Gay's Being Married?

[MC Just]

you know what I can't stand? Those people who think there going to change Church teaching on Morality. The Catholic Church has rejected and fought abortion and homosexuality for 2000 years , the Church will always be against it, point blank the Church is not going to change for you so get over it. People have to change.




Homosexuality


Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.


Divine Law



The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).



People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

To avoid the force of the natural law argument against homosexual behavior, some gay activists have offered a number of claims, which we will examine.


"I Was Born This Way"



Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

Edited May 17, 2004 by MC Just

[phatcatholic]

aloy......hananiah........good stuff, good stuff.....

[MC Just]

they keep legalizing gay marriages in this country, i'm outa here and going to Vatican City.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='MC Just' date='May 17 2004, 03:40 PM'] they keep legalizing gay marriages in this country, i'm outa here and going to Vatican City. [/quote]
dude, make sure u stop by my crib on the way there!! i got five on some gas money, hehe

[Good Friday]

Hello all.

First, I should say that I no longer define myself as a Catholic, I have Earth-based beliefs. So I would think the phorum guidelines as they apply to non-Catholics would also apply to me, meaning that something falling under the category of "criticism of the current magisterium" or disobedience to the church wouldn't apply to me anymore than they would apply to Lumberjack or any non-Catholic on the phorum. I wanted to completely clarify that, so my post won't be deleted for the stricter standard that Catholics are held to in regard to obedience.

Second, I challenge anyone on this phorum to make any kind of real argument against homosexual relationships or marriages based on something other than scripture and Catholic teaching. Scripture and Catholic teaching may be all well and good for you, but in order to get a democratic society that is not led by religion to accept your view, you must back it up with something other than religious dogma. America will not disallow gay marriage just because the Catholic Church says so. That would be absurd.

Third, I disagree with the original poster. I think the church should be free to marry whomever it wants. Religions, no matter how wrong they are in their doctrine, cannot be forced to change that doctrine.

Now, to respond to some specific points:

[quote][b]Dave writes:[/b]
The Catholic Church has always condemned homosexual activity. It's sinful because it's selfish in that it can't possibly transmit life. That, btw, is the same reason why things like contraception and masturbation are also sinful. So a homosexual marriage would be a celebration of selfishness, I'm sorry to say.[/quote]
By your logic, so would a married couple with infertility problems. Are you really saying that a marriage between people who [i]can't[/i] have children is a "celebration of selfishness"? That seems to be what you imply, since homosexual marriage is "selfish in that it can't possibly transmit life." A marriage in which one or both spouses is infertile "can't possibly transmit life" either, does that make it selfish?

[quote]You say you can't just go around and tell people what they can and can't do. According to your logic, the Church shouldn't even tell people not to murder, lie, cheat, steal, blaspheme, commit adultery, etc.[/quote]
Maybe the church shouldn't. The church was obviously not the first institution to tell people not to murder, lie, cheat, steal, etc. Prohibitions against these things have existed since long before the church, and since long before the Ten Commandments. Why? Because people are capable of figuring out what is good and bad for themselves -- what your church describes as the "original sin" is precisely why we don't need a church to tell us what to do. We have knowledge of good and evil, and we don't need an institution to tell us what is good and what is bad. People have always known that murdering, lying, cheating and stealing is wrong. It's called a conscience. We don't need a church to dictate to us what our consciences can discern on their own.

[quote][b]JP2Iloveyou writes:[/b]
"I think gays should be allowed to marry because by denying them that right, it is a violation of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law."[/quote]
Good point.

[quote][b]Ellenita writes:[/b]
The issue of whether people who are gay should be allowed to marry in church is entirely different to the issue of the sexual abuse committed by priests on children.[/quote]
So it's only a muddled issue when you say it's supposed to be muddled? I don't know how many times I've heard Catholics essentially say that gay priests are to blame, because these were primarily acts of homosexual abuse rather than pedophilia (based on the fact that the victims were primarily adolescent boys, not children in the pre-pubescent sense). Obviously, the vast majority of conservative Catholics believe that homosexuality is inseparably connected to the sexual abuse scandal. Are you now saying that it isn't?

I submit that it is, on the grounds that the above assertion made by conservatives is basically correct: these [i]were[/i] primarily acts of homosexual abuse rather than pedophilia, because these [i]were[/i] adolescent boys and teenagers, not pre-pubescent children. The conservatives, then, would like to blame this entirely on homosexuality and ban gay men from the priesthood. That's not my answer to the problem. I think the answer lies in sexual repression. Mandatory celibacy is leading to an intense sexual repression that is leading men, some of them heterosexual, to molest adolescent boys. This would be solved by eliminating the unnatural ban on marriage.

[quote][b]the_rev writes:[/b]
Gays should not be allowed to be married. They can not procreate and help the church to continue to move on throughout history, for first starters.[/quote]
Neither can infertile couples. Should they not be allowed to marry?

[quote]Secondly, God made Adam and Eve, now you may say, well someone had to give them these homosexual feelings, but that wouldn't of been God.[/quote]
Ah, I see we're reverting to the "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument of Rev. Fred Phelps. I have seen the light!

[quote][b]mulls writes:[/b]
even if ANY church allowed gays to be married within its confines, that does not mean God will EVER accept or condone it.[/quote]
Mulls, as someone who interprets scripture for himself, how do you know that "God" does not accept and/or condone gay marriage? There are many liberal churches, including but not limited to the Metropolitan Community Church, who have interpreted scripture in such a way that gay marriage is not forbidden. These are Protestant churches, not unlike the one(s) you belong to. Why is their private interpretation any different from yours? By what authority do you teach that your interpretation is to be accepted above all others?

[quote][b]phatcatholic writes:[/b]
1. Is same-sex marriage open to new life?
--this is an important question b/c, if we look at God, we find that the Love that is His essence from all eternity is inherently open to new life. Afterall, God, for the pure fact that He is Love, spawned two persons of the Trinity as well as all creation! However, when we look at the same-sex partnership, it is not open to new life. The union of the two simply cannot bring from itself a new creation (this will be expounded upon later).[/quote]
Let's ask a related question: Was Jesus open to new life? Did Jesus marry, as the Jewish tradition of his time called him to do, and did he have children, thus continuing the Jewish people? The overwhelming response of the church to this question has been: "Absolutely [b]not[/b]." So it seems that Jesus was not open to new life either, and that he was not truly "like us in all things but sin," since he did not experience something that most human beings experience, and since he did not obey your God's command to "be fruitful and multiply."

Also, I would ask you the same question I've asked two others: should infertile couples marry or not? By your logic, it would seem that they should not.

[quote]2. Is their a complementarity w/in the same-sex union that communicates the true selflessness of the love found w/in it?
--this may at first seem harsh, but one has to remember that it is the very selfless nature of God’s love that created all that we know. God likewise created a complementarity within the bodies of man and woman so that they naturally communicate this selflessness. The sex organs of the man, b/c they are outside the body, are naturally giving. The sex organs of the woman, b/c they are inside the body, are naturally receiving. When these two come together, there is a true connectedness. the love that comes from this connectedness perfects the selfless quality by creating new life from this very connection.[/quote]
So basically, "God" is heterosexual. Right?

[quote]3. Is the homosexual sex act a natural act?
--this question is important b/c the perfect unity, and the selfless love, and the openness to creation that typify God are all divine qualities b/c of God’s very nature, b/c of who and what he inherently IS. So, in order to unite our image and likeness to His and thus share in his glory, we must communicate these qualities via our very nature. That is why the homosexual act and same-sex marriage are so often described as “unnatural” and that this quality is so often described as a point against it. The homosexual act is unnatural b/c it is not truly selfless and is not open to creation.[/quote]
There are many times when the "heterosexual act" is not truly selfless and not open to creation. Okay, let me give you a hypothetical example: say you have an infertile couple (not open to creation), and the husband wants to have sex exclusively for his own pleasure (selfish) -- does this render the "heterosexual act" in this case unnatural? By your logic, it would, because "it is not truly selfless and is not open to creation."

If that's the case, then there are many times when the "heterosexual act" is unnatural even within marriage, and I'm sure there are many Catholics on this phorum guilty of an unnatural "heterosexual act."

[quote]4. Does same-sex marriage typify the unity found between the Church and Jesus Christ, the "Bride" and the "Bridegroom."
--this is an important question b/c the bible uses the very members involved in our greatest earthly communion to describe the union between Jesus Christ and His Church. therefore, marriage must typify that union. on a purely physical level, the same-sex marriage is not properly analogous b/c it cannot help but contain either two Brides or two Grooms. since the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, nothing w/in it is unintentional, so the masculinity of one member (the Groom) and the femininity of the other member (the Bride) cannot be ignored.[/quote]
And yet every human soul is imaged as feminine, and as a bride of Christ, regardless of the physical gender of the person's body. This concept is found again and again in the writings of the mystics. Thus there are many men throughout the world who are, on the mystical level, "brides of Christ." You do state that you're speaking "on a purely physical level," but there's more to it than that. We are not purely physical, according to your church's own teaching.

Your argument is extremely flawed -- not to mention that it is based entirely upon your church's teaching, which society is not bound to accept. But even within the realm of your church's teaching, it is flawed, because it appears to confine the sacrament of marriage to fertile couples (thus voiding marriages of infertile couples?), and it doesn't make any sense at all.

Also, going back to your original supposition, that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of your God -- obviously physical symbolism is important to you, as you make clear numerous times above. Based on the fact that your God is described in all your church's creeds and in your scriptures as masculine, are only men made in the image and likeness of your God?

[quote][b]Aloysius writes:[/b]
the state's recognition of those marriages is civil union. this should only be granted to two consenting adults who will produce offspring and raise them to be good citizens. if the consenting adults plan on never having offspring, the couple should not be recognized by the state.[/quote]
So the state should not permit infertile couples to marry?

[quote][b]MC Just writes:[/b]
The Catholic Church has rejected and fought abortion and homosexuality for 2000 years , the Church will always be against it, point blank the Church is not going to change for you so get over it. People have to change.[/quote]
And why should anyone change for a church that has tortured and murdered thousands of people throughout history? This doesn't strike me as a church that calls one to conversion...

[Aloysius]

not to belittle the fact that some men in the Church have done despicable things.

but thousands within a 2000 year time line isn't that bad.

[quote]So the state should not permit infertile couples to marry?[/quote]

they shouldn't necessarily recognize those couples with the same benefits that are given to couples who can have kids. there ya go, concrete answer.

[Aloysius]

by the way

i love you and will pray for you. you are still an honorary freedom fighter of the Resistance in Creepy Aliens:

[img]http://phorum.phatmass.com/uploads/post-6-1083616576.jpg[/img]

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]Aloysius writes:[/b]
but thousands within a 2000 year time line isn't that bad.[/quote]
It is for a church that claims to be divinely established and "the pillar and foundation of truth." However, the number may be higher than thousands -- I thought "thousands" was a number I could get away with without having to prove it. I don't think anyone can deny that "thousands" died during the combined efforts of the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. If I'd said "millions," I have little doubt that someone would be trying to make me prove it, and I don't have time.

[quote]they shouldn't necessarily recognize those couples with the same benefits that are given to couples who can have kids. there ya go, concrete answer.[/quote]
Where does your church's teaching support such a concept?

[quote]i love you and will pray for you. you are still an honorary freedom fighter of the Resistance in Creepy Aliens:[/quote]
I appreciate your prayers and I love you, too. I don't like sin either -- in fact, I like it so little that I don't even believe in it.

[Guest lundercovera]

[quote] challenge anyone on this phorum to make any kind of real argument against homosexual relationships or marriages based on something other than scripture and Catholic teaching[/quote]

okay, let's be completely objective here. absolutely no biased, simply look at the parts of the human body.

warning: i havta get technical here. let's be mature, shall we?
The Sperm is clearly designed to seek out and implant the egg. Therefore, the only natural place for the sperm to be injected is into the vagina.
The Penis is clearly designed to release sperm, as well as urine but that is a completely seperate function that has no bearing on this. It is designed to release sperm. If sperm are designed to seek out an egg, clearly the only place the penis is designed to release sperm is into the vagina, through which the sperm can find the egg.

The rectum is clearly designed to release waste. However, the prostate gland can be stimulated through here. if we really look objectively at the design of the human body, the most logical explanation for this pathway is mere coincidence, that that is how everything fit together. there is no evidence to support a theory that the rectum is meant to be a pathway to the prostate gland. The rectum is not designed to receive sperm. The sperm are not designed to enter the rectum. The sperm are also not designed to enter the mouth, because the sperm clearly have one function: to seek out and join with an egg.

So objectively speaking, looking at the nature of humans (animals have nothing to do with this, this is the nature of humans) the only conclusion you can draw unclouded by religious conviction or personal feelings regarding it, is that homosesxual sex is not natural.

Now, relationships are a whole other story. In experience, i can say that there is a feeling that masks itself as excitement when falling for another guy, but it can really be quite destructive to you emotionally and psychologically. It is masked as excitement that mixes along with your eros love and aspects of lust as they are also bound to enter into your thought process. This eros love excitement in the long run damages you psychologically. This is the reason ppl who involve themselves in the homosexual lifestyle have a high depression rate, at least in my humble opinion.

Yours in Chrsit through Mary, may Our Lady hold you in her loving arms
-lundercovera

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 17 2004, 04:42 PM'] Where does your church's teaching support such a concept? [/quote]
you asked me for a political opinion in which i wasn't imposing Church teaching on the state.. i gave it to you. The State need only do what is in the best interest of the society: thus giving benefits only to couples who will produce children to better support the society is a politically sound concept.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 17 2004, 04:42 PM'] I appreciate your prayers and I love you, too. I don't like sin either -- in fact, I like it so little that I don't even believe in it. [/quote]
lol.. haven't you heard pop psychology though? the opposite of love isn't dislike, it's indifference.

thus you've become indifferent to it.

and only don't like the concept of sin.

bro, with charity agape and love, that's error.

Pax et Agape Por Maria

[Livin_the_MASS]

Good Friday,

Much love brother! Good to hear from ya. I'll put this simple short and to the point because you've been around and know what the Catholic Church teaches.

You are called to live the celibate life brother, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

When two men or women have relations it goes against the way God made it to be brother. You can't be fruitful and multiply. It degrades the martial union!

The marital embrace (between a man and a women) creates life shares love, what you are doing is pleasing yourself and putting God's One Teaching to the side.

Please don't reject it! Pray, ask for grace. You again are called to the celibate life.

Love you brother,
In my prayers
Jason

Edited May 17, 2004 by Jason

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]lundercovera writes:[/b]
So objectively speaking, looking at the nature of humans (animals have nothing to do with this, this is the nature of humans) the only conclusion you can draw unclouded by religious conviction or personal feelings regarding it, is that homosesxual sex is not natural.[/quote]
So what? There are many things that human beings do that aren't natural. Driving a car or flying in an airplane aren't natural, but they're legal. Your argument, while not religiously based, still doesn't provide any reason whatsoever as to why homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal.

[quote][b]Aloysius writes:[/b]
you asked me for a political opinion in which i wasn't imposing Church teaching on the state.. i gave it to you. The State need only do what is in the best interest of the society: thus giving benefits only to couples who will produce children to better support the society is a politically sound concept.[/quote]
I don't support any state that tells people how many children to have or if they should have them. I think that's the very opposite of democracy and freedom.

[quote][b]Jason writes:[/b]
You are called to live the celibate life brother, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

When two men or women have relations it goes against the way God made it to be brother. [b]You can't be fruitful and multiply.[/b] It degrades the martial union![/quote]
Infertile couples can't be fruitful and multiply either. The church marries them. Why? Is anyone going to address this question?

[quote]Please don't reject it! Pray, ask for grace. You again are called to the celibate life.[/quote]
I don't believe in grace anymore than I believe in sin, so it wouldn't make much sense for me to pray for that. I pray plenty, and nothing lately has been telling me that I'm called to the celibate life. Maybe your God isn't who you think he is?

[Aloysius]

[u]all the underlined stuff is objective uninfluenced by religion:
let me expand on lundercovera's conclusion that it's not natural and go even further to say he showed that not only is it not natural, but it's anti-natural.[/u]

[u]riding a bike or flying a plane while not natural are surely not anti-natural, they don't go against nature.[/u]

[u]something that goes against nature would be like, burning down the rainforest, or using sperm for something sperm is not intended for.[/u]

[u]State shouldn't tell ppl they have to have children, but the only reason the state should recognize and give benefits to a couple is if they are going to have children. what other thing may the state, objectively speaking, do without establishing a religious institution or overstepping it's bounds and trampling a religious institution? the only reason a secular state has for supporting a couple is that the couple will build up it's society by producing children. this is objectively, no influence of religion or personal feelings.[/u]

okay, the reason homosexuals are not married is much deeper than not being able to have children, including that homosexual unions are anti-natural and against God's will. You asked why the Church still marries infertile people, well now we've stepped over into the arguments from Church teaching part where i don't havta seperate myself from all religious influences. This is the Church's decision because she believes that homosexual unions are against God, and she is backed by scripture and tradition.

as for the inquisition and stuff, i recently saw a book in my [b] public school[/b] library about how the inquisition put off torture and death as far off as possible, simply giving penances and oppurtunities for the ppl to renounce their heretical positions. The numbers you've heard are probably the ones that were inflated by the protestants.

the crusades were called for because Christendome was threatened by the Turks. while some of the crusaders did shameful things during them, the Crusades themselves would fall into a just war under St. Augustine's theory i'm pretty sure. The Church was completely justified in calling for them.

[u]anyway, gays should not be married by the state because it is clearly anti-natural and the state should not endorse anything that is unhealthy and/or anti-natural. gays should not be married by the state because they will not help build up the society by making new citizens.[/u]

[Ellenita]

Good Friday,

I have to take issue with you over your response to my post! I haven't followed the argument about the abuse perpetrated by priests on children in the US perhaps as closely as those of you living there and I accept therefore that I may have misrepresented the generally held view by Catholics in the US concerning the issue if indeed it is held that these priests were really repressed gay men having illicit, since they were priests, relationships with younger men. However, [i]in my mind [/i]there is absolutely no question that sexual abuse carried out by people in a position of power on a minor or a child [i]is entirely different [/i]to two consenting adults of the same sex deciding that they want to have a sexual relationship. Child abuse is often raised as a reason by heterosexual people for denying gay people any recognition or rights at all, thus equating all people who are gay as being abusers, and of course the reality is that paedophiles exist across the whole range of sexuality. It's disingenuous to link the two issues.

On the matter of unmarried priests, it astounds me that men supposedly have so little control over their sexual urges that they cannot live a chaste life as the church requires [b]of all people who are not married[/b]. They know the deal when they freely choose to take on the [i]Sacrament [/i]of Holy Orders. If they don't feel called to a celibate life then maybe they didn't hear their calling to the vocation correctly!




On an entirely different matter, it is really good to see you posting again at PM! Your contributions have been very much missed.....

[Livin_the_MASS]

Nathan,

I love you man but you are getting defensive because you are making up things that make the life style you want to live OK.

You can't brother, no matter how hard you try. Christ's Church has spoken even in Sacred Scripture:

[quote][b]1 Cor 6:9[/b]

[b]Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God?[/b] Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes [b]nor practicing homosexuals[/b]

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [/quote]

God is not pushing you away, you are pushing yourself away there is no way to justify this. You Can't!

Please go to Confession, ask God for grace, the devil wants you to go away from the Catholic Church. Don't forget that!

In my prayers
Jason

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]Aloysius writes:[/b]
State shouldn't tell ppl they have to have children, but the only reason the state should recognize and give benefits to a couple is if they are going to have children. what other thing may the state, objectively speaking, do without establishing a religious institution or overstepping it's bounds and trampling a religious institution? the only reason a secular state has for supporting a couple is that the couple will build up it's society by producing children. this is objectively, no influence of religion or personal feelings.[/quote]
And yet all heterosexuals who are married, regardless of infertility and/or the decision to use contraceptives, are given full legal recognition by the state and given various benefits throughout the various countries. So while, in theory, your idea may work, in actuality heterosexual married couples are given all the benefits of legal recognition of their unions regardless of whether or not they can or intend to have children.

Based on your argument, there's no reason that the United States can't give legal recognition to gay unions. By your logic, the government must give benefits [i]only[/i] to those who can and intend to have children -- it follows that, until they do, they should give these benefits to homosexuals if they're going to give them to the infertile and to those who contracept.

[quote][b]Ellenita writes:[/b]
Child abuse is often raised as a reason by heterosexual people for denying gay people any recognition or rights at all, thus equating all people who are gay as being abusers, and of course the reality is that paedophiles exist across the whole range of sexuality. It's disingenuous to link the two issues.[/quote]
Homosexuality is blamed by nearly all conservative Catholics in my country as the core reason for the sexual abuse scandal. The bishops, who are themselves to blame, have decided that homosexuals will make the perfect scapegoat. So they continue to blame homosexuals, all the while undermining the National Review Board that they themselves appointed, and refusing to meet requirements for annual audits that they themselves set up.

But yes, homosexuality is viewed by most of the conservative Catholics in my country as the root cause of this scandal, including many bishops. Apparently, this extends beyond my country -- shortly after the scandal came to light, the Vatican issued a statement reaffirming their ban on ordaining gay men (celibate ones, mind you, not active ones), implying that gay men were to blame for the scandal that the Vatican turned a blind eye to. The Vatican and the bishops are more than happy to pawn this off on gay men in order to be protected from the blame themselves. Fortunately, it's not working; the laity isn't buying it, for the most part.

I agree with you that gay men are not to blame. I think the bishops are to blame, for two reasons: first, they allowed this to go on for quite some time without doing anything about it; second, their own policies (i.e. mandatory celibacy) are at the core of the scandal.

[quote][b]Jason writes:[/b]
Please go to Confession, ask God for grace, the devil wants you to go away from the Catholic Church. Don't forget that![/quote]
I'm already "away" from the Catholic Church... there is no going away to be done, I've already gone away and won't be coming back. I don't believe in grace and I won't be going to confession. If I hadn't made that clear enough already (I think I had), there it is again.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 17 2004, 11:36 PM'] And yet all heterosexuals who are married, regardless of infertility and/or the decision to use contraceptives, are given full legal recognition by the state and given various benefits throughout the various countries. So while, in theory, your idea may work, in actuality heterosexual married couples are given all the benefits of legal recognition of their unions regardless of whether or not they can or intend to have children.

Based on your argument, there's no reason that the United States can't give legal recognition to gay unions. By your logic, the government must give benefits [i]only[/i] to those who can and intend to have children -- it follows that, until they do, they should give these benefits to homosexuals if they're going to give them to the infertile and to those who contracept. [/quote]
those who are infertile and still get benefits slide through on a loophole. if the state were to perfectly follow this formula, it wouldn't give monatary recognition to infertile couples. but it is pretty safe to recognize all man-woman relationships monatarily because as far as the state knows without imposing upon ppls medical privacy, there is a possibility of a new citizen.

for a man and woman who contracept, again, there is still the possibility for a child in the future.

the system in place is the best way for the state to look after the greater interest of the society.

what homosexuals are asking for is adding a group of people whom the state will recognize with benefits yet there is absolutely no possibility of a new citizen coming from their sex. this would be a foolish idea for the state to entertain.

besides all that in my political theory of why the state should allow couples benefits, the state does have the right to protect the physical and psychological welfare of citizens. homosexuality, regardless of whether you wanna believe it or not now, is bad psychological health. homosexual sex, regardless of whether you wanna believe it or not now, is bad physical health. the state would be looking after its citizen's welfare by not recognizing such unhealthy unions.

~*Love and Prayers Nathan*~
do not close your heart, do not close your mind
be open to wherever could be true or not
do not assume what has failed you before is false
do not assume what has failed you before will fail you again
just be open, that's all i'm asking

Pax Amorque Christi

[Livin_the_MASS]

I will pray for you Nathan

God Bless You,
May Christ shine His Face upon you and give you peace.

Pax Nathan,
Jason

[Good Friday]

[quote][b]Aloysius writes:[/b]
besides all that in my political theory of why the state should allow couples benefits, the state does have the right to protect the physical and psychological welfare of citizens. homosexuality, regardless of whether you wanna believe it or not now, is bad psychological health. homosexual sex, regardless of whether you wanna believe it or not now, is bad physical health. the state would be looking after its citizen's welfare by not recognizing such unhealthy unions.[/quote]
I would like to see one shred of evidence, outside of the Catholic Medical Association (I'm already quite familiar with their theory, thanks) that homosexuality is psychologically harmful and/or that it is, in and of itself, a psychological illness. Tread lightly here. Pointing to the fact that suicide rates are high among homosexuals, for instance, serves to make [i]you[/i] look bad, not us. [i]Why[/i] do you think suicide rates are so high? Do you [i]really[/i] think it's just from being homosexual, or do you think being called intrinsically disordered, our actions intrinsically evil, and being persecuted (sometimes with physical violence) by "good Christians" might have something to do with it?

As for bad physical health, I'd like you to elaborate upon what you mean by that. If you mean what I think you mean, this isn't going to be pretty.