Interesting Quotes From Gay Marriage Supporters

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by TracerBullet

Interesting

Consider how many scientific claims have been made in this thread alone:
“studies show that children of same gendered parents are at a disadvantage. “
Repeatedly, research on teen problems ranging from delinquency to drug use to teen pregnancy has been correlated to the absence of both a mother and a father.”
“Skin color is genetic, homosexuality is not.”
“Homosexuality is behavior”
“society recieves a benefit from recognizing a traditional marriage that it does not recieve from recognizing a homosexual union”
“there is no homosexual gene”
“if so-called 'gay marriage' becomes an acceptable standard of behavior on par with real marriage then it will be children who suffer,”
“Studies have consistently shown that children from stable, monogamous heterosexual homes fare far better than those in broken or abnormal homes”

Yet not a single citation in the bunch

Why don't you be the first.

[Corki]

Originally Posted by TracerBullet

Interesting

Consider how many scientific claims have been made in this thread alone:

"Repeatedly, research on teen problems ranging from delinquency to drug use to teen pregnancy has been correlated to the absence of both a mother and a father.”

Yet not a single citation in the bunch

Ok, I'll do my part.

The above quote was mine.

Here is just one of the citations. This one directly related to delinquency.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-103381758.html

and here's one with the correlation to teen pregnancy

http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com...lth_news.shtml

[Slavonic]

Marriage as defined by the law does not entail that you love a certain person. In the olden days getting married rarely had to do with actual love. A gay man has every right as I do to marry a woman no problem. Just because I have the reason to marry her for love does not mean anything. As long as you get the government benefits from the marriage it is equal and there is no discrimination.

People will argue that this is schewed logic in light of the reality of it, however the truth of the matter is that it is the reality, a gay man still and will always be able to marry a woman. I cannot marry another man and neither can he it is EQUAL!

The fact that you can choose to marry someone for love makes all the difference in this case. Of the universe of partners you can select from (women), you may find a person you love and elect to enter a marriage based on that. A gay man will never find this from that same set and will never find a person to enter into a marriage based on romantic love as you have. So, you two are not equal.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by Slavonic

The fact that you can choose to marry someone for love makes all the difference in this case. Of the universe of partners you can select from (women), you may find a person you love and elect to enter a marriage based on that. A gay man will never find this from that same set and will never find a person to enter into a marriage based on romantic love as you have. So, you two are not equal.

Slavonic,

You strike me as odd. In other posts you oppose the teachings of the Bishop on sexuality and the only places you post are in favor of homosexuality, rights of homosexuals and same sex marriage. I find this to be unusual for a Byzantine Catholic.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Slavonic

The fact that you can choose to marry someone for love makes all the difference in this case. Of the universe of partners you can select from (women), you may find a person you love and elect to enter a marriage based on that. A gay man will never find this from that same set and will never find a person to enter into a marriage based on romantic love as you have. So, you two are not equal.

Not being able to marry or to become romantically involved with someone is not something surprising. It is the norm for every single human being with respect to almost every single other human being.

[Marc Anthony]

Originally Posted by TracerBullet

Discrimination in the legal sense is the act of denying rights, benefits, justice, equitable treatment, or access to facilities available to all others, to an individual or group of people because of their race, age, gender, handicap or other defining characteristic.
This definition includes homosexuals because sexual orientation is an innate and defining characteristic. It does not include felons because being a felon is not an innate and defining characteristic

I've been away from the party for awhile, but this jumped out at me. My thoughts, in no particular order:

1) It's interesting that apparently being a homosexual is now an "innate and defining characteristic". I hear all the time that homosexuals DON'T want their sexuality to define them. So which is it?

2) Please believe me when I say I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious-what's your source for this legal definition of discrimination?

3) I don't want to deny homosexuals any rights at all, including marriage. I just don't want the country to redefine marriage into a mere institution whose practical significance is rapidly dwindling.

[Allegra]

Originally Posted by TracerBullet

Yet such personal interpretations are a common justification against same gendered marriage just as it was a justification against interracial marriage.

And the slippery slope arguments were used to justify laws against interracial marriage



all you had to do was go looking for it.
“[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage stands on the same Footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

same arguments

Is that a problem of interracial marriage or a problem of prejudice and discrimination by people outside of that marriage?


Just like infertile heterosexuals. What’s your point?


Because same gendered couples live in remote caves and have no contact with other people?

You can use your logic here to denounce military personnel from having children. What if that service man/woman is killed in action? Their surviving child will be denied the benefit of a male/female role model.


got any evidnece to actually back this one up?

“It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
Perez v. Lippold,
Same argument





Neither do marriages between infertile heterosexual couples. Their purpose is the mutual affection and sexual pleasure of the two adults. There is no benefit to society for recognizing this union.

Most of your response is along the lines of, "They're the same argument because I say so." I clearly demonstrated the difference between the two arguments and your response was the equivilant of covering your ears with your hands and saying "I can't hear you!".

"Slipperly slope" is a term which describes a kind of argument, not a specific argument. The quote you offered was an invalid argument. The justification of polygamy does not logically follow the legalization of the marriage of people of two races. If you can provide anyone reasoning that demonstrates that it does, but I doubt anyone can. However, I am more interested in your explaination on how one can justify the changing of the definition of marriage to accomadate a homosexual relationship without allowing for polygamy or incestous relationships. There inlies the difference between the two arguments.

The second quote you provided clearly demonstrates my point that the concerns regarding the difficulties facing biracial children and the problems facing children that are acquired into a homosexual relationship are completely seperate and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that they are the same arguement. Anyway, unless your contention is that homosexual couples teach their children that sex is only meant for a man and woman who are married, then I don't know why you are asking for evidence regarding the fact that children that are acquired into homosexual households are taught to have immoral sex lives.

It is unfortunate that some traditional marriages are struck with tragedies such as the loss of one spouse or infertility. I think most sane people would agree that the loss of a parent is deeply felt by children, particularly children of the opposite gender. Homosexual unions inherently suffer from both of these deficits.

[Corki]

Originally Posted by Slavonic

The fact that you can choose to marry someone for love makes all the difference in this case. Of the universe of partners you can select from (women), you may find a person you love and elect to enter a marriage based on that. A gay man will never find this from that same set and will never find a person to enter into a marriage based on romantic love as you have. So, you two are not equal.

Hmmmm

I, as a straight woman may find someone to love that I am unable to marry. That would put me into an equal category, according to your definition, with someone who was homosexual and only wanted to marry a person of the same sex.

While that might make me sad, it wouldn't be a civil rights issue.

[RobbyS]

Originally Posted by mitex

Look I'm sorry if I offended you with my initial language. But let's look at this.

It is unacceptable for me to accept any kind of common discrimination like bullying, discrimination from certain employment fields (teaching, athletics, the military stuff that Catholics love to tout as "just" discrimination), hate crimes, denial education, and any other basic human right.

Just like it is unjust and unacceptable for gays to force their definition of "marriage" and "adoption" on you.

Not all unjust actions are illegal. A girfriend may “dump you.” An employer may also do so. Public schools have long been reluctant to hire male elementary teachers, and the reason is caution. Caution --discrimination--is often called for. Women who leave their children with boyfriends are asking for trouble. Males don’t tend to like another man’s cubs.

[RobbyS]

Originally Posted by Allegra

Most of your response is along the lines of, "They're the same argument because I say so." I clearly demonstrated the difference between the two arguments and your response was the equivilant of covering your ears with your hands and saying "I can't hear you!".

"Slipperly slope" is a term which describes a kind of argument, not a specific argument. The quote you offered was an invalid argument. The justification of polygamy does not logically follow the legalization of the marriage of people of two races. If you can provide anyone reasoning that demonstrates that it does, but I doubt anyone can. However, I am more interested in your explaination on how one can justify the changing of the definition of marriage to accomadate a homosexual relationship without allowing for polygamy or incestous relationships. There inlies the difference between the two arguments.

The second quote you provided clearly demonstrates my point that the concerns regarding the difficulties facing biracial children and the problems facing children that are acquired into a homosexual relationship are completely seperate and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that they are the same arguement. Anyway, unless your contention is that homosexual couples teach their children that sex is only meant for a man and woman who are married, then I don't know why you are asking for evidence regarding the fact that children that are acquired into homosexual households are taught to have immoral sex lives.

It is unfortunate that some traditional marriages are struck with tragedies such as the loss of one spouse or infertility. I think most sane people would agree that the loss of a parent is deeply felt by children, particularly children of the opposite gender. Homosexual unions inherently suffer from both of these deficits.

I tire of the comparison of anti-sodomy laws with laws against misogynism. The latter was a kind of caste law, to prevent two classes of human beings from intermarrying. The purpose of anti-sodomy laws, on the other hand, to prohibit two men or two women from performing immoral actions. A closer comparison would be anti-fornication laws or laws against adultery. Of course, it was asserted that black-white marriages were immoral but that was really an inference from the fact that all sexual intercourse between black and whites was an act of prostitution/fornication since they were forbidden by law from marrying.

As for the lead into polygamy, if marriage is nothing more than an expression of consent, then what is to keep the “contract” from allowing what in the first days of
the sexual revolution was called “open marriages.”? Those were polygamous. even though they did not restrict sex to one buck. A strong male could have his pick.

[Robert in SD]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

When there were countries in the direct control of the catholic Church (the Papal States), or countries which had a particularly relationship with the churh that gave it primacy (Ireland until recently, Portugal until recently, England before the reformation), what did we see in practice? Were homosexual acts illegal? were homosexuals prosecuted for physical acts for which heterosexuals were not? Were they jailed? Were their partners accorded the rights of the unmarried partners of heterosexuals, or the rights of married people? Possibly Taestron has a historical perspective that is informing his (understandably) angry speech.

I take issue with the implication that unjust discrimination against homosexuals was an action that was fostered by Church teaching. There were non-Chiristian and non-Catholic governments that certainly treated people with same-sex attraction with the same level of intolerance. However, the implication that it was a practice generated solely by the Catholic Church, and that without a Church homosexuals would have known no persecution is simply not supported by the evidence.

To the contrary, Christianity has always taught charity for all, including those who have same-sex attraction

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Emphasis added.)

It it not "persecution" or "intolerance" to tell someone that their actions have serious physical, mental, and spiritual consequences. But no serious Catholic could possibly advocate for the kind of persecutions that were suggested above, without violating fundamental tenets of the faith regarding works of charity and mercy.

These types of accusations move the parties further apart, and detract from any chance of real dialogue.

Peace,
Robert

[Robert in SD]

Originally Posted by holyrood

I would really feel this was a more honest discussion (the whole gay 'marriage' discussion, not this particular thread) if the question was put: is it time for society to change the definition of marriage and why, rather than act as if heterosexual people have some civil right that is denied homosexuals. NONE of us, to repeat, has a blanket right to marry anyone we choose, and none of us ever did.

I agree. Well said.

It's simply a fact that at no prior time in history has it been argued that marriage is an institution that flowed into the "alternative" lifestyle of same-sex couples. Rather, it was always the case that someone choosing to life the gay lifestyle was eschewing the traditional institution of marriage altogether. This was because marriage was always about recognizing the union of a man and a woman who commit to each other, and also commit to the raising of any children that arise from their union. Only in the last 10-20 years has the definition of marriage become so obscure that it is seen in popular terms as simply "the commitment of two people-who presumably love each other-to live together for the indefinite future." The question is whether or not it is a societal benefit to drop the latter part of the traditional definition, so that marriage become in essence, only what pop culture says it is.

In some states, like California, it's not even an issue of legal rights. It's just about staking a claim to the word. California already acknowledges that domestic partnerships (m/f, m/m, and f/f) all have identical rights as "married" couples. The argument (at least in California) is therefore whether or not same sex unions should be called "marriages." The fight is over the word, becaue to the gay community, the word allegedly carries society's "stamp of approval." From the traditional marriage side, it is argued that changing the definition will ultimately hurt society, by uncoupling the "married couple" from their commitment to raise children together, and from its traditional origins. The argument logically follows, that if pop culture defines marriage, who knows what it will become, and what cultural changes could arise.

While there is strong objection among Catholic Christians, conservative Protestant Christians, Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, LDS, and other faith-based groups, to a change in "marriage that would signal "approval" of a lifestyle that many feel is wrong, this is not the most critical objection. However, it is often the only objection that is addressed in the media. Probably because it is the most divisive.

Peace,
Robert

[Regular Atheist]

Yeah, I don't believe it's anti-gay to not support same-sex marriage. I have a friend who doesn't support same-sex marriage because he believes it is unfair to religions, even though he is very "liberal" and aren't religious. However, people who don't approve of same-sex marriage normally are anti-gay, and it was really the comments about homosexuality being the same as bestiality and paedophilia made by this Chick-fil-A guy that struck me as "anti-gay". The man is clearly anti-gay, but not because he doesn't support same-sex marriage.

[Marc Anthony]

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

Yeah, I don't believe it's anti-gay to not support same-sex marriage. I have a friend who doesn't support same-sex marriage because he believes it is unfair to religions, even though he is very "liberal" and aren't religious. However, people who don't approve of same-sex marriage normally are anti-gay, and it was really the comments about homosexuality being the same as bestiality and paedophilia made by this Chick-fil-A guy that struck me as "anti-gay". The man is clearly anti-gay, but not because he doesn't support same-sex marriage.

Good to know you disagree with the original premise stated by the CFA dissenters referenced in my OP.

It sounds as if he was comparing homosexual actions to bestiality and pedophilia, not homosexuals themselves. He was probably trying to use a poorly worded reductio ad absurdium.

Controversial? Yes.Incorrect? Debateably. Hateful? Even I wouldn't be surprised.

Definitely hateful? I don't think so. HomoPHOBIC? It seems very, very doubtful to me that he has a phobia of homosexuals.

[Robert in SD]

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

Yeah, I don't believe it's anti-gay to not support same-sex marriage. I have a friend who doesn't support same-sex marriage because he believes it is unfair to religions, even though he is very "liberal" and aren't religious. However, people who don't approve of same-sex marriage normally are anti-gay, and it was really the comments about homosexuality being the same as bestiality and paedophilia made by this Chick-fil-A guy that struck me as "anti-gay". The man is clearly anti-gay, but not because he doesn't support same-sex marriage.

I can't speak for all people, but for myself I am in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, and I am tolerant of the rights of people to engage in mutually consentual sexual acts in private, even if I personally believe (based on two thousand years of consistent Church teaching and natural law) that such acts are sinful and against nature. (I will offer my opinion on such conduct when and if it is appropriate.) Moreover, I agree with the Church's teaching that all people, including homosexual persons, must be received with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, avoiding all unjust discrimination.

I think this makes me neither a bigot, nor hateful, nor intolerant. Not sure how the other side sees it.

Peace,
Robert