and have an aversion to sexual relations with each other- also confirmed by a sample of one, a friend of mine who was a kibbutznik.

Same thing happens in Chinese societies, where unwanted girl babies are taken in by families and raised to be brides for their sons, saving on bride-prices later. There is usually an aversion and the marriages are often unhappy, though there are other reasons as well- such child-brides have a much lower social status.

If, OTOH, siblings are raised apart, the instinct is not triggered (Silmarillion, Oedipus Rex, The Broken Sword, Lone Star, for a scientific sampling )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Tessar

It's actually the Anglican Use mass. Has a fancy name that I can't quite remember . But my parish actually has a 'set' priest that will never leave this parish, because he was an Anglican minister before he and his family became Catholics when the pope issued his invite for the anglican ministers to become priests, even if they were married.

Oh, really! I've always wanted to attend an Anglican Use Mass, but there aren't any in SoCal. An Episcopal parish in LA wanted to swim the Tiber a while back (who knows, maybe becoming AU? Don't know if this was after the Pastoral Provision) but good +Mahoney wouldn't allow them to fracture the unity of their native church. If I were ever to find myself in Texas, though, I'd put my Book of Divine Worship to use, if it weren't so damn big!

If you're interested, we can continue this discussion over PM; or if not, not. It's not very often I just happen across a fellow Catholic who at least seems to have traditional leanings.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If you're interested, we can continue this discussion over PM; or if not, not. It's not very often I just happen across a fellow Catholic who at least seems to have traditional leanings.

what about me?!

ok back on topic now!

[Tessar]

I'm always happy to take up conversation over PMs . I swear I don't bite. Unless your name is Delicious, or Thanksgiving Dinner, in which case I will most certainly bite.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

what about me?!

I think you have good potential for traditionalism, but as far as I know, it has not been actualized. Did you ever end up going to the Tridentine Mass, or an Eastern Catholic one? PM me.

Anyway, back on-topic.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Not only this, but if you decide that you don't like the sexual partner that you chose for life--married--you can get a divorce and not be rejected socially.

I was having a similar discussion on another forum last week and someone mentioned this argument. Basically that divorce is too easy, and too accepted, so marriage has less meaning these days.

Personally, I think marriage (or "commitment" in general) has more meaning the easier divorce is, both legally and socially.

This was my answer:

And the solution is to make divorce harder?

I'll admit that I have some Bizzaro points of view but in my mind we have it backwards. It's much too easy to get married and much to hard to get divorced.

As I mentioned in another thread (or maybe this one), I dated my wife, lived with my wife, had a kid with my wife, and bought a house with her, all before we got married. And that's the advice I'd give my kids as well. Play the field. Take your time. Really really get to know someone before you marry them. Kids are always a factor, which is why you should be safe first and foremost. But if a kid comes along in a relationship that simply isn't going to work, don't keep it together "just for the kids". You can care just as much, arguably more, for your child if you are happy with your own life.

All that is not to say that two people can't meet in high school and live happily ever after for sixty years. But that has nothing to do with "making things work". It's simply the luck of finding the right person at a point in your life when you don't really know who the right person is. That's why it's so rare.

I had two other somewhat longterm relationships previous to my current, both in which I seriously considered marriage, and I can say in retrospect that both of those would have ended up divorces.

If my wife came up and said to me, "I really can't stand being with you anymore, but divorce is such a hassle and I'd really feel shamed in front of all my friends if I didn't make this work so I'm gonna stick this out." It'd be like "I love you to hun."

Keep divorce easy, that way people only stay together for one reason, because they truely love one another.

Am I crazy?

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Everywhere (it's found in at least 1 500 animals, according to a recent study)

All this link is is a list of animals. If I go to the links to the animals, it doesn't tell me in the least what the study states 'homosexual behavior' is. Are we talking about an over hormone-charged animal--forgive the expression--humping anything that moves, including an animal of the same gender? Two animals of the same gender spending time together? Does an animal really have the brains to intelligently and intentionally choose a sexual partner of the same gender? I have seen a lot of 'studies' in my short days, and I have seen that you can pretty much make them say whatever you want.

"First you tell people that they may only marry people of the same colour. Then, moral slackens, ..."
This kind of reasoning can't be used as an argument in itself.

Why? The God of the Bible never forbade whites to marry blacks (unless you count His command to the Israelites to not intermarry with the nations they conquered; but that was a different set of circumstances). He did forbid homosexuality.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

All this link is is a list of animals. If I go to the links to the animals, it doesn't tell me in the least what the study states 'homosexual behavior' is. Are we talking about an over hormone-charged animal--forgive the expression--humping anything that moves, including an animal of the same gender? Two animals of the same gender spending time together? Does an animal really have the brains to intelligently and intentionally choose a sexual partner of the same gender? I have seen a lot of 'studies' in my short days, and I have seen that you can pretty much make them say whatever you want.

1500 of them were observed engaging in 'homosexual behaviour'. I'm not knowledgable enough to say what animals display how many of the 'signs', but male swans are f.ex. known have life-lasting relationships. Male lions are known to bond together, as well as dolphins and whales, for longer periods (also sexual). Many dwarf chimpanzees are bisexual, the whole family joining in. There isn't exactly much research on the subject though, compared to other fields.

Why? The God of the Bible never forbade whites to marry blacks (unless you count His command to the Israelites to not intermarry with the nations they conquered; but that was a different set of circumstances). He did forbid homosexuality.

The legal-system isn't supposed to be based on the Bible.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Many dwarf chimpanzees are bisexual, the whole family joining in.

So, then, shall we consider incest fair game, as well?

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So, then, shall we consider incest fair game, as well?

Yes, and what about cannibalism, the murder of spouses, children, relatives, etc.? I thought humans were supposed to rise above the conduct of animals. To quote Hector:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't care what animals are gay, or not. Since when do we take our orders from dogs?

Originally Posted by Falagar

The legal-system isn't supposed to be based on the Bible.

No, it is supposed to be based on the vote of many, many individuals. Some of those individuals have a stricter sense of right and wrong than others. And they cast their votes accordingly. I do not believe homosexuality is a healthy thing for the society in which I live. I will not cast a vote that will support a law that favours homosexuality especially. I can do nothing to stop the rest of the country's votes, however. It is, to borrow a phrase that is sometimes rather dubious, 'a free country'.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So, then, shall we consider incest fair game, as well?

Yes, and what about cannibalism, the murder of spouses, children, relatives, etc.? I thought humans were supposed to rise above the conduct of animals. To quote Hector:

Sigh. My post wasn't a direct argument for allowing gay marriage (though a part of a whole), it was to show that it's a natural phenomenon - like the things you (Rosie) mention and thousands of others. Not a trait restricted to humans, and thus not (solely) cultural. Consenting adults, protection of rights and so on are still the deciding factors for what should be allowed, as discussed earlier.

To turn the question around, do you think we should prohibit eating meat with blood in it?

No, it is supposed to be based on the vote of many, many individuals. Some of those individuals have a stricter sense of right and wrong than others. And they cast their votes accordingly. I do not believe homosexuality is a healthy thing for the society in which I live. I will not cast a vote that will support a law that favours homosexuality especially. I can do nothing to stop the rest of the country's votes, however. It is, to borrow a phrase that is sometimes rather dubious, 'a free country'.

True, and I'm not arguing against your right to vote for whatever you want. I'm arguing that I think - from my point of view - it's wrong to let religion decide how a secular government should be run, and to discriminate against a group based on a religious text.

That's me, though.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Yes, and what about cannibalism, the murder of spouses, children, relatives, etc.? I thought humans were supposed to rise above the conduct of animals.

But may I ask: where in nature have we seen homosexual animals?

You asked the question, you got the answer.

Actually, I posted a message a while back complete with learned references about homosexual behavior in various species:

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/sear...earchid=227215

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

No, it is supposed to be based on the vote of many, many individuals. Some of those individuals have a stricter sense of right and wrong than others. And they cast their votes accordingly.

Yep, and as one of those individuals who have a stricter sense of right and wrong than others, I always cast my votes according to the principles of human dignity, equality, and freedom, and against bigotry.

[The Gaffer]

Love the irony: the anti-gay argument says "it's not natural", then when it's pointed out that it does occur in nature, they go "but that doesn't mean we should do it".

I wholly agree that just because animals do something doesn't mean that we should. Can we also agree that it does occur in nature then, and that "it's not natural" is therefore not a tenable argument?

[brownjenkins]

The desire to pleasure oneself via intercourse is "natural" in an animal sense. All animals, including humans, engage in sexual activity because it is enjoyable and the sex of the recipient rarely matters. In fact, I've seen many dogs that don't even require a live recipient.

You could make an argument that monogamy is "unnatural". It's a result of our intelligence an capability to reason. Granted, you see it at times among the animal world, but it is usually a matter of what we call instinct. Monogamy, at least in a breeding sense, has evolutionary advantages in many cases, though not all.

In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that early homosapien tribes resembled something like a lion pride with one or a few select males hording a majority of the mates. And it's not impossible to imagine those males left out interacting with one another.

How this evolved into monogamy over thousands of years and homosexuality becoming taboo is probably more a result of social evolution than anything "natural".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Sigh. My post wasn't a direct argument for allowing gay marriage (though a part of a whole), it was to show that it's a natural phenomenon - like the things you (Rosie) mention and thousands of others. Not a trait restricted to humans, and thus not (solely) cultural. Consenting adults, protection of rights and so on are still the deciding factors for what should be allowed, as discussed earlier.

As I've said before, it is an equivocation on 'nature'.

To turn the question around, do you think we should prohibit eating meat with blood in it?

No. In case you haven't heard, Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law. It's more or less written all over the New Testament. What is with people, and pretending that our sole source for any teaching they disagree with?


True, and I'm not arguing against your right to vote for whatever you want. I'm arguing that I think - from my point of view - it's wrong to let religion decide how a secular government should be run, and to discriminate against a group based on a religious text.

That's me, though.[/QUOTE]

Yep, and as one of those individuals who have a stricter sense of right and wrong than others, I always cast my votes according to the principles of human dignity, equality, and freedom, and against bigotry.

Are you saying that those who oppose homosexual marriage are bigots?

Love the irony: the anti-gay argument says "it's not natural", then when it's pointed out that it does occur in nature, they go "but that doesn't mean we should do it".

See above. Blatant equivocation on 'nature'.

1) Can we also agree that it does occur in nature then, 2) and that "it's not natural" is therefore not a tenable argument?

1) Yes.
2) No. See above.

You could make an argument that monogamy is "unnatural". It's a result of our intelligence an capability to reason. Granted, you see it at times among the animal world, but it is usually a matter of what we call instinct. Monogamy, at least in a breeding sense, has evolutionary advantages in many cases, though not all.

But rationality is part of the nature of human beings, and therefore something which is a result of rationality can hardly be said to be ipso facto unnatural for humans.