…’Cause if gay marriage ends up becoming legal all across the country without a corresponding vote of the people, we’re going to have as roiled a society on that issue as we do on abortion.
~ Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, predicting the consequences if the Supreme Court rules broadly in favor of gay marriage, March 26
[Photo: ProCon]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m sticking to scripture. Homosexuality is an abomination. I’m against gay marriage. They are becoming as bad as pro aborts.
The reason gay marriage will be legalized is that people who oppose it fail to make the correct case against it — the compensatory case.
No woman has ever endured the horror of abortion because of a lesbian relationship. No woman has had a baby and inflicted what author and adoptive mother Nancy Verrier calls the “primal wound” caused by placing for adoption.
Lesbianism is MORE likely than heterosexuality to provide the female with pleasure.
Women in relationships with women have several major advantages. Why should those in heterosexual relationships be COMPENSATED for their greater risks and the likelihood of inferior pleasures?
Abortion isn’t controversial merely because there was no vote of the people. The enduring fight of the pro-life movement comes from the fact that over a million unborn babies die every year. Would there be some backlash from the public if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide? Probably– but it wouldn’t have the same life-or-death urgency, and it would fizzle out in a few years.
Excuse me. I meant to say: “Why SHOULDN’T women in heterosexual relationships be compensated for their greater risks and the likelihood of inferior pleasures?”
DeniseNoe- why do those that oppose gay marriage have to have a “correct” answer when it’s quite obvious that we’ll NEVER have a “correct” answer that is good enough for the gay community? That community is so stinkin’ bigoted that their minds are shut to ANY answer we can possibly give unless it’s packaged up in verbage only they’ve approved. Anything else is labeled as hate speech.
The truth is in the Bible. They reject the Bible for their own truths, therefore they break the first commandment of having other Gods because they make themselves and their truth, a god. Until they reject what they know to be wrong, then they’ll never be truly happy.
Marriage isn’t about setting up a house and playing husband/wife. There are already legal protections for gay unions and other types of relationships. Why go after the word marriage? It’s a covenant that God has put together and the Bible is very clear on this… what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. I know many people will use this to mean their own marriage, but this is the marriage covenant itself. Man can not destroy what God has created… man can try, and try hard, but it will not be destroyed.
Before someone goes femnazi on me… the word “man” is used in a neutral manner, meaning “mankind”.
“Anything else is labeled as hate speech.” Oh, yes. That’s going to be the lynch pin of the coming persecution.
And yes, I agree with the quote: bypassing democracy is NOT what the courts were designed for and yes, it will be as contentious as Roe v Wade.
Roe v. Wade should be tied in with gay issues. Why have same-sex relations been stigmatized? From the INDIVIDUAL’s POV, they are the better deal: no possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.
Heterosexuals take this risk. They want compensation for the special risks.
You guys are stuck in the past. The majority of Americans support gay marriage, and the percentage that do grows ever years. We’re not going to legislate against it because the Bible says it’s wrong. Sorry.
And there is this little fact that gay marriage doesn’t kill babies like the passage of Roe v Wade. I honestly doubt the pro-life credentials of anyone who tries to compare the two issues. On one hand, you’re fighting against people having a legal right to kill children, an issue that touches and affects every single person in the country. On the other you’re fighting against people who want to get married…. that’s really none of your business. If you seriously thing that gay marriage is as big an issue as babies being legally murdered you should probably sort out your priorities.
Denise — there is a critical flaw in your analysis. It is “true” that those who immerse themselves in the distractions of drugs & alcohol and infertile sex may experience more intense “pleasure” for a time. But this is not the natural order for real and sustained human HAPPINESS.
What makes a person truly happy is sacrificing oneself toward some greater accomplishment. And for the overwhelming majority of humanity, this means teaming up with a person of the complementary sex (“marriage”) and working together to raise children (“family”).
When a culture is ordered toward supporting and celebrating marriages and families, that culture is happy. This was the culture of High Christendom, which sustained for over a thousand years.
Our culture is no longer sustainable, because we have stopped encouraging families. The Greatest Generation gave birth to the Baby Boomers, who have committed cultural suicide. We encourage extra-marital sex, divorce, single-mothers, and infanticide. We encourage infertile sex, first contraception and now same-sex activity.
And Bible Christians are overwhelmingly hypocritical about marriage and family. Our culture won’t turn around until Christians get it right.
— The Bible forbids divorce and remarriage, but modern Christians condone and indulge in multiple marriages.
— Whenever the Bible talks about children, children are always considered to be treasures and blessings and gifts. But Christians have embraced contraception, and refuse the gift.
— So when the Bible says that homosexual acts are an “abomination,” we are hypocritical in forcing the biblical rule against others while failing to apply the Bible to ourselves.
Only the Catholic Church has held to the biblical teachings, and She is hated for it. Most American Catholics do not follow the teachings of their own Church.
The loving truth is that same-sex pseudo-marriage will NOT make the homosexual individuals happy, just as divorce and contraception have not made heterosexuals happy.
And stop with the hysterics about being labeled hate speech. WBC has had their vile crap upheld in court multiple times. You almost certainly aren’t going to say anything near as disgusting as them, you will be just fine.
That doesn’t mean that people won’t criticize your views if they don’t like them, which is part of living in a free speech society. If you say things others find repugnant, they will probably say so.
” When a culture is ordered toward supporting and celebrating marriages and families, that culture is happy. This was the culture of High Christendom, which sustained for over a thousand years. ”
Lol Christendom was happy. I think you should read a little more about history.
What gives you the right to decide how others will be happy? It’s certainly valid to have an opinion on what will make people happy, but to force people to abide by what you decide works for them is just… yeah.
I’m going to go back to Rush’s original comment: A Supreme Court decision that over-rules the will of the people will be bad, because it will result in turmoil similar to Roe v. Wade.
The liberal elitists are counting on this. They know that they have to impose their superior vision upon the unenlightened hoi polloi. It is the only way to achieve their utopia of ultimate freedom.
“Gay marriage” is not even important to the elitists who are advocating for it. What they want is another tool for suppressing Christian teaching and culture.
Here’s the pattern of Christian statements…. Notice how the Laws of the Land have systematically been turned to oppose Christian teachings.
Christians have always said:
– Public prayer is good, and we ought to do it.
– Divorce is bad, and we ought not to do it.
– Contraception is bad, and we ought not to do it.
– Pre-marital sex is bad, and should be discouraged.
– Adultery is bad, and should be strongly discouraged.
– Homosexual acts are bad, and should be publicly avoided.
– Abortion is murder, and should be criminal.
See how the laws in the last half-century have turned against common sense and moral behavior? It is a systematic effort to undermine Christian culture in the post-Christian age.
It is my business Jack when health class for my kids is about all kinds of “lifestyle choices” including homosexuality.
No thank you.
After all of this marrying for “love” stuff happens what is to stop a pedophile from marrying a child for Loooooooooooove?
I don’t think the government should be involved in ANY marriage, at all! So this whole thing just looks silly from my POV. I’m, like, supposedly a bigot and stuff because I don’t openly support legal gay marriage, and I’m also accused of being a “progressive” because I refuse to make a stink about “protecting traditional marriage”.
I do laugh a lot at this debate between both sides, however.
It is my business Jack when health class for my kids is about all kinds of “lifestyle choices” including homosexuality. No thank you.
That’s a different discussion altogether. I oppose such challenges to parental authority, and don’t really think school is the place to be discussing where and how people get their kicks in the bedroom. But that’s also not what this debate is about, either.
After all of this marrying for “love” stuff happens what is to stop a pedophile from marrying a child for Loooooooooooove?
Pedophilia is illegal because it harms a child, and is child abuse. I’m curious as to how two homosexual consenting adults would qualify for a comparison to such things. I also think bringing that up to Jack is not really fair, given that we all know his history.
“It is my business Jack when health class for my kids is about all kinds of “lifestyle choices” including homosexuality.
No thank you”
Then should any “lifestyle” that I don’t personally agree with be legislated against? That doesn’t make sense. People are gay. You will teach your kids that’s a sin, and that’s fine. I’ll teach my kids I don’t agree with all kinds of stuff. Most of the stuff I don’t personally agree with I’m not trying to get banned from other adults from doing.
“After all of this marrying for “love” stuff happens what is to stop a pedophile from marrying a child for Loooooooooooove?”
You can see a parallel between raping a child and two adults being in a relationship they mutually consented to? I don’t see a parallel at all. And I find it highly offensive.
You can’t take a union that makes cars and say, we’re going to replace the car parts with pansies and redefine that union, because there’s this group of people that strongly believes you should be able to make cars out of flowers. Ok? There’s unions that protect functions.
If you change the definition of the union, it alters the function of the union, not only redefining the union and the outcome of the union, but also destroying it in the process. That’s the real argument. The equitable purpose of marraige is to benefit, not only children created in the union, but to create a individual union defined by the one standard that allows for character growth, and healthy fences which set the stage for honorable discussion as to what children need to be healthy, happy and secure in each and every individual and unique union. It is an EQUITABLE UNION. The point is not social status for the adults. Protecting children from irresponsible adult action is ALWAYS the common interest. Kids raised in Homosexual unions are 12 times more likely to be molested by a family member. This is not because practicing homosexuals don’t care about kids, but it is because gender identity disorder causes a definitive neglect of what the sexual orientation of adults can bring into a child’s life.
In Los Angeles a gay organization posted billboards of rainbow colored condoms, which looked like a packet of candy. Above the graphic read: LIFE SAVERS.
To adults engaging in recreational sex with partners they don’t trust, this advertisment might seam mature, even like public service.
But to children, whose interest was obviously either neglected or exploited by the purveyors of the ad, the ad can be read in many ways, and to children already being sexually molested, the ad would seam like a social rejection of the freedom all sexually enslaved children dream about. It puts a seal of approval on sin. The government should not be promoting this.
Children are desperate for role models. If they are constantly discouraged because they don’t understand the natural function of male / female role models, they will fail to understand what equitable unions can bring forth unto humanity, society, and culture. Sanctioning open homosexual displays in distinguished public arenas is just as destructive to young children as teaching adolescents in school that abortion should be considered the responsible option to unwanted pregnancy. It’s discouraging, especially to the most sensetive and caring children. It takes the focus off of protecting the young and into the realm of an equation where money + power + wealth + security = goodness. In reality, it doesn’t ad up. It voids not only God, but natural law, in which the beatiful but fragile hold a supreme purpose over the ultimate security of society. If we neglect the role and value of homemakers, and the pre-born, our society will erode, and fast.
It teaches children that they can be both childish and immature and still very sexual. Like it or not it breeds pedophilia. Sexually active adults have to recognize the results of the pro-creative union. Marriage clearly states the most truly powerful and responsible outcome for human sexuality, and as an institution, it is a role model for the youth to aspire to inherit.
The word ‘sex’ was redefined to also include same-sex sex. How did this happen?
Should be more comfortable talking about chastity and sex with our kids, or should we first start with eachother. The problem I think derives from not practicing what we preach. We preach the ten commandments, but then go out to eat with our families after church, impuning judgement upon the waitstaff the sin of committing servile work, while also reaping judgement upon ourselves from the temporary profit. By these little actions, we void out our voice on the larger issues.
Basically the gay movement is a social fashion whose outshoots have yet to prove the movements failed math. When Mr. Borsch says
“The majority of Americans support gay marriage,” he is talking about the 51% reported in some obscure pole taken by msnbc, whose authors remain unreported. 51% is not most Americans. It is one half. That’s a gross exaggeration.
The proponents of redefining marriage are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
“That’s a different discussion altogether. I oppose such challenges to parental authority, and don’t really think school is the place to be discussing where and how people get their kicks in the bedroom. But that’s also not what this debate is about, either.”
Tyler and I had a good discussion about parental rights when it comes to health classes and sex ed. It’s really an issue that parents should have a lot of control over, hopefully at a district or school level. Doesn’t have much to do with whether adults should marry or not. Parental rights are a different thing.
And I do agree a better alternative is removing marriage from the state’s control and just issuing civil unions for all couples. But as long as people refuse to see that as an option, I don’t have an issue with gay marriage being legalized.
People seriously need to stop comparing homosexuality to child rape. There’s really no comparison. And there are not more “gay” child molesters than ‘”straight” ones.
An honest question then… so gay marriage is now legalized. What’s to stop them from suing the crap out of the religious institutions that don’t believe in it and refuse to do it just because two gay people claim to practice said religion? Where is the religious freedom for that particular Church to uphold, live, defend its stance? Not in a hateful manner, but in an honest manner of saying “We don’t do gay marriages.”
We’re already seeing this kind of forcing of the gay agenda onto those that don’t agree with it.
As for the parental rights thing… it’s already happening. It’s already being violated. Parents are being stigmatized if they teach their children a right versus wrong that is different from the liberal agenda being taught in schools.
“What’s to stop them from suing the crap out of the religious institutions that don’t believe in it and refuse to do it just because two gay people claim to practice said religion? ”
First Amendment. And I honestly don’t care whether the churches say it hatefully or not, they have the right to their own religious beliefs within their congregation.
To be clear, social backlash isn’t suppression of religion or free speech. No law guarantees that a church won’t be protested or talked badly of because of their views. A law does guarantee the free practice of their religion.
“As for the parental rights thing… it’s already happening. It’s already being violated. Parents are being stigmatized if they teach their children a right versus wrong that is different from the liberal agenda being taught in schools.”
Show me a law that says that people can’t be stigmatized for having views that other people don’t agree with? I don’t agree with stigmatizing people but it’s not illegal. No law protects you from social backlash. I do think people should be able to opt their children out of classes that they don’t agree with, it’s totally wrong if they can’t. I know in my state you can opt your child out of sex ed but you can’t opt your child out of being physically punished, I think that violates my rights as a parent just as much.
DeniseNoe: These “risks” that you speak of, like getting pregnant and having children happen to benefit the ENTIRE society. In fact, had the baby boomer generation done a better job of replacing themselves, Social Security would not be failing. Heterosexual marriages matter because CHILDREN matter. You would never guess that though, if you look around at our culture. Truly tragic.
Jack, no adult should display recreational sexual behavior to children.
There is a difference between responsible adult sexuality or love, and irresponsible adult sexuality or ‘love,’ and your promoting perversion as noble.
1 Corinthians 6:19
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, or idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.”
Please pray for Jack Borsche and those who support his error.
I understand the comparison of the two issues with respect to judicial fiat.
Other than that, the two issues have nothing to do with one another. You cheapen your opposition to abortion when you oppose gay marriage just as vehemently. One of them is the killing of an unborn child. The other is two men walking through the park, holding hands.
“Jack, no adult should display recreational sexual behavior to children.”
Of course they shouldn’t. Being with a partner when you are gay isn’t displaying recreational sexual behavior though. People comparing this to actual child molestation or other forms of child abuse is disrespectful to people who have actually been abused, not to mention disrespectful to gays who would never hurt a child.
“There is a difference between responsible adult love, and irresponsible adult love, and your promoting perversion as noble. Please pray for Jack Borsche and those who support his error.”
I don’t “promote” homosexuality. If no one in the world was gay I wouldn’t care one bit. I do support protecting the rights of gay couples though.
Perverted in your opinion.
CityofAngelsNativeMission.com: “Jack, no adult should display recreational sexual behavior to children.”
I agree! But that’s more of a point that’s directed to all adults, gay or straight. There’s a difference between a.) teaching tolerance in a school by telling elementary-school students: “Sometimes a man will love a man in the same way another man may love his wife,”referring only to romantic love, and b.) explaining graphic sex to the same (or older) students. I support the first, but not the second.
What is determined by you as a ‘Right’ violates the rights of children to be protected by homemakers and house wives which are protected by the union you hope to share with couples whose only public bond is the desire for social acceptance. That is not a sustainable trust.
I find it highly offensive when people try to re-define a word that has already been defined to fit their agenda.
“What is determined by you as a ‘Right’ violates the rights of children to be protected by homemakers and house wives which are protected by the union you hope to share with couples whose only public bond is the desire for social acceptance. That is not a sustainable trust.”
First, you are doing that thing that opponents of homosexuality tend to do, which is completely deny that most gay people want to be in monogamous marriage relationships for basically the same reasons that straight people do. Love, security, building a life together, etc etc. It saddens me that you’re so intent on proving that you’re right that you frame their motives as just wanting public acceptance. It’s a thinking error on your part.
Considering very, very few children grow up with a homemaker or housewive as their primary caregiver (it’s great when it happens, but seems to not be happening much anymore), I think your beef is with straight people with their high rates of divorce, single parenthood, and other issues. Gay parents are an extremely small percentage of parents.
“I find it highly offensive when people try to re-define a word that has already been defined to fit their agenda.”
Exactly as offensive as comparing being raped to people having consensual relationships?
I don’t think children should be taught that a man can love a man in the same fashion that a man can love a woman, because it’s not possible, common sence dictates that.
How will the union of matrimony still be respected as a security assurance of home makers and child bearers if it is soley about granting rights to people who have a preference in opposition to the elements that compose the union they hope to join (in order to alter and whose purpose their joining hopes to deviate the established social order and water down to meaninglessness the defined protections of such same said union), the only single union which is critical to any civilization, as it allows for the creation of and protection of children.
Here comes the kicker.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
This is a war over what aldus huxley called a “Brave New World.” If you watch Maafa21 you will learn more about how those hoping to control fertility are the same behind Margaret Sanger and Agenda21
I am not comparing the two.
Once homosexual “marriage” is legal because of love what is to stop other relationships to marry for love? Or equality? Or whatever this is about.
Just saw group marriage come up in Norway was it? Can’t remember which country. Two husbands, two wives, One husband, three wives, cousins……anything goes.
I in no way say things to offend Jack knowing his history. And if I have Jack I apologize. Please forgive me. You know me better than that.
“Once homosexual “marriage” is legal because of love what is to stop other relationships to marry for love? Or equality? Or whatever this is about.”
It’s not legal because of love. People don’t have to be in love to get straight married either. It’s a legal contract between consenting adults.
This is part of the reason I agree with X that marriage should be left to the religious sphere and legally only civil unions should be issued to those who want them. Marriage has different connotations religiously than it does legally.
“I in no way say things to offend Jack knowing his history. And if I have Jack I apologize. Please forgive me. You know me better than that.”
I was offended, but I know that you weren’t trying to hurt or upset me at all. I do know you better than that.
I agree with you and X on that.
And now I shall be done. These threads end up in ugliness.
Thank you for forgiving me. I was thoughtless.
First, you are doing that thing that opponents of homosexuality tend to do, which is completely deny that most gay people want to be in monogamous marriage relationships for basically the same reasons that straight people do. Love, security, building a life together, etc etc. It saddens me that you’re so intent on proving that you’re right that you frame their motives as just wanting public acceptance. It’s a thinking error on your part.
Open relationships (even among those gays who are married) seem to be common. About half participate in non-monogamous sex in their marriages/committed relationships. At the end of an article from San Francisco, it says this:
Three out of 4 people described non-monogamy as a positive thing, and said it gave them a sexual outlet without having to lie. Participants reported it helped relationships survive by providing honest options and minimizing deceit, tension and resentment. Some “played” independently, others as a threesome, and about 80 percent agreed to tell all or some details of their encounters, the rest preferring a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Constant communication about negotiated sex agreements is the surest way to stay safe from AIDS and other diseases, Lowen and Spears said.
Having an open partnership is not incompatible with same-sex marriage, said Spears, 59.
At least half those interviewed were married, having taken their vows during one of the two brief times when it was legally sanctioned in the city or the state.
“It’s a redefinition of marriage,” Spears said. “The emotional commitment, the closeness, all of it is there.”
This is from the San Fran Chronicle, and it’s attempting to paint this as some sort of wonderful thing that should just be accepted, and hey, don’t worry about any sort of STD epidemic, because they’re super discriminating about who they sleep with (because that totally works for straight people).
…Waiting for Jack to say how he has zero respect for this tabloid sham of a publication and for the people who wrote it because they’re as bad as Dan Savage, like others who disagree with him on gay marriage….
I do not speak out of hate or out of homophobia. I have no fear or hatred of gay people, only love and compassion, as I try to understand what they go through in their lives. But frankly – and I’m going to say this once and I’m done with this conversation – I take GREAT offense – to someone actually equating this type of “marriage” relationship as mentioned in the article with my marriage of almost 20 years to a man who has only been with me, and I with him.
That being said, I also do not equate pedophilia with homosexuality. And I am also not against civil unions.
But no matter what those red equal signs try to portray, in my opinion, it is NOT the same kind of relationship or the same kind of marriage. To say to us or our children that this kind of “commitment to one while sleeping with many” is the same as or just as valid as what we have is just not true.
And what happens when children are involved in such a living arrangement?
Dad #1 is sleeping with a couple other guys, while Dad #2 stays home to take care of little Susie?
Dads #1 and #2 are sleeping with Uncle Frankie while little Susie sleeps down the hall?
At some point, Susie will grow up, and Susie will not know what a fully committed, monogamous relationship looks like. And I’m sad for Susie.
I would be sad for Susie if she were in a household with a husband and wife with such an arrangement, as well.
“Open relationships (even among those gays who are married) seem to be common. About half participate in non-monogamous sex in their marriages/committed relationships. At the end of an article from San Francisco, it says this:
[snip quote]
This is from the San Fran Chronicle, and it’s attempting to paint this as some sort of wonderful thing that should just be accepted, and hey, don’t worry about any sort of STD epidemic, because they’re super discriminating about who they sleep with (because that totally works for straight people). ”
Yeah, and what is that prevalence compared to promiscuity, open relationships, infidelity, and other forms of fake “monogamy” among straight people? The last I saw most straight people have more than one partner over their lifetimes, men have an average of 7 to 9 and women an average of 4 or 5, I believe. Last studies I saw on infidelity had nearly 50% of men and women admitting to infidelity at some point in their lives. It seems to me a systemic problem with the hook-up culture that’s going on than something exclusive to gay people. I do think that gay men are probably more promiscuous on average, because men in general tend to be more promiscuous on average. Probably easier to find a slutty guy to sleep with than a woman.
Polygamy and polyamory started out with straight people, anyway, and was prevalent in different cultures at different times. Don’t think it’s right, but I think it’s weird to act like it’s a new problem that appeared with the LGBT community.
“…Waiting for Jack to say how he has zero respect for this tabloid sham of a publication and for the people who wrote it because they’re as bad as Dan Savage, like others who disagree with him on gay marriage….”
Well you can wait for me to say it but I’m not gonna! I said that about one person, not those who oppose gay marriage in general. I don’t like that particular pundit. And Rush. I don’t like him either. I think he’s about on the level of inaccuracy and hate that Savage puts out.
” Dad #1 is sleeping with a couple other guys, while Dad #2 stays home to take care of little Susie?
Dads #1 and #2 are sleeping with Uncle Frankie while little Susie sleeps down the hall?
At some point, Susie will grow up, and Susie will not know what a fully committed, monogamous relationship looks like. And I’m sad for Susie.”
I’m sad for Susie too. Seems like she gets the same example as thousands of kids from divorced families where the parents bring around new partners without regards to their children’s well-being.
The last I saw most straight people have more than one partner over their lifetimes, men have an average of 7 to 9 and women an average of 4 or 5, I believe.
And do they admit to having these sex partners WHILE married? There’s a difference there.
Last studies I saw on infidelity had nearly 50% of men and women admitting to infidelity at some point in their lives.
Yes, but do you see the difference? We call that adultery or infidelity because it’s unfaithfulness in the marriage. It’s wrong. It’s a breaking of the vow of marriage. Unless, of course, you’re taking a vow to “keep myself only for you unless some other hot guy comes along.”
It seems to me a systemic problem with the hook-up culture that’s going on than something exclusive to gay people.
But Jack, this article – and these people doing this – don’t see ANY problems with that “hook-up culture.” They’re LIVING it and claiming to be married, and claiming their marriages are as valid as monogamous ones.
I do think that gay men are probably more promiscuous on average,
I don’t really know. It’s possible. My point is that why is this sort of “arrangement” considered accepable in the gay community, when it is generally frowned upon in the hetero community? It is treated differently. Why?
Polygamy and polyamory started out with straight people, anyway, and was prevalent in different cultures at different times.
And has been completely frowned upon in THIS culture, because it’s wrong, and destructive to the family. So to hear about half of the gay community supporting such an arrangement – this doesn’t disturb you at all? This doesn’t make you think that maybe the next thing coming down the pike after gay marriage is three gay people who “marry?” Or four? I think this was Carla’s point.
I’m sad for Susie too. Seems like she gets the same example as thousands of kids from divorced families where the parents bring around new partners without regards to their children’s well-being.
YES!! So why would we legitimize any sort of arrangement, like half the gay population is doing, labeling it as acceptable or good?
” And do they admit to having these sex partners WHILE married? There’s a difference there.
Yes, but do you see the difference? We call that adultery or infidelity because it’s unfaithfulness in the marriage. It’s wrong. It’s a breaking of the vow of marriage. Unless, of course, you’re taking a vow to “keep myself only for you unless some other hot guy comes along.””
The studies I have seen don’t ask people how they came to have so many sexual partners, it doesn’t say whether these were one night stands, dating relationships, or multiple marriages, or open relationships. I can’t find any hard data on how prevalent open relationships are among straight people.
Do you think infidelity (which is apparently a huge problem for every community) is worse than open relationships? I don’t think either are good, but infidelity is a whole other level of wrong.
” But Jack, this article – and these people doing this – don’t see ANY problems with that “hook-up culture.” They’re LIVING it and claiming to be married, and claiming their marriages are as valid as monogamous ones.”
Yes, in Frisco the majority of gay people approve of the hook up culture and open relationships. If you did a study on gay people that don’t live in a notoriously libertine and unorthodox area, you’d probably have much different findings. Actually, if you interviewed straight people in San Francisco you’d probably have findings that don’t represent the sexual practices of the majority of the US. Like I said, it’s notorious for being unorthodox.
” And has been completely frowned upon in THIS culture, because it’s wrong, and destructive to the family. So to hear about half of the gay community supporting such an arrangement – this doesn’t disturb you at all? This doesn’t make you think that maybe the next thing coming down the pike after gay marriage is three gay people who “marry?” Or four? I think this was Carla’s point.”
I think that you and I have a different view of what legal marriage is. Which is why I think X is right about having civil unions for all couples and letting churches decide what marriage is recognized. There are straight people who are married right now and sleep around, their marriage is legally valid but I doubt you would see it as valid as yours. Which is fine, socially and religiously it’s not the same thing as your marriage. Legally, though, I don’t see how it’s different.
It does disturb me that so many people support open relationships, but I don’t believe that that survey is representative of what gay people actually believe.
” YES!! So why would we legitimize any sort of arrangement, like half the gay population is doing, labeling it as acceptable or good?”
Okay, but you are equating allowing legal marriage for gay people with legitimizing open relationships and other things. That’s like saying you are totally pro-divorce and infidelity (which tons and tons of straight people do) if you support straight people getting legally married. Legally recognizing gay marriage doesn’t mean that you have to support and cheer on people sleeping around.
The libs are very astute: using “popular” issues to bulldoze over our democracy. Fine. Enjoy it while you agree with their issues. But the precedents are being set, and you won’t always agree with what your formerly democratic government is going to do to you.
I’ve studied enough history both ancient and recent to realize: this is not going to end well for us. I have read recent articles by gay people who ADMIT that a more extreme group is using this issue, USING it, to get to another objective.
If you think this is about harmless guys and gals enjoying their relationships, you are duped. If that’s what it was really about, we could have made civil unions popular. This is a doorway to persecute Christians. The denial of this that I’m reading on the internet this week is going to be cold comfort when the persecution turns truly ugly. Agnostics and atheists that think this is no big deal. They are not going to stand up and protect me later. If not now, then when?
” I’ve studied enough history both ancient and recent to realize: this is not going to end well for us. I have read recent articles by gay people who ADMIT that a more extreme group is using this issue, USING it, to get to another objective. ”
Yeah… and white supremacist groups and “churches” like the WBC and others co-opt Christian goals and turn them ugly, it doesn’t mean that Christianity is bad or that their goals and values are wrong. Judging a group by extremists is unfair and poor reasoning. Otherwise it would be perfectly valid to judge all us pro-lifers by nutjobs and extremists who want to bomb clinics and kill abortionists.
“If you think this is about harmless guys and gals enjoying their relationships, you are duped. If that’s what it was really about, we could have made civil unions popular. This is a doorway to persecute Christians. The denial of this that I’m reading on the internet this week is going to be cold comfort when the persecution turns truly ugly. Agnostics and atheists that think this is no big deal. They are not going to stand up and protect me later”
You really think that agnostics and atheists like me and X and Mary and JDC, people you know aren’t bigots, aren’t going to stand up for your rights? Do you not see us arguing against the birth control mandate as infringing on your religious rights.
Kel,
Having somewhat recently left a marriage in which my partner wanted us to “swing”, all I can do is look at the stats you apply to homosexuals and laugh. Seriously. As if homosexuals invented that kind of behavior. SMH.
Jack – No one here said being gay is a sin. Acting on gay tendencies, your lazy tendencies, your judgmental tendencies, whatever – these are sins.
God’s will is for us not to engage in gay acts or gay lifestyles because IT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR US!
That being said, I do not know what legal grounds we have for banning same sex marriage … Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
Having somewhat recently left a marriage in which my partner wanted us to “swing”, all I can do is look at the stats you apply to homosexuals and laugh. Seriously. As if homosexuals invented that kind of behavior. SMH.
I don’t believe I ever stated that this kind of behavior was exclusive to homosexuals, nor do I believe it to be.
My point is that it seems that 50 percent of the gay population who claim to be in committed/marriage relationships “swing,” yet claim this is just a “redefinition of marriage.” It is as if they believe non-committal marriage is supposed to be normal, acceptable, even HEALTHY behavior (since they claimed it gave them better sex lives). I assume by your tone that you disapproved of the idea of “swinging” in you and your partner’s marriage. I don’t know why it should ever be acceptable, but my question is WHY is it so PREVALENT and looked upon FAVORABLY in the gay community?
To me, there seems to be a big difference in what passes for commitment. That was my point.
It does disturb me that so many people support open relationships, but I don’t believe that that survey is representative of what gay people actually believe.
“Why is that not believable to you?” would be my next question.
“Jack – No one here said being gay is a sin. Acting on gay tendencies, your lazy tendencies, your judgmental tendencies, whatever – these are sins.
God’s will is for us not to engage in gay acts or gay lifestyles because IT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR US!”
I understand this point of view. I don’t think I have even once claimed you or anyone else has to support “acting out” gay tendencies. Actually, I don’t think I have ever argued that anyone shouldn’t see being in a gay relationship as sinful. If I have someone can point it out to me and I will apologize. I am arguing against using this point of view to legally bar people from marrying.
” “Why is that not believable to you?” would be my next question. ”
Like I said before, you’re using a survey from a notoriously unorthodox, libertine (and in my opinion flat out crazy in some ways) area and generalizing it to all gay people. I do not believe that is fairly representative of most gay people. Survey gay people who live in Nebraska or Utah or something and you might get much different answers. Plus self-reporting surveys like that one seems to be are pretty prone to error.
In my experience gay people are about the same as straights. Some are slutty (and I do believe gay men tend to be more promiscuous, at least when single, than most other demographics but that’s just a personal observation that I don’t have numbers to support), some are more traditional, and some involve themselves in sexual practices that I don’t believe the majority support. My sister has had I think two girlfriends in her entire life, and is quite opposed to “sleeping around”. Lumping gay people like her into a community like San Francisco is unfair.
Also, about the Christian persecution thing, I think it’s just ridiculous.
Anyone who knows me knows that I stick up for Christians on facebook all the time. My better half is Christian, my children, my parents, my brothers and sisters…I am literally the only one of my family that I know is not a believer.
I don’t understand why you would think that there’s a non-believer among the Pro-Lifers here who wouldn’t fight tooth-and-nail for our Christian friends and family if it was required of us.
” I don’t understand why you would think that there’s a non-believer among the Pro-Lifers here who wouldn’t fight tooth-and-nail for our Christian friends and family if it was required of us.”
Projection, possibly?
Okay that was mean of me. But it was a rude thing to accuse us of.
I assume by your tone that you disapproved of the idea of “swinging” in you and your partner’s marriage. I don’t know why it should ever be acceptable, but my question is WHY is it so PREVALENT and looked upon FAVORABLY in the gay community?To me, there seems to be a big difference in what passes for commitment. That was my point.
There are plenty of married heterosexuals who look at swinging and see it as acceptable or favorable. I was born about 20 miles or so away from San Francisco, and am well familiar with the culture there in that particular area. I’m sure you also don’t know the kinds of hook-up websites and communities my ex tried to introduce me to, so I can see why you might look at a single study of homosexuals in a notoriously promiscuous city and try and compare that to the general population of heterosexual married couples when you’re actually looking at the in real life city population equivalent of adultfriendfinder(dot)com.
Lifejoy,
That being said, I do not know what legal grounds we have for banning same sex marriage … Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
The first question, as asked by Justice Scalia yesterday was: “When was it legal /Constitutional in the first place?”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/26/Scalie-unconstitutional-to-exclude-homosexuals
Hi Jack. Hope you are doing well. I’ve been thinking and praying for you.
As a libertarian I agree with you and X. Let them have legal civil unions and leave MARRIAGE in the religious sphere. Marriage is ordained by God so why is the government meddling in it and trying to ruin it at all?
I am against prostitution and drugs but I think adults should be able to make those decisions without the government. However, I would strongly caution that immorality of any type (and yes homosexuality falls into that) is bad for society. But that doesn’t mean the government can or should tell adults what they can and cannot do even if I think it is bad for everybody in the long run. I just don’t want this nanny state. Part of liberty is the freedom of adults to make less than healthy decisions.
Homosexuals live decades less than heterosexuals do. Don’t tell me they’re all looking for monogamous relationships. Drug use is very rampant in the LGBT community and so is promiscuous sex. I know this firsthand from my gay friends who even admit to me they don’t know if they ever want to get married…they’re too busy sleeping around but want the option “just in case”
That being said, I do not know what legal grounds we have for banning same sex marriage … Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
The legal issue in my mind is who gets to define an institution – God or the government. If marriage is seen as a natural institution which is grown out of a world where rights come from nature and nature’s God then marriage has existed prior to the Government and the government simply recognizes it; however, if you don’t believe in God and natural institutions then marriage is simply a legal construction fabricated by men and therefore can be changed by the Supreme Court and government. To me, the issue of same-sex marriage is, in part, about determining the extent of government power. (It is about equal rights for those in favor of it.)
On a separate note, I was wondering what people thought of homosexuals raising (and adopting) children? This seems to be the major concern of most people who want to defend the traditional definition of marriage. How did come about that gay adoption was permitted before gay marriage? From a legal perspective, this all seems to be backward.
Legalize Lust? You have come a loooonng way(down the road to hell) baby! That is where Roe v Wade and ‘gay marriage’ both begin.
True love is wanting the very best and the most of that that is possible even if it means that one may be left out of that situation. Lust means that there may be hell to pay here and in the hereafter.
All of the above is IMO.Hope we all get to Heaven! The only way to get there is to choose God and His Way over someone or something else. Who do you LOVE?
Exactly as offensive as comparing being raped to people having consensual relationships?
I can and am offended at more than one thing. I won’t list them all here today though.
This is a doorway to persecute Christians.
I absolutely agree. And by saying that, I’m not accusing any specific person(s) here of that desire or capability. I’m talking as a whole.
With that said, I’m outta here too before I’m called names, diagnosed or accused of derailing the thread. Peace.
“Hi Jack. Hope you are doing well. I’ve been thinking and praying for you.
As a libertarian I agree with you and X. Let them have legal civil unions and leave MARRIAGE in the religious sphere. Marriage is ordained by God so why is the government meddling in it and trying to ruin it at all? ”
Thanks Sydney I appreciate the prayers. I am doing well. And I do agree, marriage should be seen as a religious/social contract or bond and left to churches or other groups to decide what marriages they see legitimate. Government controls legalities, the government shouldn’t be involved in the decision. Though, while everyone on both sides is refusing to do this, I think gay couples should have the legal recognition of marriage.
“Homosexuals live decades less than heterosexuals do. Don’t tell me they’re all looking for monogamous relationships. Drug use is very rampant in the LGBT community and so is promiscuous sex. I know this firsthand from my gay friends who even admit to me they don’t know if they ever want to get married…they’re too busy sleeping around but want the option “just in case””
Spend some time in more urban communities and you’ll see this for everyone, gay or straight. I do think that gay men tend more promiscuous, but I think that’s more the difference between biology and socialization of males and females than something specific to gays. I do believe straight men would sleep around as much as gays do if it were possible. And in some communities they do along with straight women.
Lesbians tend to have the lowest rates of STDs. Gay men the highest. That actually is specific to homosexuality (certain sex acts are more or less risky compared to others), but it’s still adult’s rights to partake in risky behaviors. I also personally think a lot of the depression and drug use in the LGBT community is due to how people treat them, but I can’t prove it.
Historically, as much as marriage has been restricted to heterosexual couples, gay people never really demanded to be able to get married to each other before. Thus, the laws of the land merely recognized the de facto definition of marriage in the sense that this is how things always were and therefore there was no Constitutional issues. Futhermore, it the anti-sodomy laws also made same-sex marriage legal out of the question. So while homosexuals were never restricted from marrying someone of the opposite sex they were restricted from marrying a person of the same-sex, and this is due in large part because of society’s traditional understanding of the definition of marriage.
The anti-sodomy laws seem pretty fair in retrospect since they applied equally to everyone – heterosexuals and homosexuals. Additionally, they focused on the activity or behavior and not the person.
“The anti-sodomy laws seem pretty fair in retrospect since they applied equally to everyone – heterosexuals and homosexuals. Additionally, they focused on the activity or behavior and not the person.”
Well, if by fair you mean unequally enforced in general, and very intrusive, I would agree.
Ok, point taken, San Fran may not be the best indicator.
However, there are various other studies that might be considered, compiled here (because really, who else is gonna look for this research?):
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
For the record, I am undecided on the view that government should get out of marriage altogether. I am still trying to figure out exactly where I stand on this with regards to legality. And as i already said, if people want to form civil unions, I am not against that.
As for the morality of it, I am a Christian and know where I stand, and that isn’t going to change, regardless of the law. However, I will always teach my children that regardless of a difference in belief or lifestyle, we must love and respect people, even if we disagree.
If you’ve stated here that you’re already opposed to the Obamacare mandate, then obviously you’re not going to throw Christians under the bus. However, many agnostics and atheists have already turned away with indifference. Some even blatantly admit that since religion is stupid, we need to be “liberated from it.”
I thought I was helping these last couple years; framing arguments, blah blah blah. But the women and children I help, I help in person. I’ve got to consolidate my efforts where they are actually bearing fruit. Thanks for all the kind words over the last couple years and keep up the good fight. I’ll see you on the front lines. Until abortion ends.
Well, if by fair you mean unequally enforced in general, and very intrusive, I would agree.
Inappropriate or unfair enforcement is a separate issue which can be dealt with by monitoring the policing of such laws more closely. But what do you think of the laws themselves – they seem more like the laws that people want in society because they apply the principle of ”loving the sinner, hating the sin.” We have not yet talked about the (de)merits or the morality of engaging in anal sex and/or oral sex. For all the overt sexuality in our culture, our society has become less mature about talking about sexual issues or activities.
I agree with you, ninek. This is it. If we disagree with gay marriage, we are hateful bigots. Just wait until we “hateful bigots” are not only socially persecuted, but legally as well. I’m imagining this further coupled with anti-bullying, anti-guns, etc. etc. We conservative Christians are, after all, responsible for the world’s unhappiness. Sound crazy? Just listen to what the “leader” of our country says on any given day and what the media does to people’s minds on any given night.
And, ninek, you have been very helpful and encouraging to me with your wise and compassionate words. You and a couple others are the main reasons I keep coming back here. But I hear ya. We all have to conserve time and heart for the things that affect others and ourselves in the most positive and important ways.
“But what do you think of the laws themselves”
Take a wild guess Tyler. Just because I may not partake in certain activities doesn’t mean I think that other adults should be banned from them.
“I thought I was helping these last couple years; framing arguments, blah blah blah. But the women and children I help, I help in person. I’ve got to consolidate my efforts where they are actually bearing fruit. Thanks for all the kind words over the last couple years and keep up the good fight. I’ll see you on the front lines. Until abortion ends.”
I think your words are valuable on this site and I usually quite enjoy reading your posts even when I don’t agree.
Jack, as a defender of gay marriage and homosexuality does that mean you defend anal sex and oral sex? Do you think anal and oral sex are moral activities? Do these activities raise up individuals or do you think they demean individuals?
I’m sorry, I don’t see how people can think Christians are persecuted in the US. There are far more of you than non-Christians and there is Christian privilege in some aspects of society (I don’t think non-Christians are “persecuted” either). Christians do tend to be persecuted in countries when there is another religion as the majority.
“Jack, as a defender of gay marriage and homosexuality does that mean you defend anal sex and oral sex? Do you think anal and oral sex are moral activities? Do these activities raise up individuals or do you think they demean individuals?”
I don’t see why I should care about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And it’s weird to tie oral sex to homosexuality, I am 100% sure straight people partake in that just as much if not more.
I have no opinion on the morality of those sex acts. I think one of them is quite disgusting though, my personal tastes don’t dictate laws or morals.
Not exactly, Mr. Limbaugh, too many people now think homosexuality is natural. The legalization of “gay marriage” just means the end of marriage. Its also another sign of the end of Western civilization. As with ancient Rome, we’re ripe for invasion by the barbarians (Muslims?). Western civilization will end, but the Church will continue, and the barbarians themselves will become Christians–as my Germanic ancestors were–unless history and this world end first with the return of the Messiah.
I don’t see why I should care about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
From a Christian perspective there definitely is a reason to care – since the removal of laws against sodomy has led to the current situation where sodomy is now going to be recognized as a marital activity.
And it’s weird to tie oral sex to homosexuality, I am 100% sure straight people partake in that just as much if not more.
Lesbians really can’t engage in sodomy.
I have no opinion on the morality of those sex acts. I think one of them is quite disgusting though, my personal tastes don’t dictate laws or morals.
From a health perspective I am certain that vaginal intercourse is safer and a healthier activity than anal sex and even oral sex. Spiritually (not necessarily Christian), these activites cannot really said to make the individuals involved feel better about themselves. To be fair, I think most people, once they have cleared their heads, would recognize these activities as fetishes.
“That’s going to be the lynch pin of the coming persecution.” – coming persecution? Do tell.
“when health class for my kids is about all kinds of “lifestyle choices” including homosexuality.” – homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.
“After all of this marrying for “love” stuff happens what is to stop a pedophile from marrying a child for Loooooooooooove?” – what stops it now? Didn’t you marry for love? There is nothing which would indicate marriage equality will change the laws against pedophilia which both heterosexuals and homosexuals agree with.
“Dad #1 is sleeping with a couple other guys, while Dad #2 stays home to take care of little Susie?
Dads #1 and #2 are sleeping with Uncle Frankie while little Susie sleeps down the hall?” – that’s basically polygamy, same as heterosexuals sometimes practice. Gay marriage won’t induce or increase such events.
“like half the gay population is doing” – what rubbish!
“using “popular” issues to bulldoze over our democracy” – a contender for todays ‘ironic statement of the day’.
“My point is that it seems that 50 percent of the gay population who claim to be in committed/marriage relationships “swing,” yet claim this is just a “redefinition of marriage.” – more made up stuff.
“The legal issue in my mind is who gets to define an institution – God or the government.” – the US is not a theocracy.
“Legalize Lust” - what’s heterosexual marriage then? Seen how young people in certain states are when they get married, and divorced?
”This is a doorway to persecute Christians.” – how? Gay marriage will be legalised, not mandatory.
There simply is no honest or rational reason to continue to deny marriage equality.
“I know this firsthand from my gay friends who even admit to me they don’t know if they ever want to get married…they’re too busy sleeping around but want the option ‘”just in case.'”
Wow, what a revelation. I guess we should prohibit marriage for opposite gender couples now since most hetero individuals in the US aren’t exactly lining up for those famed purity balls.
“From a Christian perspective there definitely a reason to care – since the removal of laws against sodomy has led to the current situation where sodomy is now going to be recognized as a marital activity. ”
I’m not a Christian. And sodomy existed long, long before anti-sodomy laws and will exist if they are re-enacted. Depending on the society, there have been varying degrees of acceptance, but it’s something that people have been participating in forever.
“Lesbians really can’t engage in sodomy.”
Oh man.
“From a health perspective I am certain that vaginal intercourse is safer and a healthier activity than anal sex and even oral sex. Spiritually (not necessarily Christian), these activites cannot really said to make the individuals involved feel better about themselves. To be fair, I think most people, once they have cleared their heads, would recognize these activities as fetishes. ”
There is a higher risk of transmitting several STDs through vaginal intercourse versus oral sex, if condoms are used. Vaginal sex is far safer than anal sex though.
“I’m sorry, I don’t see how people can think Christians are persecuted in the US. There are far more of you than non-Christians and there is Christian privilege in some aspects of society (I don’t think non-Christians are “persecuted” either). Christians do tend to be persecuted in countries when there is another religion as the majority. ”
That’s because you’re not a Christian and you don’t persecute Christians, Jack. How would you experience it? When the news covers these stories? Har har. But really … It’s not the being a “Christian” per se, or simply “loving”
Jesus – it’s the living as a Christian, especially the disapproving of bad behavior that is persecuted.
Reality, the US does not have to be a theocracy in order to recognize that God exists. Democracy exists in a culture that either believes in God or not. And I know you won’t agree with the following but, in my opinion, God creates democracies and democracies don’t have the ability or authority to kill God.
It’s not like people are being required by college professors to stomp on Jesus’ name or anything.
“From a health perspective I am certain that vaginal intercourse is safer and a healthier activity than anal sex and even oral sex.”
Actually, as DeniseNoe keeps sort-of alluding to, sex between women carries a much lower risk of STI transmission, not to mention an approximately 0% risk of causing unwanted pregnancy.
“That’s because you’re not a Christian and you don’t persecute Christians, Jack. How would you experience it? When the news covers these stories? Har har. But really … It’s not the being a “Christian” per se, or simply “loving”
Jesus – it’s the living as a Christian, especially the disapproving of bad behavior that is persecuted.”
I was a “Christian” once upon a time. I didn’t see any type of persecution directed at me for the religious beliefs I professed. I’ve been treated worse for being non-religious. I did live in the rural south though, it may be different depending on the community.
I seriously don’t think people care one bit how you all live. It’s when people try to codify certain morals into law where the issues come up. People being jerks to each other isn’t persecution either, otherwise every single demographic ever is being persecuted at all times.
I don’t see why I should care about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And it’s weird to tie oral sex to homosexuality, I am 100% sure straight people partake in that just as much if not more.
It’s also my understanding that, while there is no “Catholic Kama Sutra” telling Catholics exactly how to have sex, oral stimulation that does not interfere with the procreative aspects of sex (ie the man still ejaculates inside the vagina) is not against Catholic teaching. If you limit sex entirely to acts that are both procreative and unitive you basically rule out foreplay altogether, which seems to take the ‘unitive’ aspect out in my opinion…
Regardless, I can’t really imagine why any of it is the government’s business.
“It’s not like people are being required by college professors to stomp on Jesus’ name or anything.”
Where did this happen? If it did, the person it happened to should sue. The ACLU would help them.
“Actually, as DeniseNoe keeps sort-of alluding to, sex between women carries a much lower risk of STI transmission, not to mention an approximately 0% risk of causing unwanted pregnancy.”
That’s what I said before, lesbians who never have sex with men generally have lower rates of STDs than any other demographic besides virgins.
Actually, as DeniseNoe keeps sort-of alluding to, sex between women carries a much lower risk of STI transmission, not to mention an approximately 0% risk of causing unwanted pregnancy.
That would only be because of unfaithful men and women. I was talking about the activities in a purified form, detached from past relationships and mixed sexual activities. For instance, a faithful married couple that *only* engages in vaginal intercourse have a zero risk of catching an STD. A couple that engages in other sexual activities, such as anal sex, aside from vaginal intercourse introduces the risk of creating an STD.
“That would only be because of unfaithful men and women. I was talking about the activities in a purified form, detached from past relationships and mixed sexual activities. For instance, a faithful married couple that *only* engages in vaginal intercourse have a zero risk of catching an STD. A couple that engages in other sexual activities, such as anal sex, aside from vaginal intercourse introduces the risk of creating an STD.”
Anyone who has one partner ever, who has also only had one partner, has zero chance of catching an STD, Tyler, no matter the gender of their partner. A married couple who has oral sex with only each other plus vaginal sex won’t catch an STD either. Neither will they catch one from anal sex, though the possibility of infections (which aren’t diseases, and you can get them from vaginal sex with one partner too) is higher.
Mr. Limbaugh has a good analogy, but there is one helpful distinction to make. Abortion often treats fetal matter; homosexuality often treats fecal matter. Still, they’re both deeds, they both matter, and they’re both wrong.
“Lesbians really can’t engage in sodomy.”
Oh man.
I thought you would like that one Jack! But it is true – there is no way for them to do this.
By the way, how do you separate your support for gay marriage and supporting anal sex and oral sex? By supporting gay marriage aren’t you supporting anal sex and oral sex by default?
“By the way, how do you separate your support for gay marriage and supporting anal sex and oral sex? By supporting gay marriage aren’t you supporting anal sex and oral sex by default?”
What are you even alluding to? I already told you I think that stuff is none of my business between other adults, and I’m not telling you my personal preferences lol. I simple don’t care what other grown-ups do in bed, as long as everyone is of age and consenting. If one of my friends asks me if I think a certain activity is “wrong” or not (for example: I think promiscuity tends to be quite damaging), I’ll tell them but for the most part it’s not my business.
Anyone who has one partner ever, who has also only had one partner, has zero chance of catching an STD, Tyler, no matter the gender of their partner. A married couple who has oral sex with only each other plus vaginal sex won’t catch an STD either. Neither will they catch one from anal sex, though the possibility of infections (which aren’t diseases, and you can get them from vaginal sex with one partner too) is higher.
Thanks for the clarification (I will look into this). For the moment, what do you make of your own point?
“like half the gay population is doing” – what rubbish!
“My point is that it seems that 50 percent of the gay population who claim to be in committed/marriage relationships “swing,” yet claim this is just a “redefinition of marriage.” – more made up stuff.
Apparently, you didn’t read the San Francisco Chronicle article I linked to. Perhaps you can write to the authors of the study and tell them their statistics are “rubbish” and “made up.”
“Thanks for the clarification (I will look into this). For the moment, what do you make of your own point? ”
What point? Those were simply facts.
Agree with Jack and bmmg. They said it better than I was going to anyway.
“Perhaps you can write to the authors of the study and tell them their statistics are “rubbish” and “made up.”….”Ok, point taken, San Fran may not be the best indicator.” – the problem doesn’t lie with their stats.
“After studying the sexual patterns of 566 gay male couples from the Bay Area for three years” – that’s like going to a ‘Jones’ family reunion and coming away claiming that half the population of the world must be named ‘Jones’.
It’s also my understanding that, while there is no “Catholic Kama Sutra” telling Catholics exactly how to have sex, oral stimulation that does not interfere with the procreative aspects of sex (ie the man still ejaculates inside the vagina) is not against Catholic teaching. If you limit sex entirely to acts that are both procreative and unitive you basically rule out foreplay altogether, which seems to take the ‘unitive’ aspect out in my opinion…
I don’t have a response to this comment, but I just want to say that I found it funny. Thanks Alexandra. I could tell you what the Catholic Church teaches about oral sex but it would only spoil the humor of your comment.
I can’t copy and paste on this site, Jack, but yes, that happened…recently. That’s why LifeJoy brought it up.
You could Google it, I suppose.
Jack, your point/fact that risk of an STI is higher when a couple engages in anal sex.
“Jack, your point that risk of an STI is higher when a couple engages in anal sex. ”
Well, oral sex is less risky than vaginal sex too. Penetrative sex (vaginal and anal) is more risky than non penetrative sex (oral, intercrural, and masturbation, etc). It’s neither here nor there, though. If people want to take that risk with a consenting partner then that’s their business. I don’t see how it’s ever my business until the participants ask for my approval or something. Jeez.
Pamela I googled it, and what I can find is an opinion article about someone who claims his professor graded him down for using the Bible as a support for an opinion piece against marriage equality. Is that what you guys are talking about?
Not all homosexuals indulge in anal intercourse.
Some heterosexuals do.
Some lesbians practice various forms of anal activity.
Any attempt to equate the legalising of homosexual activity/marriage/whatever with pedophilia is the most dishonest, bigoted and ignorant ploy in this discussion.
the problem doesn’t lie with their stats.
And did you read the FRC stats as well?
By the way, it’s not only the San Fran Chronicle that ran this GLOWING story about how half of Bay Area gay couples “swing,” it was in The New York Times… which stated, “None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it.”
Did anyone point out in these articles that maybe this isn’t representative of all gay people in the U.S., or was the article meant to normalize the idea and to “redefine marriage” as the article actually stated? By the way, I’m betting that other areas with large populations of gay couples show the same stats. Read the FRC data, compiled from several sources and studies, not just the San Fran one.
I know, I know… if it doesn’t fit with the gay people you know, it can’t possibly be true. But according to the study authors and the not-exactly-conservative reporting on this, perhaps the gay people you know just aren’t talking about it.
” I know, I know… if it doesn’t fit with the gay people you know, it can’t possibly be true. But according to the study authors and the not-exactly-conservative reporting on this, perhaps the gay people you know just aren’t talking about it.”
Like I tried to explain before, where are the numbers to compare to straight people? You can’t really say that this is a problem in the gay community, when you haven’t compared it to straights and see how the numbers match up. And how is it valid to state that this must apply to all gay communities even if they deny it, but you said before that most straight people don’t outright condone it so it must not be happening as much?
Oh, by the way, when Reality shows up, as he so often does, with nothing to back his typical “rubbish” assertions – regardless of the issue, it’s my cue to leave, because that sort of dialogue isn’t very constructive for discussion. Nite, everyone.
Have a nice night Kel.
Like I tried to explain before, where are the numbers to compare to straight people?
Like I posted before, a link to the FRC data, compiled from various studies, doing exactly that.
Sorry, I missed this: And how is it valid to state that this must apply to all gay communities
I didn’t say all gay communities. I said I would bet that it was the same in areas with larger gay communities.
Goodnight, Jack.
I would like to point out that while lesbianism has several advantages, including a high likelihood of sexual pleasure, little of STDs and NONE of an unwanted pregnancy, the high rate of domestic violence among this group means they take risks when having actual relationships (as opposed to just sex acts). I have read that the rate of physical battery is higher in lesbian relationships than in either heterosexual relationships or gay male relationships. This high rate of violence gives the lie to the simplistic idea that domestic violence exists to enforce “patriarchy.”
Nevertheless, it remains true that of the 1 1/2 millions abortions per year in this country, NOT ONE was the result of lesbianism. No babies are found in toilets, dumpsters, or beside the road because of lesbianism. And, yes, it is also true that no woman have ever suffered the trauma of carrying to term, giving birth, and then placing a baby for adoption because of a lesbian act.
“And did you read the FRC stats as well?” – well I’ll admit I didn’t want to but since you insisted I did. My initial sense was quickly confirmed. The FRC, really?
“By the way, it’s not only the San Fran Chronicle that ran this GLOWING story about how half of Bay Area gay couples “swing,” – yea and if I took a straw poll as people left a mormon church service I could soon announce that 99.8% of the worlds population is mormon.
“it’s my cue to leave, because that sort of dialogue isn’t very constructive for discussion” – pfft! More like its because you can’t justify your argument with rational and unbiased evidence.
“I didn’t say all gay communities. I said I would bet that it was the same in areas with larger gay communities.” – well there you go then, devaluing your won argument. Are there similar studies regarding heterosexuals in highly socially active inner urban environments? What about hippies in the late 60’s and early 70’s?
Glad to provide you with a laugh, Tyler. You are welcome to share your thoughts if it won’t spoil your private joke. I’ve discussed this with a priest, among others; and it’s also a frequent (and debated) topic on Catholic Answers Forums, with no one ever providing actual evidence to support the claim that oral stimulation is intrinsically evil. To my knowledge, the Church has no official stance on the morality of oral sex, only on the requirements that the marital act, in each “session,” be both unitive and procreative, and that each spouse avoid objectifying the other. The closest I can find is Pope Pius XII, who said:
“Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts – the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed – that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.”
Also per Fr. Matthew Herbiger at EWTN.com:
“Traditionally, the Church teaches that a married couple may engage in oral sex foreplay, but this should always lead to a climax through vaginal sex. Oral sex is not to be used as an alternative to vaginal sex, as a form of birth control.”
It seems ludicrous to me to consider kissing or touching any part of the body, except a handful of very specific ones, to be “part of” the marital act, and kissing or touching that select handful of body parts to be separate from the act, and therefore a perversion of it, if the intent and result is the same – so long as Catholics moderate themselves and do not objectify their spouse, but rather view their actions as part of the overall marital act.
None of this is to say that oral stimulation MUST BE part of sex, or that oral sex is always okay. It seems to me that the church’s position is that oral sex is potentially fine within the unique context of each couple and their unique bodies, bonds, and moral challenges. ie, alcohol is a real struggle for some people; they struggle to be “themselves” when they drink, they struggle to moderate their drinking. They lust after alcohol. It would probably be a sin for those people to consume alcohol. This does not mean that alcohol is intrinsically evil, or that having a glass of wine with dinner is a sin for everyone. It means that each person needs to prayerfully decide, using their well-formed conscience and the support of their priest if necessary, whether alcohol use is a sin for them or not. Likewise, if it is impossible for a given person to engage in oral stimulation without moderating himself or his lust, or without objectifying his partner, then it’s sinful for him; but that does not mean it’s sinful for everyone.
that should read “devaluing your own argument” – typus interruptus no good :-)
People really need to stop judging people who love one another and want to get married. There are all kinds of loving people; two wives, three guys, one kid and 2 wives, 3 guys and 2 kids. What’s most important is that they all love each other and it’s none of our business. The family these days comes in all shapes and sizes. Be tolerant.
***MUST STOP GETTING ANGRY AND SURPRISED WHEN PRO LIFE WEBSITES OBSESS ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE**** I’ll never learn!
Well, oral sex is less risky than vaginal sex too. Penetrative sex (vaginal and anal) is more risky than non penetrative sex (oral, intercrural, and masturbation, etc). It’s neither here nor there, though. If people want to take that risk with a consenting partner then that’s their business. I don’t see how it’s ever my business until the participants ask for my approval or something. Jeez.
I had to look up intercrural – never heard of that before. Jack, your permissiveness is broad. If people kept their bedroom activities private I would be happy. But to me, keeping it private means not parading it down the streets. I think truly keeping private would help calm a lot of people. Also, this is sort of a follow-up question to yesterday’s discussion: do you think these type of non-reproductive *sexual* activities should be discussed in school and be a part of a school’s sex-ed curriculum? In other words, does *keeping it private* also include keeping it out of the sex-ed curriculum?
Any attempt to equate the legalising of homosexual activity/marriage/whatever with pedophilia is the most dishonest, bigoted and ignorant ploy in this discussion.
What if pedophiles try to use homosexual marriage to gain access to children?
(By the way, I constantly experience typus interruptus. At least that is what I am going to say I experience.)
Hey Jasper – long time no see! I can understand and respect why people would oppose gay marriage. I didn’t used to be able to but I do now. I think it’s silly for people to pretend that marriage is about “love” when it’s about so many things. It’s about benefits, finances, family…there is a lot wrapped up in this and I personally don’t like when people reduce it to “love” just because emotional arguments are easiest.
“do you think these type of non-reproductive *sexual* activities should be discussed in school and be a part of a school’s sex-ed curriculum?” – they exist, they are part of human sexuality therefore yes.
“In other words, does *keeping it private* also include keeping it out of the sex-ed curriculum?” – only if you keep out heterosexuality under the guise of ‘keeping it private.
“What if pedophiles try to use homosexual marriage to gain access to children?” – how do pedophiles use heterosexual marriage to gain access to children?
“It’s about benefits, finances, family…” – well that is its origin.
Sorry, I should add that I don’t mean to downplay the importance of love, or of anyone’s relationships, by saying it’s “silly” to “pretend” that marriage is about love. Love is important. Just, over the years I have come to respect other points of view, that marriage is not about “love” or at least the feeling of love (ie rather than the action), etc.
“And I honestly don’t care whether the churches say it hatefully or not, they have the right to their own religious beliefs within their congregation.”
And there’s the rub. You can believe whatever you want in your churches. But if you want to enter the world with your beliefs – well then you need to play by the rules. And the rules are going to be judged by what is acceptable to atheists. So you will run your business according to secular rules. And if you’re not an actual church building with steeples, you will cater to gay weddings or be sued and fined. Free speech has proven pretty hardy so far in the courts, as you mentioned, but it could easily go the way of our other first amendment right which is being subjected to a pretty stunning narrowing.
There are a lot of nuanced legalities in the cases here that are missed by almost everyone in the media. People are just talking about the legality of gay marriage apart from the legal realities of the cases. In terms of that question, I look at it this way. The case has to be made that for the purposes of marriage two men and two women are similarly situated to a man and a women. So there has to be no difference between a man and a woman for the purposes of marriage. In order to concede that, you have to accept a view of marriage that is utterly untethered from history and reality. Most importantly, marriage has to be completely uncoupled from the concept of family and children and has to be exclusively about the professed emotional love of adults. And if that’s what marriage is, then it is meaningless….but then that’s not a problem since if you press most gay marriage supporters enough, they ultimately admit that they think marriage is mostly meaningless.
Alexandra, I don’t want to disturb your profound reflection on the morality and acceptability of oral sex by sharing my thoughts. I only wish to encourage you to continue down this road of meditation that you are taking. Way to go. It is most impressive and inspiring.
What’s it’s origin, Reality? Sorry, I had a beer tonight and I’m a lightweight. :/
I think it’s pretty ridiculous to tie benefits to crap like marriage and employment, for example. I think we create a lot of our own problems in that regard. Because legitimately, that is a life-and-death issue that everybody needs (and deserves) to be on the “life” side of. You want to be pro-small-business? Stop supporting a system that says that someone’s boss arbitrarily decides the quality of their kid’s healthcare – and can change their mind from year to year, so that no one can leave a crappy job and strike out on their own, or no small business can afford to expand. etc. It’s feudalism masquerading as a free market.
Likewise, I think that there are a lot of different things that get discussed when we talk about “marriage.” Because marriage means a lot of different things. In a lot of situations, it means physical survival. As a gainfully employed adult – doing better than some of my peers, since we all entered into a crappy economy – I have primarily gotten health insurance not through my jobs but through my relationships. Never – not once – on my own. That is a freaking crime. It’s absurd to tie all of these things into “marriage” and then act like marriage is symbolic, or sacred. It’s survival, to a lot of people. That’s what I mean. Before talking about marriage we need to agree on what marriage actually is.
“I think it’s pretty ridiculous to tie benefits to crap like marriage and employment, for example. I think we create a lot of our own problems in that regard”
Yes. Absolutely.
OK, Tyler. In the absence of any argument from you I guess I will just keep taking the word of priests and a former Pope. If you are ever up to articulating your thoughts, feel free to.
“nuanced legalities” – hm.
“So there has to be no difference between a man and a woman for the purposes of marriage” – and there should be a difference why? Or at least, in what way?
“you have to accept a view of marriage that is utterly untethered from history and reality” – that would be the one where the woman is a chattel belonging to the man would it? The one where women can’t be employed after marriage? The one where they can’t have their own bank account or vote?
“has to be exclusively about the professed emotional love of adults. And if that’s what marriage is, then it is meaningless….” - so you believe that couples should undergo fertility tests before being allowed to enter into marriage and that any who already know they can’t have children needn’t apply?
“Jack – No one here said being gay is a sin. Acting on gay tendencies, your lazy tendencies, your judgmental tendencies, whatever – these are sins.
God’s will is for us not to engage in gay acts or gay lifestyles because IT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR US!”
“I understand this point of view. I don’t think I have even once claimed you or anyone else has to support “acting out” gay tendencies. Actually, I don’t think I have ever argued that anyone shouldn’t see being in a gay relationship as sinful. If I have someone can point it out to me and I will apologize. I am arguing against using this point of view to legally bar people from marrying.”
Yeah, Jack. I went with brevity and lost clarity. I was addressing your comment:
“People are gay. You will teach your kids that’s a sin, and that’s fine. I’ll teach my kids I don’t agree with all kinds of stuff …”
If you “understand this point of view” then you need to articulate it correctly or be prepared to hear my chime in to clarify that …
* What people ARE is not a sin. We are all sinful, and we committ sins.
You may think I’m being nit-picky, but this distortion leads to all sorts of strawmen and even erroneous Christian perspectives.
The obvious example, and per the “love” discussion … A real gem floating around on facebook is the one of a kid holding up a sign saying “my mommy taught me to LOVE more and HATE LESS.” Poor kid’s mommy should teach him that disapproval is not hate, before he feels super hated for making a mistake some day.
“I had to look up intercrural – never heard of that before. Jack, your permissiveness is broad. If people kept their bedroom activities private I would be happy. But to me, keeping it private means not parading it down the streets. I think truly keeping private would help calm a lot of people. Also, this is sort of a follow-up question to yesterday’s discussion: do you think these type of non-reproductive *sexual* activities should be discussed in school and be a part of a school’s sex-ed curriculum? In other words, does *keeping it private* also include keeping it out of the sex-ed curriculum?”
Okay, first off I’m not “permissive” because that implies I have the power or wish to decide which sexual activities are okay for other consenting adults. I don’t, I only have the power to do decide what sexual activities are okay for me (and of course with my hypothetical partner’s consent).
Do you believe a heterosexual couple kissing and holding hands in public is wrong or “parading” their sexuality around? I believe that gays and straights should be held to the same legal standards of public behavior. And honestly I have seen some stuff from straight couples at the beach that would make Marquis de Sade blush.
“What if pedophiles try to use homosexual marriage to gain access to children?”
Well, pedophiles use heterosexual marriage to gain access to children right now. I don’t see how that means that straight people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. I don’t think that child abuse is worse in gay households and I haven’t seen any proof that gays molest children more.
And seriously I find the constant bringing up of pedophilia in these conversations almost always a red herring and dishonest.
“What’s it’s origin, Reality? Sorry, I had a beer tonight and I’m a lightweight. :/” – the origins of marriage were to protect property and other assets, (supposedly) ensure the paternity of offspring and in some cases to maintain peace between groups. So as you said “It’s about benefits, finances, family…”, in its origins.
Alexandra, thankyou for thinking I could persuade you but really I don’t think I could ever convince or persuade you to my position. The reasons: you are too smart and you are travelling down the right road from what I can tell. Keep journeying.
Kel, I looked through that link and I just don’t see that I can take it as an unbiased true look at the issue. First off FRC has an admitted anti-homosexuality lean, it would be like taking information from NOW about abortion being awesome as the golden truth. And looking through FRC’s references I see stuff from over twenty years ago, studies from admitted anti-gay organizations, and things like surveys from Parade magazine. Those aren’t viable studies,
YES CT!! THANK YOU for explaining that so clearly. Exactly how I view the “bigger picture” abortion, STDs, etc are all pieces in the puzzle.
How I explain my opposition to redefining marriage to non-believers is this:” as long as I can’t legally deny someone services as a business owner when/if I feel it would violate my deeply held beliefs I wont stop actively working against the ROM.”
I can think of two business owners financially penalized b/c they stood by their freedom of religion within the framework of running their family businesses. B&B owners in Vt and a wedding photographer in a state I’ve forgotten.
This goes for race, sex, etc my mind too.
Tyler, the only truly intelligent thing I’ve ever done is seek out the opinions of people more intelligent than myself, which begins by seeking out the opinions of people who both agree and disagree with me, and deciding whether, based on what I know and what logical conclusions can be drawn, I think they’re right or wrong, and going from there. I disagree with you; I think you’re wrong. I have never read a convincing and well-founded Catholic argument that would suggest you’re right. So if you are unwilling to point me in the direction of any, I will keep on keeping on.
Alexandra, what do you think my opinion is on oral sex?
” And there’s the rub. You can believe whatever you want in your churches. But if you want to enter the world with your beliefs – well then you need to play by the rules. And the rules are going to be judged by what is acceptable to atheists. So you will run your business according to secular rules. And if you’re not an actual church building with steeples, you will cater to gay weddings or be sued and fined. Free speech has proven pretty hardy so far in the courts, as you mentioned, but it could easily go the way of our other first amendment right which is being subjected to a pretty stunning narrowing.”
Don’t overstate the issue. When you’re out in the community you are going to be judged by the prevailing opinion of that community. My agnostic viewpoints are highly unwelcome and judged harshly where I grew up and some other communities. Your religious views are going to be judged harshly in San Francisco and some other communities.
Anyway, federal laws against discrimination aren’t “secular rules” or being “judged by atheists”, it’s an attempt to prevent people from being discriminatory.
And plus I think you and I have talked about the issue of whether the businesses can refuse to serve gay people (or interracial couples, or Christians, or atheists), and I don’t think I have a firm opinion on it. Do you think that it should be legally fine for someone to refuse service to someone for their religious views, or marriage status when it’s not about homosexuality? Should it be fine to not hire someone on basis of their gender or race?
“The case has to be made that for the purposes of marriage two men and two women are similarly situated to a man and a women. So there has to be no difference between a man and a woman for the purposes of marriage. In order to concede that, you have to accept a view of marriage that is utterly untethered from history and reality. Most importantly, marriage has to be completely uncoupled from the concept of family and children and has to be exclusively about the professed emotional love of adults. And if that’s what marriage is, then it is meaningless….but then that’s not a problem since if you press most gay marriage supporters enough, they ultimately admit that they think marriage is mostly meaningless”
Marriage has been redefined and changed depending on culture in a gazillion different ways, you are simply looking at a small time frame in mostly European societies and acting as though this always was and always has been, and that people are doing something dramatic here. Just like when people claim homosexuality has always been looked down on they are looking at a limited amount of time.
I see people talking about legal benefits of marriage more than the “love” aspect. I think the “love” aspect is a stupid argument since legal marriage was never about love in the first place. It is about family structure in some ways though, and I don’t see how gay families are intrinsically different than an infertile couple or a couple who has adopted children. Though I don’t think you have to prove that it is to legalize gay marriage.
“nuanced legalities” – hm.
Meaning the legal issues are not the “simple” question of the constitutionality of gay marriage.
“and there should be a difference why? Or at least, in what way?”
B/c marriage is about the unity and stability of the biological union that produces children.
“that would be the one where the woman is a chattel belonging to the man would it? The one where women can’t be employed after marriage? The one where they can’t have their own bank account or vote?”
That would be social structures that were tied to marriage but unrelated to the definition of marriage. So marriage did not change when women ceased to be considered chattel, gained employment, voted, and owned property.
“so you believe that couples should undergo fertility tests before being allowed to enter into marriage and that any who already know they can’t have children needn’t apply?”
No. But marriage does not exist for the emotional needs of heterosexual adults either. Even if a given couple cannot or will not have children, the fact remains that it is that union alone that does give rise to children. That is what marriage is. That is what the state recognizes. Permitting marriages between the opposite sex that ultimately produce no children by chance or choice, is not the same as redefining marriage to make adult emotions the purpose of the union and to make children completely irrelevant to it. To have gay marriage, you have to define marriage that way.
Kel: “Dad #1 is sleeping with a couple other guys, while Dad #2 stays home to take care of little Susie?
Dads #1 and #2 are sleeping with Uncle Frankie while little Susie sleeps down the hall?”
Sounds like a good argument for allowing homosexuals to marry — to promote monogamy rather than promiscuity. The scenarios you’ve described could happen just as easily within heterosexual relationships.
Tyler, I think that your opinion is the one you stated upthread:
“Spiritually (not necessarily Christian), these activites cannot really said to make the individuals involved feel better about themselves. To be fair, I think most people, once they have cleared their heads, would recognize these activities as fetishes.”
You also stated that you find my comments funny and that telling me what the “Catholic Church teaches about oral sex” would only spoil the humor of my comments.
Alexandra, what is it that you would like me to do or say exactly?
Anyone who thinks that oral sex is a fetish doesn’t understand the definition of a fetish.
Hi Alexandra,
I haven’t picked on you in a while! LOL.
I hope you’re doing well. I really do not have anything against gay people. One of my best friends is bi-sexual and another friend from work is transgendered.
I just think marriage should be for a man and a women. Mostly for the benefit of a stable environment for children to be raised.
Tyler, I’m not asking you to do or say anything, but I would appreciate knowing what is so funny about my comments, why they are funny to you when taking into account the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Jack, my question about pedophiles abusing homosexual marriage was directed at Reality. As for linking homosexuality and pedophilia I did not do that – I don’t know the degree of linkage, if any.
By the way, you didn’t really respond to the question about whether homosexual “sex” acts should be taught in school as part of the sex-ed curriculum. Would homosexual “sex” acts be part of the “just the facts” program you mentioned yesterday for teaching human reproduction?
“If you “understand this point of view” then you need to articulate it correctly or be prepared to hear my chime in to clarify that …”
I was using it as shorthand for “some people are in gay relationships”. I’ve argued about this issue a lot, I assumed people knew what I meant. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear.
“The obvious example, and per the “love” discussion … A real gem floating around on facebook is the one of a kid holding up a sign saying “my mommy taught me to LOVE more and HATE LESS.” Poor kid’s mommy should teach him that disapproval is not hate, before he feels super hated for making a mistake some day.”
Well some people who oppose gay marriage to genuinely hate gay people, I think most people who oppose gay marriage don’t. The crazies tend to drown you rational people out though, but that’s true of most movements.
” By the way, you didn’t really respond to the question about whether homosexual “sex” acts should be taught in school as part of the sex-ed curriculum. Would homosexual “sex” acts be part of the “just the facts” program you mentioned yesterday for teaching human reproduction?”
I don’t think that there are many (if any) acts that are performed between gay people that aren’t performed between some straight people. Straight people participate in anal, oral, and whatever acts you are calling “homosexual”.
Like I said on the other thread, beyond basic human reproduction, I’m not sure what other sexual practices (if any) should be taught by schools.
Though it does appear that people might need to be taught that you won’t get STDs from having one partner who has only had one partner, even if you have oral and anal sex with them. I’ve find it odd you didn’t know that.
Edit: When I said “taught by schools” I didn’t mean that it is ever appropriate for schools to go “hey kids this is fun and this is how you do it”. At most something like “this is what anal sex is, this is the risks of participating in this activity” or something of that nature. I’m not sure about that,
I found the phrase “Catholic Kama Sutra” funny. The two ideas definitely don’t go together.
I found this brief article a good start at explaining my view on oral sex.
http://www.presentationministries.com/brochures/OralSex.asp
By the way, from what I can tell I don’t think you are reading the Pope’s comment accurately.
“I was using it as shorthand for “some people are in gay relationships”. I’ve argued about this issue a lot, I assumed people knew what I meant.”
Shorthand for you is another person’s shortcut on thinking. I figured, but like I implied, people repeat these things enough, it starts to sound like truth.
“Well some people who oppose gay marriage to genuinely hate gay people, I think most people who oppose gay marriage don’t. The crazies tend to drown you rational people out though, but that’s true of most movements.”
Yeah, those people … I know. Thanks a lot, people, for destroying credibility and just plain being jerks. You said it – some fiscal conservatives truly are greedy and dislike poor people, some pro-lifers truly think all women should be permanently barefoot and pregnant, etc.
“Meaning the legal issues are not the “simple” question of the constitutionality of gay marriage.” – it also means interpretation.
“B/c marriage is about the unity and stability of the biological union that produces children.” – so its pointless to allow post-menopausal women to wed.
“That would be social structures that were tied to marriage but unrelated to the definition of marriage.” – in some cultures it was the social structures which were responsible for the creation of marriage. They defined it.
“So marriage did not change when women ceased to be considered chattel, gained employment, voted, and owned property.” – well it obviously has, in many ways, at many times and in many cultures.
“Even if a given couple cannot or will not have children, the fact remains that it is that union alone that does give rise to children.” – homosexual marriages are capable of creating exactly the same environment as infertile heterosexual couples.
“Permitting marriages between the opposite sex that ultimately produce no children by chance or choice” – just like in gay marriage.
From Tyler’s link: “Second, I have been asked to counsel over a hundred married couples about oral sex as foreplay. After some time of discernment, not one has maintained that oral sex was a true expression of love. The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus. It could almost be said that one spouse is having sex with sex rather than with the other spouse. This focus on sex rather than on the spouse is a poison to love and marriage.”
People are so weird sometimes. You think when someone is having oral sex they are simply being lustful and selfish and not enjoying pleasing their partner sexually and “spiritually”? Ridiculous.
Oh and not to mention acting like oral sex is a recent invention lulz.
“Don’t overstate the issue. When you’re out in the community you are going to be judged by the prevailing opinion of that community.”
They can judge away. I’m talking about the force of law, not the judgement of individuals.
“Anyway, federal laws against discrimination aren’t “secular rules” or being “judged by atheists”, it’s an attempt to prevent people from being discriminatory.”
And what about the rules that if you want to enter the world by being a business owner then you are going to have to accept that that world is secular and, pay for insurance coverage for abortifacients and contraceptives. What about the rule that if you want to participate in any marketplace that relies on government funding and partnership (that’s a lot of marketplaces, and a huge amount that involve the charitable work of religious people – healthcare, adoptions), then you are going to play by the rules, and the rules say that you have to adopt to gay couples.
“And plus I think you and I have talked about the issue of whether the businesses can refuse to serve gay people (or interracial couples, or Christians, or atheists), and I don’t think I have a firm opinion on it. Do you think that it should be legally fine for someone to refuse service to someone for their religious views, or marriage status when it’s not about homosexuality? Should it be fine to not hire someone on basis of their gender or race?”
In general I think the anti-discrimination laws are ok (if abused but that’s another topic), but I think they’re misinterpreted in the case of sexual orientation and marital status in general. To me, that means you wouldn’t refuse to hire someone who was gay, wouldn’t refuse to sell them a cupcake or welcome them in your restaurant, wouldn’t refuse to take them for a ride in your cab. I don’t think it means, that it’s discriminatory to refuse to cater a gay wedding or in other ways show support for homosexual behavior. Most supporters of homosexual “civil-rights” completely reject such a distinction, but I think it’s the same as refusing to cater someone’s divorce party.
”Marriage has been redefined and changed depending on culture in a gazillion different ways, you are simply looking at a small time frame in mostly European societies and acting as though this always was and always has been, and that people are doing something dramatic here. Just like when people claim homosexuality has always been looked down on they are looking at a limited amount of time.”
Perhaps I’ve missed it, but in all the variations in the details of marriage over time, I’m not aware of any culture or time that ever defined marriage as something completely divorced from the biological reality of children. As to the view of homosexuality, it’s true that some cultures viewed homosexual behavior casually, but none of them ever treated it as in the same realm as marriage. Even when it was tolerated, it was still recreation.
“I see people talking about legal benefits of marriage more than the “love” aspect. I think the “love” aspect is a stupid argument since legal marriage was never about love in the first place. It is about family structure in some ways though, and I don’t see how gay families are intrinsically different than an infertile couple or a couple who has adopted children.”
You’re looking at the exception to marriage to redefine it. If marriage was about the emotional happiness of infertile adults, then you’d have a point. But it’s not about that. It just so happens that among the pool of people who biologically could procreate, some cannot or will not. And some get married. But marriage does not exist for their comfort or happiness. There is no such thing as a gay family unit. There are gay adults who may be in charge of children produced through their own or others’ heterosexual unions. But there is never a gay family unit absent that heterosexual involvement. As for the legal benefits, I think there is great support, even among those who support traditional marriage, to insure that gay people have access to a means to insure their contractual wishes are upheld. But in states like NJ where there are civil unions that provide all the legal privileges of marriage, there is still a push for gay marriage.
“Though I don’t think you have to prove that it is to legalize gay marriage.”
I think you need to prove that to make the argument that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. States can legalize it without proving that. It’s unwise, but it’s certainly something that is generally within the scope of state authority (barring state constitutional issues), but a broader argument is being discussed here.
C T, well phrased!
“People are so weird sometimes. You think when someone is having oral sex they are simply being lustful and selfish and not enjoying pleasing their partner sexually and “spiritually”? Ridiculous. ”
Thanks for sharing your comments Jack. I don’t think you really gave the point of the comment much consideration.
“Seriously, man just stay out of this one. Nothing good can come from entering it”
-JDC’s brain, repeatedly
“none of them ever treated it as in the same realm as marriage” – they did actually.
“It just so happens that among the pool of people who biologically could procreate, some cannot or will not” – gays included.
“There is no such thing as a gay family unit. There are gay adults who may be in charge of children produced through their own or others’ heterosexual unions.” – what, just like heterosexual couples who adopt or seek surrogacy?
” They can judge away. I’m talking about the force of law, not the judgement of individuals.”
You mean like state constitutions that still have provisions to bar atheists from public office? Or child custody laws that allow for discrimination against atheist or gay parents (equating them with such views such as racism)? I do, and always have, agreed that forcing people who are religious to finance insurance policies with provisions they find immoral is wrong. But let’s not pretend that there is only discrimination against one group. It all depends where you are standing.
“To me, that means you wouldn’t refuse to hire someone who was gay, wouldn’t refuse to sell them a cupcake or welcome them in your restaurant, wouldn’t refuse to take them for a ride in your cab. I don’t think it means, that it’s discriminatory to refuse to cater a gay wedding or in other ways show support for homosexual behavior. Most supporters of homosexual “civil-rights” completely reject such a distinction, but I think it’s the same as refusing to cater someone’s divorce party.”
So you see a difference between being discriminatory in some circumstances but not others? So, you wouldn’t agree with me running a business that refuses to serve Christians, but you would be fine with me refusing to cater a church event or a Catholic wedding?
It just seems to me like a difference in degree, not kind.
” Perhaps I’ve missed it, but in all the variations in the details of marriage over time, I’m not aware of any culture or time that ever defined marriage as something completely divorced from the biological reality of children. As to the view of homosexuality, it’s true that some cultures viewed homosexual behavior casually, but none of them ever treated it as in the same realm as marriage. Even when it was tolerated, it was still recreation. ”
Polygamous cultures purportedly were about the children? I’m not sure but it seems that was generally about the dude’s manly manliness and power, not about kids. A lot of cultures don’t and didn’t have our “mom and dad raise kids together in a house usually without extended family” set up, there are different ways different societies handled child rearing and “marriage” if it existed in that society.
Correct me if I am wrong, but even in Christianity I believe that Eve was created to be a companion to Adam? Was that simply to have kids or was it for his mental and emotional well-being?
As for homosexuality, there are some cultures in which heterosexual activity was looked down upon as a necessary evil kind of and most males were expected to engage in homosexual relationships. In some cultures homosexuals were looked upon as having special powers of some sort. Others had no concept of marriage and didn’t seem to have many sexual taboos. Still others saw homosexual relationships as special and pure. Like I said, if you’re looking at European culture for the past few centuries you are going to see what you are talking about, but looking at other cultures shows different ways it was dealt with.
“As for the legal benefits, I think there is great support, even among those who support traditional marriage, to insure that gay people have access to a means to insure their contractual wishes are upheld. But in states like NJ where there are civil unions that provide all the legal privileges of marriage, there is still a push for gay marriage.”
Well “separate but equal” has rarely worked in the US in other ways, I don’t know why you think it would work in this situation. Like I said before, if it were up to me “marriage” wouldn’t be a legal term.
A scenario for you Tyler :-)
Mr and Mrs Smith (who meet all your personal pre-ordained attributes of ‘goodness’) wish to start a family. Unfortunately Mr Smith for whatever reason (and there are many) sometimes struggles to er…’generate an adequate device’. Oral stimulation by Mrs Smith is found to be of worthwhile assistance. OR Mrs Smith for whatever reason (and there are myriad) sometimes struggles to achieve a er…’state which avails painless penetration’. Oral stimulation by Mr Smith is found to be of worthwhile assistance.
Go or no go?
“Thanks for sharing your comments Jack. I don’t think you really gave the point of the comment much consideration.”
Sorry, I shouldn’t have been so flippant but it’s just ludicrous to me. I don’t understand how wanting to bond with and provide pleasure to your wife or husband through some oral sex is somehow “having sex with sex”. Maybe we should add french-kissing and kissing other parts in the selfish and lustful pile then. Just jump right to intercourse.
Reality, no doubt some prudence is called for in matters of sexual relations but the normative realities should not be taken lightly.
Jack, as you know, most non-intercourse “sex” acts involve a “provider” and a “recipient” – I believe the writer was considering the attitude of the recipient and not just the provider.
“Jack, as you know, most non-intercourse “sex” acts involve a “provider” and a “recipient” – I believe the writer was considering the attitude of the recipient and not just the provider.”
And I’m sure you know that most people who aren’t complete jerks reciprocate in foreplay. And the “recipient” can be appreciative and loving to the “provider” during the “act”. You make it sound like a transaction. Maybe that’s the issue people are having.
I thought the weirdest argument against sex acts were the arguments against masturbation, but I was wrong apparently.
Let me know if I have misunderstood your message Tyler but your words regarding oral sex seem to indicate that you think that loving, married, christian couples should only share or give each other the minimum level of pleasure required to facilitate sexual activity which is open to the possibility of conception.
What are the ‘normative realities’ of sexual relations?
I think you’ll find that there are a number of non-intercourse sexual activities which make it hard to define who is the provider and who is the recipient.
In some instances sex can be reduced to a transactional level – you only need to ask a hooker about that reality. Hopefully that type of transactional sexual encounter doesn’t occur in a marriage and that is what the writer was getting at.
All actions including many illicit acts can be done in a loving manner, but that doesn’t mean that objectively they aren’t demeaning acts to the human person. Furthermore, it would be inhuman to deny that some acts are more demeaning than others – for example, urinating on one’s spouse is by most people’s standards an objectively demeaning act even if the people involved in the act don’t think it is.
Reality, I don’t have the time to get into this right now. But for starters, why don’t you look up what it means to be chaste in marriage. If you haven’t heard of this concept before you’ll at least learn something new even if you don’t agree with it.
“Hopefully that type of transactional sexual encounter doesn’t occur in a marriage and that is what the writer was getting at. ”
Well yeah, even good ole missionary style can be “transactional” if you treat someone like a body for you to get off to and not a person. But the problem is you and the author are treating a particular sex act as inherently transactional and demeaning when I don’t think many people would agree with you. I don’t even know all that many religious people who agree with you.
” All actions including many illicit acts can be done in a loving manner, but that doesn’t mean that objectively they aren’t demeaning acts to the human person. Furthermore, it would be inhuman to deny that some acts are more demeaning that others – for example, urinating on one’s spouse is by most people’s standards an objectively demeaning act even if the people involved in the act don’t think it is.”
Well, you have an extremely limited (in my personal opinion) of what is inherently demeaning, if you’re including normal acts like oral sex in there.
And really, I don’t think it matter what I personally think is demeaning, or you think is demeaning. It’s really up to how the people who are consenting to it.
Jack, is euthanasia ok in your book?
How far do you go with “along as the two adults consent to it?”
Thanks for giving me your opinion on what you think is my view on inherently demeaning acts.
How did we go from sexuality to euthanasia that quickly?
Depends what you are talking about when you say euthanasia. I don’t think anyone ever has the right to take someone else’s life against their will or without their consent in any way. I don’t have a firm opinion on assisted suicide, but at least people get a choice in their life’s end, unlike with abortion.
“All actions including many illicit acts can be done in a loving manner, but that doesn’t mean that objectively they aren’t demeaning acts to the human person.” – depends what people consider ‘illicit’ acts.
Personally I am in full agreement with you regarding the example you mention. Obviously some aren’t.
I have met people who find even the thought of oral sex vomit-inducing. Most don’t.
My limited knowledge of chaste marriage indicates it is based on a false premise.
Reality, not to be too picky but I said “chaste in marriage” not “chaste marriage” – there is a difference. Enjoy.
Same answer Tyler. Enjoy.
Jack with your experience with people with addiction you should be fully aware that some adults need protection from themselves and need to bw prevented from engaging in activities that they consent to. Also there is a question of duty and trust – for example, a bartender has an obligation to stop a person from drinking and driving and cutting someone off even if that person wants more to drink.
Jack,
(Dodging sex talk.)
The incident mentioned upthread has been all the rage of talk shows in the last week. Another blockheaded professor used his class as his own personal social laboratory by insisting students write the name “Jesus” on a piece of paper and then stomp on it. One student objected and was later suspended.
Of course when this hit the fan the college apologized.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/21/college-student-says-hes-been-suspended-after-he-refused-profs-demand-to-stomp-on-jesus-sign/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/26/university-apologizes-reverses-course-on-punishing-student-who-refused-to-stomp-on-jesus-sign/
“Jack with your experience with people with addiction you should be fully aware that some adults need protection from themselves and need to bw prevented from engaging in activities that they consent to.”
Well no, I don’t know that. When it comes to addiction and other self harm you can’t actually stop someone from being an addict or a cutter or committing suicide, you name it. It’s a choice they have to make. If you throw an unwilling addict in rehab he’ll a lot of times come out and go straight back to it, a cutter might stop while under observation and start up again when they go home or no one’s watching, but the person has to make the decision to get help and change or they never will. And sometimes people just want to die and you can’t make them stay alive no matter what you do.
But yeah, sometimes people are of unsound mind and can’t make life-altering decisions for themselves. That’s why I find assisted suicide a hard one to have a firm opinion on.
“Also there is a question of duty and trust – for example, a bartender has an obligation to stop a person from drinking and driving and cutting someone off even if that person wants more to drink.”
True. Which is another problem with assisted suicide. I can’t imagine the ethical struggle a doctor would have if asked to help out with that.
But in your example that person is a risk to other people, and in assisted suicide the person wants to end their life, without causing harm to others, on their own terms.
Ah, thanks Hans. If the student’s story is correct then I do believe he was discriminated against and should sue the pants of that professor and his supervisor, along with the school.
You haven’t got time to answer a couple of straight-forward questions on what you’ve said regarding the topic being discussed Tyler but you’ve got the time to start a whole new topic, mmm….. :-)
“sue the pants of that professor” - can pants get a good lawyer? ;-)
Well yeah, even good ole missionary style can be “transactional” if you treat someone like a body for you to get off to and not a person.
I agree with the above comment (and so would the writer).
But the problem is you and the author are treating a particular sex act as inherently transactional and demeaning when I don’t think many people would agree with you. I don’t even know all that many religious people who agree with you.
This is a true statement – save a required subsitution of the word”demeaning” with the word ”unnatural” and the removal of the words “transactional and.”
Well no, I don’t know that. When it comes to addiction and other self harm you can’t actually stop someone from being an addict or a cutter or committing suicide, you name it. It’s a choice they have to make. If you throw an unwilling addict in rehab he’ll a lot of times come out and go straight back to it, a cutter might stop while under observation and start up again when they go home or no one’s watching, but the person has to make the decision to get help and change or they never will. And sometimes people just want to die and you can’t make them stay alive no matter what you do.
I know you don’t act on this fact – you believe something else entirely, don’t you?
If you saw one of your children/friends picked up a crack pot, a single second could not pass on the clock before that crack pipe was in your hand.
Oh man! Listening to Tyler talk about sex makes me glad I’m a Baptist and my husband is a non-practicing Catholic. We Protestants have no such qualms about oral sex.
And btw, lesbians can engage in sodomy.. I don’t know why any woman would WANT to but they CAN. They sell plastic appendages these days. Darndest thing.
Oh Sydney M, stop making me blush! :-)
Reality,
“sue the pants of that professor” – can pants get a good lawyer? ;-)”
It seems like you are much like me in not being to resist a few bon mots. I remember that my friends and I, when we were about 11 or 12, were very fond of employing sarcastic wit at every opportunity.
We were like little Oscar Wildes. Minus the ascots and the pederasty. ;)
“I know you don’t act on this fact – you believe something else entirely, don’t you?”
I don’t know what you mean? I do think people should be helped as much as possible, but sometimes people refuse all help and it’s depressing, but it’s reality. I kicked heroin and all other drugs and alcohol and was clean and sober for almost six years, and after I got divorced I got depressed and started drinking again. My choice, my bad, and no one can save me except me.
The point I was trying to make wasn’t that people shouldn’t try to help, or people who are of unsound mind shouldn’t be protected from themselves in some circumstances ( a lot of suicidal people never attempt again if they are stopped the first time). But it’s still that person’s life, and they are the one who makes the decision if they want to live or die, be clean or an addict, and eventually after all help is offered they are the only one who can make that decision.
If you saw one of your children/friends pick up a crack pipe, a single second could not pass on the clock before that crack pipe was in your hand.
Thanks Sydney but I haven’t really talked about sex much. I have tried to confine my discussion to love and marriage. I am sorry that I haven’t been more vulgar for you. Feel free to tell all of us (and the world) about your sex life though.
Your comment about lesbians engaging in sodomy is completely inaccurate and very elevating – please chip in some more Sydney, I am sure you making your Baptist brethen jump for joy.
Good night all, I can see the way this thread is going.
“If you saw one of your children/friends picked up a crack pot, a single second could not pass on the clock before that crack pipe was in your hand.”
Of course. But I couldn’t watch them every second of every day (with minors and those of unsound mind it’s a bit different). I do believe that people should try as hard as possible to help those who are destroying themselves, but the decision must come from within or it doesn’t help in the end.
It’s my main reason for being against jailing drug offenders tbh.
I just love language Hans – doesn’t mean I’m good at it, I just like it. And pithy bon mots are even better!
“but I haven’t really talked about sex much. I have tried to confine my discussion to love and marriage.” – staggering, simply staggering.
“Feel free to tell all of us (and the world) about your sex life though.” – oh how precious.
Tyler I’m sorry if you feel like people are judging your sex life or something. I think Sydney was just expressing her happiness that her beliefs don’t prevent her from engaging in an activity.
I was interjecting some levity Tyler. LIGHTEN UP. Seriously. You’re all doom and gloom on other married people who want to ENJOY their sexual relationship. Sex is a GOOD THING. You’re one of those Christians who makes it seem BAD and SHAMEFUL.
Hey guess what? It isn’t! God created sex and it is GOOD and isn’t something to be ashamed about. Yes, I know our world perverts it but it is still a beautiful aspect of our humanity that God created.
If you think I’m vulgar…well sheesh. Ever read Song of Solomon? Who knew the Bible had erotica.
“Your comment about lesbians engaging in sodomy is completely inaccurate” – bzzt! No points.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
Don’t be too hard on Tyler. Artificial contraception is difficult enough to accept. I’m sure “artificial” (non-flesh-and-blood) sodomy is very far from his thoughts.
I would prefer to not have the worldliness to know that, myself.
“none of them ever treated it as in the same realm as marriage” – they did actually.
Care to elaborate?
“There is no such thing as a gay family unit. There are gay adults who may be in charge of children produced through their own or others’ heterosexual unions.” – what, just like heterosexual couples who adopt or seek surrogacy
One cannot fulfill the central definition of marriage by nature. Ever. The other, by being an individual exception does not change the definition of marriage. You want to change the entire definition so that marriage exists for that exception and make the marriage as it relates to children irrelevant.
Jack:
“So you see a difference between being discriminatory in some circumstances but not others? So, you wouldn’t agree with me running a business that refuses to serve Christians, but you would be fine with me refusing to cater a church event or a Catholic wedding?”
Anti-discrimination laws are right to put protections in place that say that human beings need to be treated fairly regardless of certain characteristics. But I think that the anti-discrimination laws apply to the status of the person and not to behavior. So exactly – I don’t think you should have to cater a Catholic wedding or participate in the religious practices of a customer if you find them objectionable. I think it intrudes not just on your freedom of religion (in some cases) but on the freedom of speech.
“Polygamous cultures purportedly were about the children? I’m not sure but it seems that was generally about the dude’s manly manliness and power, not about kids.”
The kids were part of the manliness and power kick. Absolutely it was about kids, particularly sons.
“A lot of cultures don’t and didn’t have our “mom and dad raise kids together in a house usually without extended family” set up, there are different ways different societies handled child rearing and “marriage” if it existed in that society.”
I’m not sure why societies that didn’t have marriage would be relevant at all. In all societies that had marriage, children were always part of the picture.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but even in Christianity I believe that Eve was created to be a companion to Adam? Was that simply to have kids or was it for his mental and emotional well-being?”
Of course it was for both. But she wasn’t created to exclusively be his companion. Which is all a gay relationship is absent some sort of external heterosexual activity.
“As for homosexuality, there are some cultures in which heterosexual activity was looked down upon as a necessary evil kind of and most males were expected to engage in homosexual relationships. In some cultures homosexuals were looked upon as having special powers of some sort. Others had no concept of marriage and didn’t seem to have many sexual taboos. Still others saw homosexual relationships as special and pure. Like I said, if you’re looking at European culture for the past few centuries you are going to see what you are talking about, but looking at other cultures shows different ways it was dealt with.”
I know that there’s a sexual practices discussion happening here as well, but I’m not talking about sexual practices. I already said that there were cultures that viewed homosexual sex with the utmost casualness, but never like a marriage – I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary, though Reality may be providing some.
“Well “separate but equal” has rarely worked in the US in other ways, I don’t know why you think it would work in this situation.”
Arguably in the other cases you were trying to separate things that were equal. Obviously I don’t agree that that’s the case here. But I think that’s the point and the reason that it’s not about legal rights. B/c even if the legal rights were secured, it’s about them wanting equality. They want a legal declaration that there is no difference between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one. It’s just not true. Not in the context of marriage.
I apologize in advance for any incoherence. I’m so tired. Won’t be back til tomorrow. Night all!
Actually, to get back to what ‘Rush of blood to the head’ said, I really can’t see there being a fraction of the ‘anti’ activity taking place after marriage equality is established that there is in relation to abortion.
There’ll still be WBC of course, and a few other wackaloons. But most people will just shrug and get on with things.
“Care to elaborate?” – sure. Various cultures, at various times have accepted homosexual activity and homosexual marriage to varying degrees. Punch ‘homosexual marriage in history’ into your favorite search engine and the world is your oyster. Here’s a snippet http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html – this is pretty cool too http://www.woodburylutheran.org/files/3813/3892/3703/FAMILYISSUES2hndt.pdf
“One cannot fulfill the central definition of marriage by nature.” – do you realise what you are actually saying here?
“You want to change the entire definition so that marriage exists for that exception and make the marriage as it relates to children irrelevant.” – that simply isn’t true.
Thanks for the link, Tyler. It doesn’t say anything I haven’t read before and doesn’t really persuade me – these kind of responses always seem to say things like “there are reasons to maintain that oral sex is not within the bounds of moderation” etc etc etc. Well yes, as I said earlier, for some people there ARE reasons to maintain that it’s outside the bounds of moderation. For others, there are reasons it’s not. These kind of explanations never seem to rely on anything substantial, just a personal “feeling” that oral sex cannot be used in a loving, non-objectifying way. Which is a fine decision for an individual to come to about himself but doesn’t seem to be grounded in anything concrete enough to apply it to mankind in general.
Romans 1:18-32 hasn’t been quoted here yet has it? Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the apostle Paul wrote the following pertinent words:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.
…If the judges can roll over and crush any state decision–whether legislative or voted in mandate…
then 5 people can dictate anything they want…to all of us.
.
I remember the 1960s heterosexual revolution…where the idea of “love the one you’re with” or “sex without consequences” were the big Media Marketed ideas...
We’re still dealing with the Toxic Fallout…as
some still separate sex from vows, commitment, faithfulmess…Even Pres. Obama acknowledges that the lack of committed fathers is a problem to youth (sometimes it’s a deadly problem!!!)
What will be the Toxic Fallouts from this second Sexual Revolution???
Jack my questions to you about the ethics and morality of euthanasia, urinating on one’s spouse, the crack pipe, and oral sex all have one them in common – the people involved consenting to the act they were participating in. These examples were meant to show you that you don’t practice what you preach. You say that you are for tolerating other people’s actions – but when it comes down to the nitty gritty and your loved ones are involved in those acts you either stop them completely from doing the acts or you try to elevate the intentions that motivate the act. At time have you denied the objectively disordered nature of these acts (i.e. people are supposed to kill their loved ones or smoke crack; urinating is biological response to release toxins from the body; and sex is meant to create a baby and not to fill a stomach or cure hunger). I am sorry I had to spell this out for you, but you said you didn’t understand the connection or why I switched from talking about sexuality to euthanasia.
Tyler is disturbingly interested in what other people choose to do in their bedrooms as consenting adults.
Thanks for the link, Tyler. It doesn’t say anything I haven’t read before and doesn’t really persuade me – these kind of responses always seem to say things like “there are reasons to maintain that oral sex is not within the bounds of moderation” etc etc etc.
No problem and I didn’t think it would persuade you, nor did I post the link with the intention of trying to do so. It was something I read very quickly and I thought was good enough and brief enough to point the direction of my thinking on this issue.
Well yes, as I said earlier, for some people there ARE reasons to maintain that it’s outside the bounds of moderation. For others, there are reasons it’s not. These kind of explanations never seem to rely on anything substantial, just a personal “feeling” that oral sex cannot be used in a loving, non-objectifying way. Which is a fine decision for an individual to come to about himself but doesn’t seem to be grounded in anything concrete enough to apply it to mankind in general.
I agree that prudence and discretion are called for with respect to all actions, sexual or otherwise. These type of arguments do, however, get at something more than just feeling. These type of arguments identify the objective end of all action prior to determining their morality. The Pope comments does this as well. For example, these arguments state that the purpose (or end) of sexual acts is to procreate and, even more specifically, that a man’s ejactulation is supposed to be “deposited” in a woman’s vagina and nowhere else. How one feels about these “ends” does not really matter or change what these “ends” are. The idea with these kind of arguments is not to get hung up on the ends (or normative rules) but to hopefully get past those ends and see the beauty and self-sacrifice that a respect for these ends produces in the people, or in the couple. So although there is a degree of personal taste or emphasis within all actions, there are also natural parameters as to what is morally acceptable, as this writer and the Church acknowledges. The next question to consider is whether breaking these natural boundaries constitute a venial or mortal sin. All of this talk is really outside the Bible, but not separate from it. It is part of the natural moral law. For Protestants unfamiliar with natural moral law all of this could seem a bit much. For most Protestants, the only way to sin is to break a commandment found in the Bible, while Catholics can sin by breaking a commandment in the Bible and the natural moral law. Catholics believe the natural law can be deduced from Reason. The Catholic Church also derives a lot of the natural moral law from the 10 commandments and feels the idea is supported or grounded by the Holy Spirit’s comment that the Lord will write the law on our hearts (Jer 31:33 and Hebrews 10:16).
Thanks for you two cents xalisae.
One more time…
Jack my questions to you about the ethics and morality of euthanasia, urinating on one’s spouse, the crack pipe, and oral sex all have one theme in common – the people involved in these acts are consenting to the act they are participating in. These examples were meant to show you that you don’t practice what you preach. You say that you are for tolerating other people’s actions – but when it comes down to the nitty gritty and your loved ones are the ones involved in those acts you either stop them completely from doing the acts or you try to elevate the intentions that motivate the act. Your words, on the otherhand, and not your actions have denied the objectively disordered nature of these acts (i.e. people are not supposed to kill their loved ones or smoke crack; urinating is a biological response to release toxins from the body; and sex is meant to create a baby and not to fill a stomach or cure hunger). I am sorry I had to spell this out for you, but you said you didn’t understand the connection or why I switched from talking about sexuality to euthanasia.
Hi Alexandra,
I haven’t picked on you in a while! LOL.
I know, Jasper! I was beginning to worry about you. ;)
Tyler, this is where anyone who thinks that oral sex is intrinsically a “fetish” loses me:
The idea with these kind of arguments is not to get hung up on the ends (or normative rules) but to hopefully get past those ends and see the beauty and self-sacrifice that a respect for these ends produces in the people, or in the couple. So although there is a degree of personal taste or emphasis within all actions, there are also natural parameters as to what is morally acceptable, as this writer and the Church acknowledges. The next question to consider is whether breaking these natural boundaries constitute a venial or mortal sin.
I don’t think that it is the teaching of the Church that oral stimulation inherently breaks the natural boundaries of sex, moderation, or love. For many people, oral stimulation is not a fetish or anything even remotely close, it is part of the beauty and self-sacrifice of the sexual act as a whole. Lots of people enjoy things like backrubs, or being kissed on the neck, or whatever. Those are not procreative acts themselves but they are part of sex overall, for that couple, sometimes – not unnatural deviations from it. I think that anybody being scrupulous over what kinds of touching and kissing are permitted on what body parts is the one getting hung up on the “rules” and failing to see the beauty and love. If somebody is unable to engage in a sexual behavior without objectifying his spouse then it is up to him and his well-formed conscience to react accordingly, but that does not mean that the behavior itself is immoral.
I don’t think that it is the teaching of the Church that oral stimulation inherently breaks the natural boundaries of sex, moderation, or love.
It does on two occassions:
1) If the people involved getall wrapped up in the sensual pleasure and lust and lose sight of the purposes of the activity (the unitive and procreative purposes). [Think of a John visiting a hooker, a “transactional” type of sexual encounter,]
2) More specifically, a man should not ejactulate outside a woman’s vagina, etc..(as doing so would obviously frustrate the procreative end of sexual activity.)
For many people, oral stimulation is not a fetish or anything even remotely close, it is part of the beauty and self-sacrifice of the sexual act as a whole. Lots of people enjoy things like backrubs, or being kissed on the neck, or whatever. Those are not procreative acts themselves but they are part of sex overall, for that couple, sometimes – not unnatural deviations from it.
Here I agree with many of your points – although you are conflating oral sex and with kissing which is a bit much – by this I mean, your grandmother would probably not think that comparing oral sex to kissing is a fair comparison. Additionally, sifting through all of these actions is where prudence and discretion comes in. Back rubs are perfectly fine for example, and don’t really involve a sexual component to them at all and usually don’t involve a person’s genitals unless that person is fairly flexible!
I think that anybody being scrupulous over what kinds of touching and kissing are permitted on what body parts is the one getting hung up on the “rules” and failing to see the beauty and love.
Although I never brought up touching and kissing, I agree with this statement to the extent already mentioned. Alexandra, like Jack, how far does your tolerance go? For instance, do you consider urinating or defecating on one’s spouse permissible and inherently loving actions? You obviously recognize some limits to your sexual actions – the Catholic Church is just honest enough to share its observations and opinions and reasons about what it sees as those limits are with the world. Are you willing to do the same? Do you have reasons for your limits on your sexual activity? If so, perhaps you would share those reasons, if not the limits themselves?
By the way, Alexandra I think I used the word fetish appropriately when I described oral sex as a fetish. Unfortunately due to the general lowering of mores most people have lost sight of this fact.
Definition of fetish:
c: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression.
It does on two occassions:
1) If the people involved getall wrapped up in the sensual pleasure and lust and lose sight of the purposes of the activity (the unitive and procreative purposes). [Think of a John visiting a hooker, a “transactional” type of sexual encounter,]
2) More specifically, a man should not ejactulate outside a woman’s vagina, etc..(as doing so would obviously frustrate the procreative end of sexual activity.)
If it inherently breaks boundaries “on occasion” then it does not break them inherently, by definition. Your two conditional occasions are ones I have acknowledged in nearly every single comment I’ve made on this topic, when it comes to Catholic teaching.
My grandmother enjoyed a healthy and loving sexual relationship with her husband(s – one died), eventually having ten children. I am not naive enough to think my generation invented oral sex. My grandmother probably had a firmer grasp on the realities and beauties of sex than many people today do, and knowing her, I’m pretty sure she would have thought that scrupulosity over which kinds of touching and kissing (yes, even kissing genitals) is a bunch of needless hand-wringing. I am pretty sure that if you asked her where her limits were, and whether she thought oral sex is inherently immoral or objectifying, she would have whipped a dish towel in your general direction and said, “Why do you care? If you’re going to be in the kitchen you should make yourself useful and wash that pan.”
My limits in my own sexual activity are about what I feel comfortable doing and what my partner feels comfortable doing. There are activities that I would not be able to do without feeling objectified or objectifying, so I don’t engage in them. In every post I have made here I have acknowledged and respected the limitations of the Church. I just don’t agree with you that oral sex inherently falls outside the limits of the Church, and I have never seen an evidence-based argument that it does.
The definition of fetish is about psychological necessity. It is possible for people to fetishize almost anything, including oral sex, but getting physical pleasure from a specific type of contact is not the same as having a psychological necessity.
It is no wonder that people have stopped kissing each other on the cheek – no one knows where that mouth has been!
As De Niro said in one of his movies: “Are you going to kiss your mother with that mouth?”
Tyler:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled.
Why should a wife not be able to have any sexual satisfaction at all? Did you know a lot of women can’t orgasm with only vaginal intercourse? The way God designed the female body the most sensitive area of a woman can’t be reached with penetration alone. Not trying to make you blush or shush me for being vulgar but we’re all adults here and that is the truth…women tend to need more than just penetration and I pity the husband who doesn’t understand that. You are short-changing your wife to demand only penetration which provides satisfaction for the man but doesn’t provide release for the wife. To me it is pretty selfish. And any man who wouldn’t do what he could for his wife to bring her to climax is reducing sex to a selfish “for my pleasure only” act instead of a beautiful and intimate marital union.
And btw, since procreative sex seems to be of the most importance to you I just want to point out that climaxing helps a woman conceive.
I am not naive enough to think my generation invented oral sex. My grandmother probably had a firmer grasp on the realities and beauties of sex than many people today do, and knowing her, I’m pretty sure she would have thought that scrupulosity over which kinds of touching and kissing (yes, even kissing genitals) is a bunch of needless hand-wringing.
I agree hand-wringing is not good. However, the example of your grandmother was not meant for you to determine whether she actually had oral sex but to ask yourself whether she or anyone should be engaging in this behavior unabashedly. Over the centuries people have done all kinds of crazy stuff, it doesn’t mean we should copy them. (Here are two extreme examples: 1. People have raped and murdered people in the past, but just because it was done in the past doesn’t make it good. 2. Ancient Greece practiced pederastry but we shouldn’t that back, right?)
I am pretty sure that if you asked her where her limits were, and whether she thought oral sex is inherently immoral or objectifying, she would have whipped a dish towel in your general direction and said, “Why do you care? If you’re going to be in the kitchen you should make yourself useful and wash that pan.”
Or if she didn’t practice oral sex – she would have just said yes and agreed with me. Without knowing your Grandmother I would say that would’ve been the more likely response – even if she snapped me with a towel. I highly doubt she would have let the conversation end with a doubt in my mind as to where she stood on the issue, especially if she was like you :).
My limits in my own sexual activity are about what I feel comfortable doing and what my partner feels comfortable doing. There are activities that I would not be able to do without feeling objectified or objectifying, so I don’t engage in them.
This is the Church’s point! The Church teaches that these acts have a tendency to objectify the people who participate in them!
In every post I have made here I have acknowledged and respected the limitations of the Church. I just don’t agree with you that oral sex inherently falls outside the limits of the Church, and I have never seen an evidence-based argument that it does.
Oral sex does fall outside the limits at times according to the Church. Please re-read the link you provided. Furthermore, here is another link for your reading:
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=340180&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=1&Author=&record_bookmark=1&Keyword=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ID+DESC&start_at=
I think we are done here Alexandra!! I think you know where I stand on this issue and I know where you stand on this issue!
Why should a wife not be able to have any sexual satisfaction at all? Did you know a lot of women can’t orgasm with only vaginal intercourse? The way God designed the female body the most sensitive area of a woman can’t be reached with penetration alone. Not trying to make you blush or shush me for being vulgar but we’re all adults here and that is the truth…women tend to need more than just penetration and I pity the husband who doesn’t understand that. You are short-changing your wife to demand only penetration which provides satisfaction for the man but doesn’t provide release for the wife. To me it is pretty selfish. And any man who wouldn’t do what he could for his wife to bring her to climax is reducing sex to a selfish “for my pleasure only” act instead of a beautiful and intimate marital union.
Agreed to a point. If a wife was really having difficulty experiencing joy, it would be an act of mercy, prudence, and charity to help her have some more enjoyment. With that said, such a wife should not demand it from her husband. We all must deal with the sufferings that God places in each of our hands. It be just as wrong for her demand oral sex as it would be for him to demand it. Couples should ask this of their partner in all humility (not shame).
As for the point that women should have an orgasm during oral sex – I don`t know the Church`s teaching on that. It may or may not be appropriate.
(As a technical aside, I don’t think your implied statement that all or most women can’t be stimulated by sexual intercourse is true. I have asked women about this and other women have simply told they can and do get stimulated from sexual intercourse.)
And btw, since procreative sex seems to be of the most importance to you I just want to point out that climaxing helps a woman conceive.
For the record I never said the procreative aspect of sex is the most important – although I do think the Church does think so. I have acknowledged the two ends of sex: the unitive and the procreative. My point, and I think the Church`s point, is that they should not be divided – and that as much as possible, they should remain united and focused to the procreative end.
You’re quite welcome for my two cents, Tyler. I’m always more than willing to contribute charitably to those in need.
Upon reflection, I think a woman`s orgasm during oral sex would be entirely irrelevenat with respect to the morality of oral sex because a female orgasm does not affect or effect the release of the ovum. It may simply be a bonus for women.
Sydney, do you know if the biology I have espoused here is correct? (Perhaps xalisae can chime in?)
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/redefining-marriage-eroding-marital-norms-and-other-impact
Jack, here is a link that has more up-to-date sources that might help you to understand some of the arguments against redefining marriage.
And yes, it’s a conservative site, but not all of the sources are. They post them at the bottom under references so you can check them for yourself.
This thread will now be closed to comments.
It is getting quite graphic.