Senate RE: Homosexuality: Same-Sex Marriage & Legalization Outside US

Actually, I'd say it very much does matter. If nobody respects the institution then you're just ****ing off with trying to 'keep it as it was'. It's like you think if marriage isn't used for procreation that society will spin out of control. So, what's the reason for keeping marriage benefits if it's a crap institution? It's not as if you magically gain the ability to have kids. Or pull a card that says you can become a mother now. Of course not. But we still follow an asinine primitive culture that views marriage and women as property. So I guess I can kind of see why a man would support it. Or at least a religious man.

But outside of that you're just wasting your damn time trying to halt progress.

Congratulations. You broke your own system, heathen. I kid, of course, but taking your standard to the extreme would mean your sister would have to either have gotten married again or had her children taken away--for her own safety, of course. But once she remarried she could have them back. Or you could've married her. It is ridiculous. Your point is ridiculous, but holding you to your own standard is only fair.

Unless you choose to live your life in a morally objectionable way that isn't in accordance with the bible. Then you're scum of the Earth.

I fixed it for you.

Correct. You just seem to have a very outmoded idea of marriage and relationships.

The internet only considers sex sacred (and therefore worthy of social sanction) when it's between an anthropomorphic fox and a tentacle monster, so saith the book of Anonymous over 9000:1/0. I would not use the internet to learn anything about homosexuals.

Washington State House joined the Senate in approving a same-sex marriage bill. The Governor has promised to sign it.

Opposition is already gathering signatures to repeal via referendum.

What about the thousands of legal rights that come with a license? And the whole notion of liberty and equality.

This would be all fine and grand if there was any legal obligation, anywhere, that said marriage is about procreation and solely for the kids. But there isn't any legal mandate for a married couple to reproduce. What about an infertile mother or father? A couple who doesn't want to have kids?

And there's absolutely no evidence that gays can't raise children or it's the "accepted best environment" so you really, really need to get that out of your head without anything to back it up.

Even so, J-Rod, do you actually have any legal justification for same-sex marriage to be illegal? I personally don't care about your personal feelings regarding it, because they don't even make coherent sense at this point. But when you say it shouldn't be legal because marriage is about children (and if it is to you, then that's great, but I doubt there's a single federal statute that backs up that claim) or there's no "compelling reason" (how? what about equality, and the rights that come with a license?) then you have absolutely no grounds to stand on.

It's pretty specific about a lot of things, many of which would be ridiculous if you went on a tirade about today.

J-Rod, anecdotal evidence isn't really a good idea to lean in unless your going to use it yo base a larger example that is more reflective of more situations, like when all I said I'd gotten engaged.

And yeah, ignoring questions isn't helping you either.

shinjo_jedi's post is spot-on.

And I was intentionally avoiding anecdotal evidence of all the kids I've worked with over the years, ones who came from families that looked Rockwell-esque on the outside but were seriously ****ed up on the inside, and then children of same-sex couples (and I have known several) who were very stable and well adjusted.

Ghost did well with the non-anecdotal evidence.

For kids, being loved and well cared for is what matters, not having a parent of each gender with wedding rings on their fingers. And if the parents do not love and nurture their kids, being heterosexual and married is not going to result in stability no matter what Rick Santorum says about a kid being better off with a father in prison than two mothers.

Maybe there is some idea about separate gender roles being important? I have provided only two things for my kids that their father could not provide: a womb to grow in, and milk. But if it is absolutely essential that half of a couple be able to provide those things in order to marry, we might as well ban all adoption, as well as banning marriage for infertile women.

All other aspects of parenting, we have shared.

Well, there is something to be said about kids needing role models of both genders, this is the case though with single parent families as well. These can be family friends if the parents make sure they have these.

I try and stay away from anecdotal evidence, but I don't know of too many disfunctional same-sex relationships (and I know quite a few). My brother has been with his partner for 5+ years in a stable, loving relationship and they're still denied the legal rights of a marriage license that I could have gotten with some random girl I woke up next to in college.

J-Rod, let me just ask you (a) what you mean by "no compelling evidence" - the equality issue and the interest of the legal rights that come with a license? and (b) the legal justification for marriage being about procreation.

And, no, "tradition" doesn't hold up in court. For a lot of reasons. One being that interracial marriage was illegal up until several decades ago, and 'tradition' used to mandate the man was dominate in the relationship, or that the female was being sold in exchange for property. So, no, 'tradition' doesn't have any legal strength in this case...

Separate gender role models have been shown to be important, but that "other" gender does not need to be a formal "parent" according to the study I read years back. Aunts, uncles, close friends who spend quality time with the kid(s) are what important.

I'm a fan of "the village" to an extent, meaning that I believe kids need as many positive role models as possible and that parents need as great a support network as they possibly can have. Ultimately the parents are the ones making the primary decisions for the child, but as far as role models, as you said, role models do not necessarily have to be the parents, and most kids have a role model or more outside their parents anyway--even kids in the Rockwellian nuclear family.

J-Rod: The sin isn't homosexuality per se. It's "man shall not lie with man as with woman". Now, walking the borderline, this would seem to me to only refer to penetration. (And in fact, I asked my roommate's rabbi during Prop 8 about the Jewish position on homosexuality, and I'm right. In fact, Conservative Judaism has this exact rule for gay rabbis.)

On the flip side:

"Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death."
-Leviticus 27:28-29, describing how to properly sacrifice a slave

In regard to the post above, that is the way I've always interpreted it. Sexual activity without the goal of procreation is a sin, whether it's oral, with contraceptives, or homosexual. The Bible passage that refers to homosexuals refers to sex, not love. Not that a Bible passage should influence a law (shocker).

That's exactly the Catholic theological reason for being against contraception, homsoexuality, etc.

One thing I like about the Catholic denomination is that they have a consistent theological framework. I don't agree with some of its principles, which the framework is built on, but I respect them for having "faith with reason."

The Catholic Catechism clearly states that the only reason homosexuality is a sin is because the act of sex is sacred, us joining with God and assisting him in creating life, so the sacred act of sex should always (1) be in marriage (because marriage is a state of total love and commitment, meant to be modelled after the relationship between God and humanity), and (2) be "open to life." That's why contraceptions, homosexual sex, masturbation, etc. are considered wrong.

I don't think most Protestant denominations have a rational framework for all their beliefs, like the Catholic Church. But if the Catholic church ever decides it's ok to have sex that's not open to life, then homosexuality/contraception/etc will no longer be considered sinful. And, in my opinion, the Catholic Church would finally step into the 21st century. It all rests on that one principle, that sex must always be "open to life."

In defense of the Catholic Church, they don't want gay people to be treated poorly, unlike some Protestant denominations. They focus on the act. Mother Theresa said to not call them f------, that she hated that term and others, and said that they should be called "Friends of Jesus." So the Catholic Church is one of the more progressive denominations of Christianity.

A lovely, touching pro-gay-marriage speech. From a Republican.

What I was trying to say, more along the lines of your second paragraph, is that they're not consistent with it or even really acknowledge that the root of the sin in homosexuality is the sex, not the love. A celibate homosexual to many in the Church would still be a sinner, even though he's never engaged in sexual activity and only was a homosexual because he loved another man.

The "why" is to ensure that gays are treated equally under the law. If marriage is really such an imperative to successful child-rearing, then what we ought to do is force the father to marry the mother in all cases where children are born out of wedlock (could be complicated if either individual is already married to someone else though). We should probably also revoke the marriages of all couples who don't have children yet, who don't show an interest in having children, or whose children have reached adulthood. We don't do any of this, so clearly society does not see marriage as merely an arrangement for procreation. We marry the individual whom we want to spend our lives with, while children are an afterthought.

Oh yeah and just to get this out pre-emptively, I don't want to hear anyone say that gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex and argue that this is proof that they are already being treated equally. That's like telling a Muslim that his religion is banned but he's free to practice Christianity or Hinduism, then saying that since "this applies to everyone" therefore he's being treated equally.

Actually no, a celibate homosexual would not be seen as a sinner, in the Catholic church, but someone to be admired. They only view acts of sex that aren't "open to life" being wrong, they don't see homosexuality itself as a sin. Gay sex is as sinful to them as sex with a condom, oral sex between a straight married couple, masturbation, etc. If a Catholic doesn't see sex with a condom, or masturbation, or oral sex, being sinful, then to be logically consistent they can't see gay sex as sinful either. That's why 71% of American Catholics say they support gay marriage, and a similar majority don't even see sex between a same-sex couple as a sin.

Is it ok to have for a man to have sex with man if he doesn't ejaculate?

You haven't heard of the Catholic church's war against condoms and other forms of birth control?

They don't single same-sex couples out. Homosexuality hardly ever comes up in Catholic church sermons. They make a much bigger point about abortion and birth control.


To be clear, I'm not Catholic. Just grew up in the most Catholic state, went to a Catholic high school, and just about everyone in my city is Catholic. I disagree with them on some key issues. I just don't want them, or anyone, to be misprepresented.

I think, for the Catholic church, the act of sex refers to any act that includes sexual pleasure. And all sexual pleasure has to be open to life, or else it's just as immoral as homosexual sex. A straight, married couple having oral sex, then proceeding to finish with vaginal sex, is just as equally sinful as having gay sex, or masturbating, or using a condom, etc.

In Catholic theology, it's all the same offense.

That's why the majority of American Catholics see none of them as sins, even gay sex, despite what the Bishops preach.

And I'm saying I've never heard the establishment in the Church admit to this that I'm aware of. I am Catholic, and I've never heard of a priest taking the position that homosexual sex is no worse than me having sex with my wife with a condom. Yes, they preach against contraception but they don't tell me my relationship with my wife is illegitimate because we have sex without the goal of procreation.

That's just because religion is generally silly and its silliness must be disguised as much as possible to ensure its survival. So even though you are most likely a brimstoning smelling sinner who will burn in the darkest and foulest pits of fiery hell for having sex with your wife without procreating, it's best for the clergy not to dwell on this fact, and instead, focus on gay people. This is another reason why it's generally folly to allow religion to drive public policy.

Or cured. By Jesus.

I did read once that the interpretation of the verses listed in the prior post as meaning that "all sex must be open to life", was established because the Church wanted to ensure that people procreated so it could have more members.

And there are some churches and church members that still have that mentality. My husband and I visited such a church once in the late 90s, before our kids were born; when asked if we had children, I answered "No," and the reply was, "Well, we need some kids!" Needless to say we didn't go back.

I understand the need to provide a stable and loving environment for children already born, but two points on that: one, a heterosexual couple marrying is not automatically the answer to that. It depends on the heterosexual couple. And two, which adds to my first point, a "stable and loving environment" has many different settings.

We certainly do not need to encourage heterosexual-only marriage in order to encourage people to procreate. We've added a billion people in the past 12 years. I also see no reason to discourage people from marrying if they cannot or will not procreate.

I was referring to how in the ancient world, being penetrated was seen as effeminate. (Wonder where they got that idea.) Spanish terms for gay men still refer explicitly to "top" and "bottom" positions. (By the way, this view is actually pretty common. I'm Oglala, and an Oglala man who sleeps with other men is normal, but if he starts acting feminine or is penetrated, it's seen as falling under a curse which will ultimately turn him into a woman.) Hence the "as with women" reference.

Fire_Ice_Death:
Drinking game: Whenever an antigay activist says that the ban on gay marriage is the only thing keeping people from reproducing, implying he would switch teams the minute society allowed him to do so, drink something ending in "tini" that isn't a martini.