Question About Gay Marriage

[4588686]

I"m just being realistic, we've lost the battle/debate/whatever over gay marriage. I don't think it's of much use to fight for the imposition of Catholic sexual mores via the law on a society that has become, for all intents and purposes, pagan.

 

I believe in Catholic teachings on sexual as much as the next guy, but truth is holding the belief that *insert playful euphemism for masturbation here* is actually immoral, relegates you to borderline insanity as do all of the adjacent beliefs (concerning esp fornication and homosexuality) that human sexuality is about more than some redirected blood flow, released endorphins and even "love." So really you can talk about natural law all you want but it's essentially useless when the whole culture generally operates by the moral code "as long as you're not hurting anybody . . ."

 

There are several more fundamental problems that we need to fix, that in my opinion can't be strong-armed via the legal system. I've lately feel like all this insanity over gay marriage is trying to put a band-aid over a gaping jugular, and I'm pretty tired of this exercise in futility. We need a vastly different strategy. Catholic social principles no longer enjoy influence over the public sphere, they did for a 1000 or so years, but safe to say that time is over. I'm not really worried because the Church has done well in hostile societies before, but to continue to operate without recognizing these realities is foolish imo.

 

But I'm just a stupid kid, what do I know?

 

Remove the sock.

[4588686]

Rand Paul 2016 :crusader2:

 

Gary Johnson ....came so close to voting for him as I agree with virtually everything else but his weird seeming support for gay marriage on a federal level? :blink:

 

 

 

But don't worry.........I didn't sell out to Romney <_<

 

 

I've been in enough discussions.......I'm definitely a libertarian at heart... :)

 

 

 

 

[4588686]

I could go Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or Gary Johnson. Call yourself a Republican? Don't care. So long as you're a Libertarian at heart! :-P

 

Libertarians had a respectable reputation.  No need to sully it y associating the term with a bunch of politician hacks who want us to believe that the gold standard is at the heart of the struggle for human freedom.  

 

 

You all are republicans.  Just embrace it.  

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hasan

[theculturewarrior]

It may not be clear why this is such an important issue for me.  It is because as a disabled American, I identify with the stigma that homosexuals have dealt with over the years.  Homosexuality was once considered a psychiatric disorder, and was treated with forced lobotomies, aversive shock therapy, and electroconvulsive therapy.  There is still a place in MA that does aversive shock therapy on the disabled.  It is wickedness that is much more immoral than sexual sins.

Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[4588686]

It may not be clear why this is such an important issue for me.  It is because as a disabled American, I identify with the stigma that homosexuals have dealt with over the years.  Homosexuality was once considered a psychiatric disorder, and was treated with forced lobotomies, aversive shock therapy, and electroconvulsive therapy.  There is still a place in MA that does aversive shock therapy on the disabled.  It is wickedness that is much more immoral than sexual sins.

 

Then let's hack away at the root of that stigma by ceasing to claim that there's anything immoral or 'objectively disordered' about homosexuality.  

[theculturewarrior]

Okay, but let's do it at the Debate Table, because I still see the world through Catholic eyes.

[theculturewarrior]

I should elaborate by saying that I do not believe that this is the root of the stigma.  As a disabled American I have experienced my fair share of stigma.  It is because I am different, not because of my sins.

[4588686]

I should elaborate by saying that I do not believe that this is the root of the stigma. As a disabled American I have experienced my fair share of stigma. It is because I am different, not because of my sins.

What does that have to do with the root of stigma towards gay people?

[Gabriela]

Gary Johnson ....came so close to voting for him as I agree with virtually everything else but his weird seeming support for gay marriage on a federal level? :blink:

I think he was just trying to get the message across to Liberals that, even though Libertarians are fiscally conservative, they are in fact socially "liberal". I sincerely hope he wouldn't make any new legislation regarding marriage at the federal level! Just nix it...

[Gabriela]

Libertarians had a respectable reputation.  No need to sully it y associating the term with a bunch of politician hacks who want us to believe that the gold standard is at the heart of the struggle for human freedom.  

 

 

You all are republicans.  Just embrace it.  

 

Not all Libertarians rant so much about the gold standard as Ron Paul, who, technically, IS a Republican. I do think, however, that the gold standard IS central to human freedom, in the sense that financial stability and solvency are central to human freedom.

 

I am most definitively not a Republican. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for one, just like I occasionally vote for a Democrat. My principles, however, are staunchly Libertarian. As far as I see it, there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats. They're both in the pocket of big business, not the people they're supposed to represent.

[4588686]

Not all Libertarians rant so much about the gold standard as Ron Paul, who, technically, IS a Republican. I do think, however, that the gold standard IS central to human freedom, in the sense that financial stability and solvency are central to human freedom.

 

I am most definitively not a Republican. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for one, just like I occasionally vote for a Democrat. My principles, however, are staunchly Libertarian. As far as I see it, there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats. They're both in the pocket of big business, not the people they're supposed to represent.

 

Unlike libertarians, who are not funded by the corporate class.  The Koch brothers don't even exist.  

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation

 

The idea that the gold standard is central to human freedom is astounding.  The gold standard is a scam to benefit the hyper-wealthy and to get people to buy bullpoopy 'gold investment kits.'  

 

It's a nearly useless metal and fixing our currency to it makes no sense at all.  Unless you're a plutocrat.  In which case supporting the gold standard makes a lot of sense since you can benefit from it immensely   

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hasan

[theculturewarrior]

What does that have to do with the root of stigma towards gay people?

 

 

Morality is just a pretext to discriminate.  It is putting a pretty face on the sociopathic demand for conformity.  Married heterosexuals commit all kinds of heterosexual sins.  But if they're not disabled, they don't stand out in a crowd the way we do.

Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[4588686]

Morality is just a pretext to discriminate.  It is putting a pretty face on the sociopathic demand for conformity.  Married heterosexuals commit all kinds of heterosexual sins.  But if they're not disabled, they don't stand out in a crowd the way we do.

 

 

I still don't see where your argument makes sense.  The discrimination that the disabled face isn't just because they are different.  There are all sorts of differences that aren't stigmatized.  

[theculturewarrior]

I still don't see where your argument makes sense.  The discrimination that the disabled face isn't just because they are different.  There are all sorts of differences that aren't stigmatized.  

 

It is more of an observation than an argument.  All men struggle with sexual sin and most women too, sooner or later, to some extent.  If forcing a homosexual to have lobotomy or to undergo aversive shock therapy is considered moral, what about having a mistress?  At that time in American history it was considered prestigious to have a mistress in many circles.  There are cultures in the world where having a mistress is socially acceptable and being a homosexual can get you killed whether you play by the Church's rules or not.  This happens in many predominately Catholic countries.  That famous bible quote, that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, that same chapter prescribed death by stoning as the punishment for adultery.  Morality is not the issue, it is just an excuse to rid the world of people who think differently.  It is hypocrisy insofar as the stigma is concerned.

Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[4588686]

It is more of an observation than an argument.  All men struggle with sexual sin and most women too, sooner or later, to some extent.  If forcing a homosexual to have lobotomy or to undergo aversive shock therapy is considered moral, what about having a mistress?  At that time in American history it was considered prestigious to have a mistress in many circles.  There are cultures in the world where having a mistress is socially acceptable and being a homosexual can get you killed whether you play by the Church's rules or not.  This happens in many predominately Catholic countries.  That famous bible quote, that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, that same chapter prescribed death by stoning as the punishment for adultery.  Morality is not the issue, it is just an excuse to rid the world of people who think differently.  It is hypocrisy insofar as the stigma is concerned.

 

 

 

Right.  Most people are straight so they excuse heterosexual sin.  That says nothing about the dominate religious institutions in the west denouncing homosexuality as 'objectively disordered' not being a major cause of stigmatizing homosexuality.