Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by Typist

The gay agenda is NOT about calling Catholic sex perverted and making Catholic marriages illegal.

But logically, there's no reason why it shouldn't evolve in to that. The church is establishing this as a standard. The church is stating that it's ok to call other consenting adult's sex perverted and to deny them legal marriage.

So if the gay community were to follow the example set by the church, they would be calling Catholic sex perverted and working to make Catholic marriage illegal. Oh, and they would do this while telling you that they love you. That too.

Typist,

The major difference is that while you may want to turn the tables and call Catholics perverted, illegal and the like...it is those that want acceptance as gay forget that it is not just about acceptance it is about acceptance of the behavior and all that it brings.

Today on NPR it was reported that identifying as "gay" carries with it an increased risk of disease..

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...re-still-there

Other research presented at the AIDS meeting raises an even bigger concern. Preliminary results from a six-city study of gay or bisexual young adult black men shows a lot of risky behavior. Study authors say these men are part of "an evolving concentrated epidemic."

The study "clearly shows that young men who have sex with men or who identify as gay or bisexual have far higher rates of a wide range of health risk behaviors, not just sexual risk behaviors," Kann says.

http://pag.aids2012.org/Abstracts.aspx?AID=12753

Conclusions: Structural, behavioral, and biological factors (e.g. unemployment, unprotected anal sex, and STDs, but not increased substance use) are associated with new infections among American BMSM, who differ behaviorally from men who have previously been diagnosed. Given the high rates of HIV infection among BMSM, culturally-tailored programs that encourage repeated HIV/STD testing, engagement in care, and innovative prevention strategies addressing current risks are urgently needed to decrease further spread.

So, while you want to redifine and want acceptance this crowd brings behavior that brings disease....and an increased risk of disease...is this what you want acceptance for?

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by ASimon

That's okay. The current, government definition of marriage is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. And that is discrimination - but we're working to rectify that.

Christians are perfectly within their rights to assert their own definition of marriage, as long as they understand that their definition doesn't count outside the church-house door.

Christians move to the back of the bus!

The current government definition of marriage is not incompatible with the US Constitution. Gays are allowed to get married. They simply have to get married under the same rules as everyone else. All that is required to be married is to:

Not already be married.
Not a close blood relation.
Of legal age to marry.
Marry a person of the opposite gender.

Nothing in those requirement excludes or prevents gays from marrying. It does however prevent plural marriage and incestuous marriage.

[CatherineOH]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I wasn't suggesting it had got anything to do with nursing

I was taking the words written - effeminate - and remembered the male nurse who took such great care of my daughter when she injured her toe.

He was married, showed us pictures of his kids, as he had a girl the same age as my daughter, in fact, born one day earlier, and was, without question, the campest, most effeminate man I have ever met.

Of course he has a ''persona'' when dealing with young children I'm sure, but no way was all of the entertainment he provided an act

As for being a male ONLY occupation - that's totally inaccurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...ursing_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_nursing

Sarah x

Yes, the definition of effeminate is to be 'unmanly'. But having 'female' caring and characteristics of action is not necessarily unmanly. That is a modern image that Today's society places too much emphasis on that sort of thing..they are attitudes that a Man had to be a (character description here) a sledge hammer wielding cud-chewer who spits on the sidewalk and swears up a storm at the least little thing and if the other party doesn't see his way, gets into a fistfight over it.
as we all know, that is NOT a Man.
Many christian, and other deeply faithful men have been accused falsely of homosexual tendencies because they are loving and caring as your daughter's nurse was.

I had assumed a misunderstanding of what effeminate means in this case.
That is why I pulled the other translations into the conversation.
In the old DR translation, It is a misinterpretation of the Greek words describing sodomy which is sexual activity between two or more of the same sex. (most often between men, but also includes between two or more women)

[MichaelTDoyle]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I see a secular society that treats all it's citizens equally under the law as a strength, not a weakness.

Sarah x

Many totalitarian states would agree with you. National Socialism and Bolshevism spring to mind.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by MichaelTDoyle

Many totalitarian states would agree with you. National Socialism and Bolshevism spring to mind.

So you think everyone being treated equally under the law equates to National Socialism and Bolshevism

You think under National Socialism everyone was treated equally



Someone needs to read up on their history I think.

Sarah x

[flyinghouse]

Guys please stop feeding the trolls.

[jpink1019]

Originally Posted by flyinghouse

Guys please stop feeding the trolls.

agreed.

[MichaelTDoyle]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

So you think everyone being treated equally under the law equates to National Socialism and Bolshevism

You think under National Socialism everyone was treated equally



Someone needs to read up on their history I think.

Sarah x

As long as you join me.

The elimination of Christianity as a force from public life was a significant and achieved goal of both those regimes. I just finished William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Secular (That's the operative word here) government--government without God we trust--shows man at his most abominable.

Man views his fellow man without an identification with God as a tool and history proves he systematically treats him worse than an animal.

[Dominique1234]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

So you think everyone being treated equally under the law equates to National Socialism and Bolshevism

You think under National Socialism everyone was treated equally



Someone needs to read up on their history I think.

Sarah x

I suggest you read the history of the Catholic Church and you will understand our Truths, because they come from God. For you to even fathom what we are standing up for, you need to have a deep seeded belief in God. Otherwise, you will never understand.

Everything you've mentioned so far gives me the complete understanding of what you are trying to say, in an atheist mind set. "How can we call ourselves equal unless we can all have the same things?" I get it. Been there, done that. Unfortunately for you, there will never be understanding in your mind, lest you humble yourself to God. I hope that happens for you. It's an amazing feeling. Trust me. I've been in your shoes (speaking in terms of 'faith', or lack there of.)

If you can't understand where we're coming from, don't you think it's about time you invest some time in at least trying to understand our point of view? This means a TON of education on the Catholic Faith. You seem to have enough time to invest in defending your position. How about you invest that time in finding facts rather than defending something you truly don't understand, such as what marriage truly is in history. Start there and you may actually find something of interest and enlightenment.

Take care,

Dom

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by Dominique1234

How about you invest that time in finding facts rather than defending something you truly don't understand, such as what marriage truly is in history. Start there and you may actually find something of interest and enlightenment.

I'm well aware of the history of marriage, what marriage entailed for women and the role of women in societies throughout the ages.

Thanks for the advice though.

Sarah x

[flyinghouse]

Originally Posted by MichaelTDoyle

As long as you join me.

oh snap

[MichaelTDoyle]

I meant it friendly. Smiley face. She made a good point; education is about truth. When pursued correctly (which, I believe, is difficult) learning leads to Jesus. I was focused on the secular and she was focused on the equal treatment.

[Regular Atheist]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I'm well aware of the history of marriage, what marriage entailed for women and the role of women in societies throughout the ages.

That's not really a relevant argument, anyway. Historically, the definition of 'voter' has been limited to just white males, and yet for some reason traditional definitions are not an argument for stopping black people or women from voting.

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

That's not really a relevant argument, anyway. Historically, the definition of 'voter' has been limited to just white males, and yet for some reason traditional definitions are not an argument for stopping black people or women from voting.

Comparing the rights of humans with dark skin to the rights of gays is not the same. I believe gays are not being denied their rights to union or being discriminated against to live their life. They can get a civil partnership, and have basically the same rights as a married couple, and also even adopt kids. I don't believe those with dark skin had ever such benefits . Furthermore, the issue is not of discrimination as you want us to believe, at least is not of discrimination against same sex couples. The issue is of discrimination against a majority of citizens that do not want Marriage to be redefined and stripped off its procreative requirement. Remember, same-sex marriage has been denied through VOTING in several places. The majority said WE DON'T WANT TO. How is that so hard to accept in a Democracy?

[Regular Atheist]

Originally Posted by Patavium

Comparing the rights of humans with dark skin to the rights of gays is not the same. I believe gays are not being denied their rights to union or being discriminated against to live their life. They can get a civil partnership, and have basically the same rights as a married couple, and also even adopt kids. I don't believe those with dark skin had ever such benefits . Furthermore, the issue is not of discrimination as you want us to believe, at least is not of discrimination against same sex couples. The issue is of discrimination against a majority of citizens that do not want Marriage to be redefined and stripped off its procreative requirement. Remember, same-sex marriage has been denied through VOTING in several places. The majority said WE DON'T WANT TO. How is that so hard to accept in a Democracy?

I wasn't comparing gays to blacks. I was just saying that using definitions as an argument against gay marriage doesn't work. There is no other situation in which you would use the excuse, and there are many situations where definitions were changed for the better, but for some reason people believe it's a perfectly valid argument when applied to same-sex marriage. I certainly agree that comparing gays to blacks is stupid.