Catholic homosexuals

This is a discussion on Catholic homosexuals within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Personally, I think that when reasoning about laws a key question to ask is if what the law forbids causes ...

  1. #16
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    22,101
    Personally, I think that when reasoning about laws a key question to ask is if what the law forbids causes external harm.

    From a purely secular viewpoint, it seems to me that neither homosexual activity nor same sex marriage cause external harm. This makes me inclined to hold that the law should not forbid them.

    From a Catholic perspective, I regard homosexual activity as sinful and same sex marriage as absurd. Yet, by themselves this is not enough for me to agree that the natural law should be enforced in civil law. The "destroy the values of heterosexual marriage" effect might qualify, but I do not think that laws are the solution: the solution is conversion, both in terms of evangelism and on-going conversion.

    One line of reasoning related to external harm is that when one part of the body is hurt, the entire body suffers, hence private sin is harmful to everyone. The problem with applying this to asking if what the law forbids causes external harm is that it effectively means that there is no such thing as external harm: clearly, it is too inclusive.

    Still, there is a dilemma for me: on one hand, I would not want to impose the conclusions of my religion on others by law, when the law would then forbid something that does not cause external harm. On the other hand, not opposing a law that allows such activity can be seen as tacit approval of the activity.

    Perhaps one way out is to oppose by speaking out in public, but to abstain or vote my approval... but that would be inconsistent, and would even amount to a lie if I represented other people and did not admit my inconsistency.

    Quote Originally Posted by MK27
    PS. I think Mario's real reason for doing this was to see what google ads would respond with
    I still got "Source Code Review Tool" as one of the ads

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F.
    Actually I was more hoping some die-hard catholic, orthodox, jew, or other ignorant life-form would come on the open and violently disagree with me so I got an excuse to smack their face with a baseball bat.
    hmm... that actually makes you sound like a troll who decided to post flamebait

    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust
    The word "Marriage" isn't a trademark of any particular religion, so why should the government have to call their marriages a "civil union" when it's exactly the same thing?
    I think that even if civil marriages were universally renamed civil unions, the Catholic Church would continue to take the same stand against same sex civil unions. I deduce this from the fact that the Catholic Church does not consider marriages outside of the Catholic Church to be invalid, and that it considers marriage to be more than just a human institution. Consequently, just renaming does not change anything: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  2. #17
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    My point thus being, we haven't decided yet to stop allowing the church to disseminate intolerance
    In the USA you can't stop this and pretty much can't stop it in any context except in the job market. It's not about intolerance or tolerance but about what the law and the law does not allow. You speak of intolerance and tolerance as if they are some type of principle that churches must adhere to yet you forget that the church, as a whole, is defined or should be defined by the theological principles and treatises laid down in Scripture. Scripture has nothing to do with our modern tolerance and intolerance and attempting to apply them in the historical context of the Bible is isogesis or reading meaning into a text when the meaning is simply not there. Proper use of Scripture is exogesis or reading out of the text what it is telling you. You do not read into it what you will but you let the text speak to you through context, word etymology, historical context, authorship and associated writing style. A text can never mean to you and I what it could have never meant to it's original audience. Therefore it stands that intolerance and tolerance are buzzwords that are simply not in the Bible b/c they certainly did not exist back then. At no point are these topics discussed or mentioned in the Bible. I guess you could stretch some of the text to find these topics but again I wouldn't want to teach it b/c there isn't enough evidence to even make a case. So you cannot blame the church for teaching what they do b/c they are supposed to teach and preach what is in the Bible. We were taught that a church should focus on teaching and preaching about Christ b/c if we get too far from that we become just another voice in the crowd. We were told to stay far away from politics as well. However every church in America has the right to preach that this or that is a sin and the government cannot and will not interfere with that. Since church attendance is voluntary then you are really at the whims of what that church teaches. No one is forcing anyone to attend a church and by all rights they can teach what they want. Each church and denomination have fundamental truths or doctrines that they operate by. These are readily available on websites for the various denominations and fellowships. My church of choice is the Assemblies of God. They abide by what are known as the 16 fundamental truths. They also have position papers written about various modern topics and how the AG church as a whole views such topics and it's all based on Biblical passages. In short churches do not operate by the winds of society and have core beliefs that rarely, if ever, are altered. My church of choice started back in 1916 and the 16 truths followed soon after. If a church attempted to follow the ways of society then their teaching and doctrine would be forever changing. The world isn't even the same place that it was 5 years ago much less 20 or more. So regardless of what the new buzz words are - churches will still continue to do business as usual and operate by their various constitutions and by-laws and fundamental truths. The Assemblies of God is a cooperative fellowship in that as long as you 'agree' to preach their doctrines (to maintain consistency) your church is essentially sovereign. Catholic churches are not sovereign and are normally controlled by the upper admin of the church. Each and every church is different and the government as well as you and I have no business telling them how to operate or what to teach and preach. I want the government as far away from religion as possible.

    Whether or not you agree with said Scripture is another thing entirely but every church in every city USA has the right to essentially preach and teach what they want so long as they do not violate the sep. of church and state. Pastors can also be held liable for civil suits such as slander or if they attempt to hide information that might be pertinent to a case or investigation. Under no circumstances can any church or clergy fail to reveal information that could save lives and or the life of the individual. There are other ways churches can get into trouble but that would take an entire semester or year of class to explain. Normally the government does not mess with churches in the US even when they have evidence that sep. of church and state has been violated. It's usually not worth it and it looks bad when the gov't enforces it b/c it appears they are picking on the church.

    If you really want to know what the church can and cannot do or what qualifies as a church in the US I invite you to study church and the law. This type of course was required for all pastoral majors at my college and was probably the most practical and useful course at the college. You can get into big trouble and big fines if you are unaware of the law regarding churches and you can cost your church a great deal of pain and suffering long after you have left if you do something stupid.

    Several churches recently have lost their tax-exempt status due to attempting to influence elections and so forth. This is a huge blow to any church and is almost guaranteed to send the pastor packing to look for work at another church. Also there have been what I would call moral failures in the church in several other key areas as well. Most churches do not hide these cases and will prosecute and/or allow members to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In the case of the Assemblies of God we revoked the credentials of Jimmy Swaggart when we learned of his wrong doings. He had to stand in front of the board at HQ and explain and give account for his actions. It was decided that regardless of the size and prosperity of his ministry he would no longer be allowed to minister or be affiliated with the AG.
    All churches have ways to deal with those who break the law. However what we are discussing here has nothing to do with breaking the law.

    Marriage should be decided by the states. The US federal government has no right and no power to enforce laws regarding marriage. This is a power granted to the states. In fact the state government ideally has more power over citizens than the federal government according to the original design of the Constitution. Recently we have seen the federal government attempt to over-step its boundaries and with great recourse by the states. To me the Constitution reads that any powers not specifically granted to the states shall be given to the federal government. However some in our government are reading it as the feds have all the power and whatever they don't enforce is handed down to the states. Several college professors on CNN sounded like this is what they believed and yet it flies in the face of the Constitution. I foresee many many battles in the future about state and federal rights b/c the federal government is getting far too large for its own good.

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    399
    Either way, marriage, civil union or whatever you want to call it should in the eyes of the government only be a legal contract, and as such the church should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Those who want to can of course still get a traditional marriage, but it will only be a spiritual ceremony and nothing else.

    The only question that leaves us with then is if tax exempt organisations like the church should be allowed to discriminate by not offering the same service to everyone. I think I'll leave that one to the IRS ...

  4. #19
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Either way, marriage, civil union or whatever you want to call it should in the eyes of the government only be a legal contract, and as such the church should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Those who want to can of course still get a traditional marriage, but it will only be a spiritual ceremony and nothing else.
    Absolutely incorrect. In fact I don't know how you could be more incorrect. There would be no such thing as marriage without the Bible and without the church. It has been made a civil contract in the United States b/c obviously people are going to get married so we need tax laws and other laws that protect those individuals. However marriage is most certainly a religous concept and has nothing to do with the government.

    The only question that leaves us with then is if tax exempt organisations like the church should be allowed to discriminate by not offering the same service to everyone. I think I'll leave that one to the IRS ...
    The moment the fed steps up and tells a church who they can and cannot allow in the doors is the moment we have a revolt on our hands. You completely misunderstand the sep. of church and state law. Churches are not businesses and are not bound by the same laws. Churches can teach and preach what they want and there is no law against it. Now when a church goes to hire an individual they must abide by the laws regarding hiring in the state where the church is. So at that point they do come under anti-discrimination laws but these do not apply to church teachings and doctrine. If a church wants to say that A or B is a sin and all their associated sattelite churches also teach it and it does not violate sep. of church and state then that is 100% legal. Now if they say something like voting for A or B is a sin now they are interfering with the political system and using religion to sway the vote. This can be prosecuted and a church can lose its tax exempt status.

    But it's really not much different in the workplace. Think about it. If your place of business wants to pass some rule and it is totally against the law - it's not against the law until it is challenged and found to be so. Business can make their own rules and regulations so long as they do not violate the law, however, we all know that businesses constantly have rules or regulations regarding this or that which are clearly against the law. This is why we have class action lawsuits and the like. Remember there is nothing anywhere that says you will never be discriminated against by anyone in the United States. With freedom of speech that is impossible and implausible. The only people that can take those freedoms away is ourselves. All this 'I'm offended' crap just leads to more laws that take more freedoms away and slowly chips away at a great system. There is no law that says you will never be offended. If you live in the USA it's going to happen. Stop whining about it and get over it. Not everyone shares your viewpoint and if they did it would be a boring world.

    Before we begin judging various institutions by the letter of the law (at least in the US) it might be nice if we actually understood the law. My sister is a lawyer in two states and she is completely taken aback about how little most people really know about law and government. My only defense for my rights is my knowledge of the laws that protect me.

    Much of what has been posted in this thread is just plain against the law in the US and will never be passed. Organizations are free to believe whatever and however they want so long as they do not violate the law in the process. A beautiful place indeed. Thank goodness most of you are not in government. I find it amusing that those preaching tolerance are some of the most intolerant people in the universe.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 01-23-2010 at 01:57 PM.

  5. #20
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    22,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    There would be no such thing as marriage without the Bible and without the church.
    That is also absolutely incorrect (i.e., it is either too U.S.-centric, or too Christian-centric, or both), but I think that your point really is in the next two sentences.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  6. #21
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    it is either too U.S.-centric, or too Christian-centric,
    In modern day this is probably not as true as it once was. The idea of marriage between a man and a woman, however, did originate in religion - regardless of which one. My viewpoint is most likely centered around both of the ideas in your post since that is what I've grown up around. But regardless marriage in the USA is a state power and not a federal power. So the feds have no right to pass any laws concerning marriage and divorce.

    On the same note:
    The same is true of motor vehicles - that is a state power. I'm not sure how they got around it when they passed the federal speed limit of 55 during the energy crisis since that is really not a federally granted power. Through the years states have given up various powers to be cordial and polite but I think we are seeing that shift somehwhat now.

    If you want to know how power and ideals are shifting in the US you only need look at California. As California goes so does the nation. Not sure why but that's how it works.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 01-23-2010 at 02:06 PM.

  7. #22
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    Therefore it stands that intolerance and tolerance are buzzwords that are simply not in the Bible b/c they certainly did not exist back then. At no point are these topics discussed or mentioned in the Bible.
    That bold premise is totally ridiculous. The bible is not the only historical document in the world. The Greeks (heathens!) certainly used "advanced" humanistic (ie, non-spiritual) ethical concepts, go find a book (some other book) and try reading it.

    Whether or not the progenitors and subsequent maintainers of the bible decided to incorporate any does not indicate that rational discourse on a public level "did not exist then" or that people in the world "could not think like that" or "did not have such language". Yes they did have the language, and yes they left plenty of evidence (beyond scripture) to indicate that there was as much plurality of thought before Christ as there is today.

    I totally respect the right of any group (or individual) to believe whatever they want. That does not make it correct, however -- eg, the Earth is not 4000 years old -- and that must be taken into account when we create laws; in a sane society, they should not be based on absurdist fantasies.
    Last edited by MK27; 01-23-2010 at 03:05 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  8. #23
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Proper use of Scripture is exogesis or reading out of the text what it is telling you.
    I see this argument keeps being throw around. It's completely untrue and I'm not sure why it keeps being used and why it hasn't been debunked already.

    For one, it's completely irrelevant where the true meaning of the scripture lies if it becomes only an exercise for scholars or the curious and it is not passed down to the general uneducated population that is at large the target of religion. At the end of the day the only meaning comming from the higher instances of the catholic church down to the general population is one of fear, potential rewards and the supernatural, all carefully wrapped in Love to disguise the uncomfortable truths of what it means to be a catholic like the one we are discussing here.

    But mostly, the interpretation of the "sacred" scriptures is a purely conjectural exercise based exactly on faith and the current dogma of the church. My own interpretation becomes secondary if I wish to be a participant of the church. There's no democracy in the catholic church. You are in, or you are out. If I don't read in the bible that homosexuals shouldn't get married and thus I defend that homosexuals should marry, I will never become a priest of the church. My interpretation of the texts -- as I was become painfully aware at the age of 25 when I abandoned the church entirely and 5 years of children tutoring -- is irrelevant. The only meaning of the bible is what they say it is.

    But more to the point, there's no problem with the bible. The bible has very little to say about homosexuals and even less about their marriage. What little it says about it only reveals the dark and evil nature of the god Catholics worship. Instead, as usual the problem is with the dogma of the church and the intolerance it practices and spreads like a virus. Intolerance towards homosexuals, priests that wish to get married, women that wish to be priests, people wishing to practice free sex, people writing movies or bookls offering alternatives views of the church, its religion or christ, and even people that refuse to teach a 6 year old kid that not paying taxes is a sin.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 01-23-2010 at 03:51 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #24
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    EDIT: sorry, didn't realise there was a second page on this topic, so what I am saying is based only on the first. And sorry for long posting as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Of those homosexuals I know or heard defending the idea they should have the right to a marriage in the church, I know only of two types:
    - Those who speak for other homosexuals who are catholic
    - Those who are catholic and wish to be fully accepted within their religious community without any strings attached.
    I already told you that if the belief of the catholic church is against homosexuals being a catholic homosexula is contradictive by definition. Stop thinking the church as a golf club that you just join and want to be accepted. Every religion is absolute about its belief, or some of their believes. Meaning that it shouldn't care about the believes of a society, the believes of the majority of the people. They should only care about their believes. That is their point.
    If you don't accept its believes, then why join it. Why call yourself a catholic in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Stop with the media. I'm not a gullible fool who makes their mind from prime time news.
    I am not saying you are fool. But you are telling me something illogical. Not wrong, illogical, as said above.

    Just answer me straightly: if you believe homosexuals are bad, and you are a homosexual, would you demand your homosexuality to be accepted? So even if you were a catholic homosexual, you wouldn't even think of asking to be married in the church, if (as always if since it is not clear for me) the church was against homosexuality.

    That is why I mentioned the media. Because for me they are presenting an illogical argument. The reasons are because peole apparantly don't fully realise what religion is.
    Think a little about it.
    Say you are a catholic homosexual. And the church says "I won't marry you, because it is wrong". You would go "but I have the right as a human being" or "as a citizen of our country"? Those are the arguments I read in the newspapers. And mostly presented in rest of the media.
    Wouldn't you be like "but christianity isn't against homosexuals", that "God loves every human", that "in chapter X:Y:Z in the Bible it says blah blah, thus blah blah blah". Those are the logical arguments you should have.
    Why? Because lets say that your first set of arguments succeed. And you are married. You wouldn't care that your religion doesn't accept you? You are just happy that your church married you? You would care more about being married than your believes, your ideas? Practically, yes, people do care about their life than their religious believes, because apparantly they don't believe that much or don't care that much. And of course for the media "human right" has much a higher value than any thelogical term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I'm the one categorizing things here. And the church. And it does when it makes it completely clear its doctrine and its dogma which basis itself entirely on fear, persecution and the promise of a better life somewhere after you die, should include homosexuals as a group with less privileges in that absurd ritual they call marriage.
    Yes, millions are people that believe in the catholic religion do so because they are scared. All those people that died for their religion are the scared types. All those scientists, all those educated people, all those persons that think about religion day and night don't realise that it is entirely based on fear and presecution. And all those that got married didn't see that the ritual they did so is absurd. Please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Read the Letter of Human Rights. And possibly read even your own country constitution, which more than likely -- and just like mine own -- makes it clear stopping homosexuals from getting married is in fact against the constitution.
    The church has no power to stop a marriage. Have the ever done so? And yes they have no power to do so because the church cannot go against the law. But what does that have to do with providing them a religious marriage? They can still get married without the church...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    That's where I base my "values". Not in church doctrine. I base them on my desire for equality and tolerance among all living beings. A thought that definitely I didn't get from the catholic church.
    So your base your values on your desire. Some people have a different desire. My point is that you are too harsh against other values, when every value is based on merely desire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    They are better values! Because I don't have them based on the promise of an afterlife in paradise, or out of fear for a vengeful, vindicative, and in fact even evil, god. Neither I expect any reward for following them.
    Does "better value" even mean something? What is a good value? Something that produces something good? Which "something good" is something that follows the values? You get the point. "Better value" has no sense, because "better" (good) itself is based on values.

    So believing that if you are good (according to your values) you will go to paradise is bad? Isn't that contradictive by itself? If you are good just to go to paradise, then you are certainly not good according to the definition of good christianity gives. You are selfish.
    Now, let me give you another phrase. "You are good and you believe you will go to paradise because you are good". Any contradictions here? I believe not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Noun: Faith
    1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

    That's the only meaning of the word faith I'm discussing here. And it's clear to everyone. It should so to you too. So, don't start trying to dissect words for argument building. Instead debate the ideas if you must.
    I disagree that that is its definition. Let me ask you this. Can you say "I have faith in God"? You can. So by that definition you would be saying "I believe in a supernatural power, God". Which makes no sense.
    Saying it in other words, I obviously know that you mean a "strong belief in a supernatural power ...", but I am emphasizing in the "belief" part. Faith is actually belief, trust, certainity. As you have faith in your opinion and believes other people have on theirs. Every idea is based on faith, because you can never know, just trust and hope.
    Now, if you are saying that trusting a god, that by definition is never wrong, is bad in any sense...I would disagree. I would actually believe its the best thing, by definition, to have faith in.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust
    The word "Marriage" isn't a trademark of any particular religion, so why should the government have to call their marriages a "civil union" when it's exactly the same thing?

    If the Catholic church wants to ban gay marriages in their churches that's fine; it's their churches and they can do whatever they want with them. But they have no right saying who can get married outside their churches.
    Marriage isn't a trademark for anybody. You can get married without laws or society and without religion.
    The "religious marriage by the catholic church" is a trademark though. The "married by law" is a trademark of society. I didn't say the goverment had to change their name. I am simply stating that marriage is a church and marriage outside the churge is not exactly the same thing. Thus when the church says it won't marry somebody, it means it won't provide them a religious marriage.

    I agree of course that they have no right deciding who gets married outside the church. But I would believe in the US they actually don't have the power doing so. Do you imply they do?
    But just saying so is wrong for you? Everybody has the freedom of speech and of their own ideas. They just have to respect the laws. Which the church by just stating their "opinion" does.

    Of course, to avoid being misunderstood here, saying that homosexuals will destroy heterosexual couples is wrong. Christianity says nothing like that, so whoever priest preaches such things possibly contradicts his own believes.
    Christianity for sure has nothing strongly against homosexuals, because if they did it would have been clearly written somewhere. If it does or not, I don't know.

  10. #25
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,263
    Quote Originally Posted by happyclown View Post
    Religion is deeply ingrained in the US political system.

    A person who is not Christian/Catholic will never be considered for president.

    There should be a seperation of church and state.

    Amen.
    Uh.. The President is elected by a democratic process. If the people want a Christian President, then they want a Christian president. To suggest otherwise is to suggest tyranny.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  11. #26
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Been reading to see what is the "true meaning" of the Scripture about the matter of homosexuality, I see that is it not clear at all.

    The question is, if God wanted it to be clear, wouldn't he make it? So people should be sketpical about it and...remain skeptical.

    Apart from that, all the "not clear" passages refer to sex. The Scripture generally refer either to sex or to marriage when it talks about romantic relationships. Doesn't really go into emotions, love and more romantic ideas. Thus, even if the act of having sex between two man or two women was wrong, what if they got married and didn't have sex at all? Or couldn't have sex. My point is that marriage is not about sex. So even if homosexuals are sinners, so what? Everybody is. Noone should get married?

    But that is just my opinion. Others have a different way of thinking. There sure thing is that christianity officially says nothing about the matter. Everything said is the sole opinion of the individual, based on their own interpretation, understanding and inner desires. Meaning that even if the Pope says something about homosexuals, the church as a whole shouldn't be held responsible.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,344
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    I don't agree with this, at all... I mean, I'm no polygamist... but I'd imagine a broader audience would under stand the desire for polygamy greater than that of a homosexual. Most people fall in love at more than one point in their life... so should someone hold both loves simultaneously, why shouldn't they be able to marry both? I don't mean to take a stance in support of polygamy, but I really can't see how you'd argue they don't have, or can't prove, a biological need that is pretty much innate in every human on the planet. The primary stance against polygamy is that it introduces a whole new loophole in the tax system. In reality... the same could be said for incest. The fact is, however, that there is medical reasoning for why incestuous relations shouldn't be.
    It's not about the ability to understand the desire polygamy versus same-sex marriage. The fact is that it is unlikely that there is some biological difference that separates a polygamist from a monogamist. That is the contrast I was trying to make with gay marriage. (Although, if it is found that there is a distinctly biological basis separating polygamists from monogamists, then that would be relevant to the fight for polygamists to be allowed to marry in that way.)

    Basically, you can say that polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry multiple people because that is just a want of theirs and a behavior, rather than something innate. Gay marriage opponents make the same argument about homosexuality, but they are wrong. As far as we know, the argument isn't wrong about polygamists, and that is the difference. A homosexual can't change who he or she is, but presumably a polygamist can.

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    Are you saying that if homosexuality is NOT biological (which is controversial), same sex marriages should not be allowed?

    People cannot marry someone of the same sex by choice/preference (rather than necessity), and must go by the majority's rule?

    Is it an illness that we are allowing only because it's incurable, and must be cured if at all possible?

    Masturbation was a sin that must be cured, too. Except now we allow it because everyone does it.
    Last edited by cyberfish; 01-24-2010 at 12:14 AM.

  14. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,344
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    Are you saying that if homosexuality is NOT biological (which is controversial), same sex marriages should not be allowed?

    People cannot marry someone of the same sex by choice/preference (rather than necessity), and must go by the majority's rule?
    FYI... my comments are very much related to the battle of banning gay marriage and whether that it constitutional in the U.S. I just wanted to make that clear for anybody reading this.

    I'm saying that if homosexuality is not a choice, then there should be no debate about whether gay marriage is allowed, as it would clearly be discrimination against a class of people to not allow them to marry.

    If homosexuality is a choice, then you get into a much murkier area about what is allowed and what isn't according to our Constitution. There would be less basis for overturning laws voted on and passed by the people of individual states. I would still feel it should be allowed (no question), but I don't know if laws banning it should be overturned.

    However, I think the idea that homosexuality is not biological is only controversial amongst gay marriage opponents. The science backs it up, and it doesn't make sense any other way, which means that there isn't much doubt in my mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    Is it an illness that we are allowing only because it's incurable, and must be cured if at all possible?

    Masturbation was a sin that must be cured, too. Except now we allow it because everyone does it.
    An illness that must be cured implies that the actions or behavior or existence of the person is in some way bad. Since there is nothing bad or negative about homosexuality, then no, it certainly isn't an illness to be cured and any argument to that effect would be wrong (and sad). The same applies to masturbation. In fact, many believe that masturbation is a good thing for people, so not only should it not be outlawed, maybe it should even be encouraged.


    Also, related to something that Bubba said earlier, most people believe that the federal government should be involved in the question via the judicial system. If laws and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are unconstitutional (and I believe they are), then the U.S. Supreme Court must invalidate them. That is the role of the Supreme Court. I don't think most gay marriage proponents are advocating a federal law allowing gay marriage, although perhaps he's trying to say that the Defense of Marriage Act should be overturned.
    Last edited by Daved; 01-24-2010 at 12:35 AM.

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    I totally agree. It certainly sounds like discrimination to me. I only raised the point because your previous post seems to imply that if gay marriage is by choice, it shouldn't be allowed (like in the case of polygamy).

    I believe it should be, EVEN IF there is nothing biological about it, so I am saying whether there is something biological is irrelevant.

    I have a few homosexual friends myself, and they have a lot of my respect. It takes a lot of courage and strong will.

    If they agree God does not allow it, which doesn't seem to be the case, they will have a hard time.

    If they think it's just another case of humans interpreting the Bible in a twisted way to make a point, they can still call themselves Christians, just with different interpretations than the "mainstream".

    In any case, I don't think the government should have anything to do with this (and should allow all kinds of unions).
    Last edited by cyberfish; 01-24-2010 at 01:01 AM.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. The pope
    By RoD in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04-06-2005, 03:06 AM
  2. Religion
    By gnu-ehacks in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 239
    Last Post: 01-26-2002, 10:44 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21