Gay's Being Married?

[the protector]

I don't know why the government doesn't declare the legal union of two consenting adults a civil union and remove the term marriage. The aspects of "marriage" should be left to religion. No religious group should hold influence on secular law.

[Aloysius]

false.

society is built upon marriage.

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.

religious institutions may have influence on secular law, so long as CONGRESS PASSES NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF. The state recognizing the contribution marriage brings to the society is fine. That's what the state should do, work for the upbuilding of it's society. It recognizes that marriage upbuilds society, namely creating new life, and it grants those two ppl as a couple a special title in society and certain privledges through which they can work to raise good citizens they create.

[Aloysius]

double post

Edited May 17, 2004 by Aloysius

[Hananiah]

[quote name='winged messenger' date='May 5 2004, 08:22 PM'] I belive that gay's should be allowed to get married in the Catholic church. I think that you can't just go around and tell people what you can and can't do and if you did so that would be like being a communist like in North Korea or someplace else. [/quote]
Governments tell people what they can and can't do all the time. You can't take heroine, you can't beat your wife, and you can't watch child pornography. Besides, the Church and the government have legitimate, secular reasons for not allowing homosexual marriages. Allow me to quote myself:

The first question we must address is whether homosexuality is an inborn trait. If it were, the government would have little right to deny legal recognition to homosexual unions. However, it is my opinion that it is not, for the two most widely publicized studies which have purported to scientifically demonstrate that this is so, those of Drs. Hamer and LeVay, have yet to be replicated by other researchers [4], even though many have tried [5]. In their research paper “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraisal,” which can be found in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Drs. Byne and Parsons state “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges [6].” Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence that homosexuality is not inborn. For example, there are several documented cases of genetically identical twins who have different sexual orientations as adults [7]. Also, individuals who grow up to be homosexuals often share similar childhood psychological histories, such as hostile or distant fathers, overprotective mothers, subjection to great amounts of teasing by their peers, parental loss through death or divorce, etc. [8]. Several studies have shown that adult homosexual attraction can grow out of childhood gender identity disorder[9], which the American Psychiatric Association has defined as strong, persistent cross gender identification, a discomfort with one's own sex, and a preference for cross sex roles in play or in fantasies [10]. However, gender identity disorder can be cured if it is detected early and given proper professional treatment [11]. Similarly, among adults, treatment for unwanted same-sex attractions is about as successful as treatment for similar psychological problems: about 30% are completely cured and 30% experience improvement [12]. Dr. Lawrence Hatterer, who spent a great deal of his career treating same sex attractions, has stated” I have 'cured' many homosexuals… Any other researcher may examine my work because it is all documented on 10 years of tape recordings. Many of these 'cured' patients have married, had families and live happy lives. It is a destructive myth that 'once a homosexual, always a homosexual." It has made and will make millions more committed homosexuals. What is more, not only have I but many other reputable psychiatrists have reported their successful treatments of [homosexuals] [13].” Sadly, the media has chosen to ignore much of this evidence; however it is there for anyone who is willing to search.

The second question we must address is, so what if homosexuality is not an inborn trait, what interest does the government have in discouraging it? Well, for one thing it is in the interest of public health. Frankly, homosexual behavior is dangerous. Due to the high level of promiscuity and instability prevalent in homosexual relationships [14], and the inherent problems with having intercourse using body parts which were not designed for that purpose [15], homosexual persons are at a far greater risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases than the general population. For example, male practitioners of anal-genital intercourse are at an alarmingly high risk for anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C, and syphilis, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population [16]. Homosexuals are also at high risks for serious psychiatric problems. According to recent study done in the Netherlands, a country where homophobia is virtually non-existent, males who engage in homosexual sex are far more likely than those who do not to experience depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder [17]. The health effects of homosexuality are truly devastating. In fact, an epidemiological study done in Vancouver, Canada found that practitioners of male homosexual sex lost between 8 and 20 years on their life expectancy [18]. This is why it is imperative that the government discourage homosexuality, and discourage the notion that it is a permanent, genetically inherited trait. People who experience same sex attraction, for their own benefit, can and should be dissuaded from this lifestyle and referred to professionals who will help them to lead a normal life. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would serve only to further entrench the notions that “once a homosexual, always a homosexual,” and that same sex attractions are healthy, normal, and ought to be explored, and thus would cause more people to become entrapped in this dangerous lifestyle.

There is still another reason why the government should discourage homosexual behavior: the government has a vested interest in preserving traditional morality. Since the family is the fundamental building block of society, the survival of the nation as a whole is ultimately dependent upon the health of its families. If the moral health of a nation decays to the point where its families no longer produce enough children to support the elderly, as seems to be happening in countries like Germany, Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Spain, this is a sure sign of imminent cultural death [19]. This is to be avoided at all costs. Well, widespread acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice for anyone who is so inclined could only exacerbate these problems. Hence the policies of the federal and state governments should be conducive to a society wherein those who experience same-sex attraction are encouraged to seek treatment, reform themselves, and ultimately overcome their temptations to the dangerous homosexual lifestyle and become fully functional members of society: husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers. Obviously, granting legal recognition to homosexual unions would have the exact opposite effect. This is why homosexual marriage, and even civil union, can not and must not be allowed to become a recognized institution of American public life.

[4]In 1991, Dr. LeVay claimed that there was a difference between the brains of homo and heterosexual men. In 1993, Dr. Hamer claimed to have found a gene on the x chromosome which caused homosexuality.

[5]Crewdson, J. (1995) Study on 'gay gene' challenged. Chicago Tribune. June 25.; Horgan, J. (1995) "Gay genes, revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality," Scientific American . November : 28.†

[6]Byne, W., Parsons, B. (1993) "Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories reappraisal," Archives of General Psychiatry. 50: p. 228.

[7]Bailey, J. Pillard, R. (1991) "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry. 48: p. 1089.

[8]Bieber, I. et al. (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. NY: Basic Books. p. 316.†; Fitzgibbons, R. (1999) The origins and therapy of same-sex attraction disorder. In Wolfe, C., Homosexuality and American Public Life, Washington DC: Spense. p. 88.†

[9]Harry, J. (1989) "Parental physical abuse and sexual orientation in males," Archives of Sexual Behavior. 18, 3: p. 259.†

[10]American Psychiatric Association (1994) "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV," Washington DC: APA. p. 536.†

[11]Rekers, G. (1988) "The formation of homosexual orientation," In Fagan, P., Hope for Homosexuality , Washington DC: Free Congress Foundation.†

[12]Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA: NARTH.†

[13]Tripp, C. Hatterer, L. (1971) "Can homosexuals change with Psychotherapy"? Sexual Behavior. 1, 4: p. 42 - 49.†

[14]According to Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg [Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.‡], in 1978 15 percent of white, gay men claimed 100-249 sex partners, 17 percent claimed 250- 499, 15 percent claimed 500-999, and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000.

[15]"With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic. The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids" [Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., "The Health Risks of Gay Sex." Corporate Resource Council (2002)].

[16]Anne Rompalo, "Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men," Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990).‡

[17]Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): pp. 85-91, (January 2001).

[18]R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997).‡

[19]C.f. Lizette Alvarez, "Scotland Takes Action To Halt Drop In Population," The New York Times, November 30, 2003, p. 1-4.; "Fertility Rates," God's Plan for Life, [url="http://www.godsplanforlife.org/fertility_rates.htm"]http://www.godsplanforlife.org/fertility_rates.htm[/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Civil unions are a mockary of the sacred bond of marraige between a man and a woman.

[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.