What are the advantages of gay marriage?

A happy individual is a productive individul.

Gay couples can do the same things that married couples can do, pool their resources, buy homes, invest, buy cars, have a family, buy life insurance, home insurance, health insurance, hire service people to maintain their property and persons.

I see them being as beneficial to society as hetrosexual couples, in fact homosexual couples usually have higher incomes and are better educated on average.

It's a good thing.

 

Then by your own logic, just because AIDS is a symptom of homosexuality doesn't mean that it isn't ALSO a symptom of heterosexuality. Of course, that is equally nonsensical. Being gay does not cause AIDS, nor does being straight.

Take another example. African American women have higher rates of obesity than any other group in the United States. If we were to apply your logic, we would conclude that obesity is a symptom of being an African American woman.

 

You never mentioned the difference, and there isn't one. Feasting with sinners and giving them flowers is no different. Furthermore, these same-sex couples are not getting married into the church or any institution against same-sex marriage.

Refusing to serve same-sex couples is not showing them that they are loved. It is condemning them.

The Catholic Church is wrong, just as they were wrong so many times in the past (indulgences, for example). Why is this type of discrimination just? You just throw those statements out and claim there is a distinction, but offer no reasoning as to why.

If same-sex couple's consciences tell them to get married, shouldn't they too obey their consciences?

 

The two are not the same. One is a race, the other is a behavior. We know what spreads AIDS: a certain behavior.. We also know what causes obesity: poor eating and exercise habits, again, behavior. I am using the word "symptom" in its general sense, not its medical meaning. So when I say high rates of STDs is a symptom, I mean that it is an effect of the behavior, and not just some genetic defect that would cause them to get AIDS in situations where others would be immune.

 

The certain behavior that causes AIDS is having sex with someone with AIDS. Just as poor eating and exercise habits cause obesity, not being a black woman, so do poor sex habits cause AIDS, not being a gay man (and that holds true whether you wrongly define homosexuality as a behavior or not).

Your argument is literally as illogical as saying obesity is a symptom of being an African American woman. The logic is exactly the same. Nonsensical.

 

Of course they aren't. No one argued that they were. No one is comparing race with being homosexual. The whole point of the analogy was to point out how ridiculous your argument was, and in that it succeeded.

No. One is a race, the other describes the primary orientation of one's attraction toward persons of the same sex. Being gay is not a behavior. It is not how one has sex. A person can be attracted to the same sex without ever expressing it through sexual behavior.

A behavior that is not exclusive to homosexuals and not the preferred sexual behavior of all homosexuals; probably not even the majority of homosexuals.

Wow, all kinds of judgmental going on. Those things are factors in obesity, but they don't begin to tell the whole story.

You were using it a medical sense:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=332758&page=9&p=1063337611#post1063337611

Going off the rails now. It's not "an effect of the behavior", and we're talking about a behavior that is also practiced by some heterosexuals. The behavior does not cause AIDS. It can be a vehicle for spreading HIV if 1) one of the parties is infected, and 2) neither party takes measures to protect themselves. Hence, it is spread by risky sex. It is not an "effect" or a "symptom" of male same-sex behavior.

I think we can boil this down to a prejudice against male homosexuals because you think they're giving each other AIDS through anal sex, which perhaps you personally find "icky". Meanwhile back in reality, the majority of male homosexuals aren't infected, we don't all practice anal sex, many take precautions when they do, our sex lives are far more varied than this, and....

....nothing about this "argument" serves as a valid reason to prohibit same-sex marriage because two guys getting married to each other doesn't cause AIDS.

Sheesh!

 

When Jesus ate with sinners, He did not condone their sin.

 

There are secular arguments against "gay marriage" too. I believe I have already mentioned those in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I did not say that my religious beliefs place me above the law. If a law is just then I will obey it but if it is unjust then I will disobey it even at the cost of going to prison.

 

And that is where you are wrong. If a person's religion or conscience tells them to discriminate in a just manner then they have every right to do that. People who have beliefs like yours is exactly why we need to have better protection for conscience rights enshrined in the law.

 

Oxymoron. 'nuff said.

 

nope. the law says you can't discriminate. your religious freedom isn't limitless.

 

There are arguements against gay marriage that aren't religious.

 

What would be the reason to be against gay marriage?

 

By that logic, what would be the reason to be against polygamy? Polygamy is an unnatural form of marriage, just like gay marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman, not men and several women, two men, two women, or a woman and several men.

 

.
I think Polygamy should be legal based off consenting adults......If someone is crazy enough to have more than one spouse, that is their business

 

not valid arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

marriage has not always been between one man and one woman. it's not even currently between one man and one woman.

 

I already went over that point. If a florist gives a gay couple flowers, he isn't condoning what you call "their sin" either. Answer the question. If same-sex couple's consciences tell them to get married, and tell them that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, should they too obey their consciences, as you claim the florist is by refusing to serve them?

 

Here is what your position sounds like to someone normal...please forgive the lousy analogy.

I don't support children's car seats because I see no benefit to me. Don't we already have seat belts? Car seats are unnatural, cars don't come with them. The Lord sayith that any man who useth a car seat should be put to death (show me where it says that). Seat belts have been saving people for thousands of years, and car seats threaten the sanctity of seat belts. If you start putting your child in car seats, other people's children who use seat belts will die. Ford dealers have a right to prevent you from using car seats. If we let people use car seats, the next thing you know, cars will disappear and we'll just have chairs with wheels. Then maybe even flying chairs...then no child will be safe. If you support car seats then you've just written a death sentence for our children.

Just put your child in a seat belt like everyone else. You actually put your child in a seat belt? Disgusting!

 

No, they should not. One must have a properly informed conscience. There is only one Truth and that Truth is taught by the Catholic Church. The Truth about marriage is that it is only for one man and one woman. If someone's conscience tells them that they should get "married" to someone of the same sex then their conscience is not properly formed and their conscience is telling them to do the wrong thing. They are being deceived by Satan if their conscience is telling them to "marry" someone of the same sex.

 

It is not an oxymoron. There is a difference between just discrimination and unjust discrimination. One who chooses not to employee someone who is engaging in the use of illegal drugs is justly discriminating as an example. An employer who refused to employ someone because they are a specific ethnicity is engaging in unjust discrimination as an example.

 

What a load of crap! Fortunately, you and your Church are not the boss of me.

 

You believe it's just to discriminate against gay people. I think your idea of what is just has nothing to do with actual justice, and everything to do with your religion-based prejudices.

 

And there is the hypocrisy. You say the florist must follow his conscience, and use that as an excuse for his behavior. But you then deny that same excuse to a same-sex couple. Your argument falls apart at this contradiction.

Who are you to say whose conscience is properly informed? I say the florist's conscience is improperly informed.

So the Church is never wrong? You are aware of the many changes the Church has made throughout history, are you not? Before those changes were made (regarding indulgences, for example) the practices were wrong, despite the Church saying they were not at the time.

Answer me this: Can the Catholic Church ever be wrong?

 

But why didn't that couple just go to a different bakery? The only reason that they sued the baker was probably to just prove a point. It seems like they were just being spiteful.

Religious bakers should be allowed to choose to not make cakes for same-sex couples, because gay marriage goes against their beliefs. It doesn't really affect gay couples if religious bakers are allowed to "discriminate". Why? They could just go to a different baker, rather than trying to send a message by suing the baker.

 

Yes. I don't agree with everything the Catholic Church says or teaches, such as praying to Mary, etc. But the Bible says that homosexuality is morally wrong, and I agree with what the Catholic Church teaches about it.