Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on April 29, 2012 at 4:04pm

An old CBS documentary which relates....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AFSCPTZLxGs

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on April 30, 2012 at 8:59pm

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter -  52 years married to the same person gives me some qualification to have a similar opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Penberthy and others on The Punch have written about the issue of gay marriage recently. His argument was, essentially, that there are lots of bad traditional marriages and there would be some good gay marriages therefore we shouldn’t be worried about gay marriage.

While a lot of people may agree and leaving aside the fact that there would also be a lot of bad gay marriages, it’s not particularly good logic. It fails to discuss the nature of marriage and its purpose.

Is marriage perfect? Of course not. But mere imperfection of itself is not an argument for its removal or significant change.

It is fair to say that in some ways the purpose of marriage has changed over the years and yet, maybe surprisingly, the nature of it has not. For thousands of years, certainly well before the time of Christ, marriage has been the name given to the partnering of a man and a woman mostly until “death do them part”.

It’s not even a religious definition. It has grown along with Human civilisation. It’s an institution defined by its history. Every civilisation in our history, from the Egyptians to the Persians to the Greeks to the Romans and beyond has recognised the matrimonial relationship between a man and a woman as a unique and distinct form of relationship.

Before accepting that gay relationships are the same as straight relationships - with the already significant exception of the gender balance - we need to look at the nature of the two and see if they actually are the same.

Marriage is not just two people who love each other living with each other. That could be any relationship so there needs to be more than just love.

Marriage is not just a relationship between two people who love each other, live with each other and who are having sex with each other. Although all those elements are involved in marriage there is something more to it than that.

Most people (and not just those from a religious background) go into marriage expecting it to be a lifetime arrangement (in spite of the statistics). Almost all go into it expecting to share just about every area of their life together and expecting at some point to make sacrifices to help the other spouse.

So far this does not exclude gay relationships. It is a matter of fact that there are many people involved in long-standing, committed and loving gay relationships that meet all of the criteria listed above.

However, marriage is still more than that. Most people go into marriage expecting to have children at some point, especially those entering their first marriage. It’s true that some don’t but our definition of marriage needs to reflect the broader understanding and expectations about marriage within our society.

The simple fact is that while some marriages do not produce children, no gay relationships can produce children. Children may be involved but they haven’t been produced as a result of the sexual relationship between the couple.

Throughout its clouded history, marriage has been as much about the provision of a future for a society (through children) as it has been about the relationship between a man and a woman. A gay relationship is not the same as a marriage in this regard.

So we have two significant areas where gay relationships are different from straight ones and there are others. Gay relationships do not meet our historical/cultural understanding of marriage (essentially revolving around gender) and they are not the same in terms of the production of children.

This is not to say that gay relationships are better or worse but that they are significantly different.

There’s nothing wrong with defining a form of relationship that is distinct and unique to the exclusion of other relationships. We already do this within straight relationships, making a distinction between “de facto” relationships and marriage.

The refusal to include gay relationships in the definition of marriage is not discrimination. I am a married father. If I were to apply for a single mothers pension I would not receive it, and rightly so. I would not have been discriminated against, I just didn’t meet the definition.

As I said earlier, there are many long-standing, committed and loving gay relationships and I have no objection to some form of recognition by the state for those that seek it but I do not think that marriage and a gay relationship are the same thing. A gay relationship needs to be called something else.

Our definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is part of our cultural heritage as well as recognition of the uniqueness of the relationship. There’s no reason to change that.

 

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/theres-no-logical-reason-to-all...

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on May 1, 2012 at 2:12pm

Hi  David Penberthy , I am very pleased to read your clear thoughts on the value of Marriage being the union between man and women. I agree with all you have said on the matter. I like "Uniage" for a discription of an official union between same sex couples.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on May 1, 2012 at 2:42pm

Hi Dr Caroline,

 I am sure that a parenting instinct  also exists in the psyche of homosexual couples and that some or many are maybe  capable of loving and nurturing unwanted children. I have no objection to same sex couples having the same legal acknowledgement and protection  as married couples except for the law granting same sex couples legal acceptance  to adopt or foster children. Take for example same sex couples attending school sporting and social events and exposing their homosexuality to young impressionable children. Homosexuality should not be foisted on children as normal behaviour and a child need not be disadvantaged in front of their peers for having two dads or two mums. The desire to adopt is a motivating reason for same sex couples to desire the credibility of "marriage' to be handed over.

You ask about marrieds who decide not to have children. The fact that marrieds may elect not to have children in no way diminishes the scantity of marriage (Unless you are old school RC) and their reasons are no ones elses business than their own. I suspect many decide not to bring children into a socialist or islamic world. Some may also have genetic difficulties.

 

Kind regards

James

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on May 1, 2012 at 3:16pm

Hi Ebony, I said "Homosexuality should not be foisted on children as normal behaviour and a child.." Having swingers parties in front of children is not normal behaviour either. "normality" is really the majority view. I don't think it is normal for a man to have more than one wife. In many nations it is normal. I really don't want to offend you and regret doing so. I also don't think it normal that unemployed persons should adopt or foster children. If unemployed persons are offended by me opposing their "rights" to adopt at someone elses expense that cannot alter my view. Of course an unemployed person wants to feel equal (normal)  as they go to the dole office to collect their "Pay" as they call it. What is normal behaviour for hetrosexuals is to endeavour to bring their children up with hetrosexual orientation. If I could be shown that homosexuals had a desire to bring up children with a hetrosexual orientation would I then say "It's ok for homosexuals to adopt or foster" - Frankly I dont know until it happens.      

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on May 1, 2012 at 3:32pm

James,  David Penberthy did not write that piece, and those are not his opinions,  his are quite different if you read the first few lines again.  Jan

 

David Penberthy and others on The Punch have written about the issue of gay marriage recently. His argument was, essentially, that there are lots of bad traditional marriages and there would be some good gay marriages therefore we shouldn’t be worried about gay marriage.

james darby said:

Hi  David Penberthy , I am very pleased to read your clear thoughts on the value of Marriage being the union between man and women. I agree with all you have said on the matter. I like "Uniage" for a discription of an official union between same sex couples.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on May 1, 2012 at 8:13pm

Caroline,  no one is saying that homosexual people are not as good as them ,  but tgay couples do not meet the centuries old definition of marriage.  simple as that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on May 1, 2012 at 8:59pm

This topic has already been thoroughly debated on Rob Messenger's blog...

http://justgroundsonline.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3535428%3ABlogPo...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on May 2, 2012 at 9:20pm

The good news is that, according to the highly respected CMA, this disorder is preventable, treatable, and CURABLE. Please see this exhaustively researched and well-referenced document for further details..

http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html

See also...

http://narth.com/docs/wardle.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on May 6, 2012 at 11:04am

Attacked by tolerance...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Za0ZvliA3AM#!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on May 6, 2012 at 12:05pm

A few recent news headlines
(collected by Bill Muehlenberg)
 

“Criticize homosexuality in Sweden and go to jail: No problem for European rights court.”
“Christian minister accused of ‘crime against humanity’ for homosexuality stance.”
“Canadian Court: Marriage officials must marry homosexuals.”

“Army: court-martial Chaplains for ‘religious, conscience’ objection to homosexuality.”

“MPs vote to stop civil servants refusing to carry out gay weddings.”

 “Gay rights activists who object to the Salvation Army’s biblical stance on homosexuality are launching their annual call to shut down the organization’s Christmas fundraiser.”

“All Ontario teachers will be forced to undergo ‘diversity’ training by 2013: minister.”

“Amsterdam chief rabbi suspended for gay stance.”

“Attorney Says School Threatened, Punished Boy Who Opposed Gay Adoption.”

‘All Dutch schools must teach about homosexuality, cabinet decides.’

“14-year-old homeschooled girl receives death threats for defending marriage.”

“Alberta readies to impose ‘diversity’ education on homeschoolers.”

“‘Truth about homosexuality’ pamphleteer arrested, threatened with committal to psychiatric ward.”

“Kansas law would force churches to host same-sex ‘weddings,’ receptions.”

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on May 6, 2012 at 2:08pm

Dear Caroline,

Are you implying a genetic/hereditary disorder?

With regard to problems in the Catholic Church, you may be aware of the very comprehensive John-Jay Report which found that 80.9% of the alleged abuse victims in the United States were teenage males, pointing to an ephebophilic issue.

Although the Catholic Church officially forbids homosexually-disordered men from becoming priests, this statute has obviously been ignored in many dioceses around the world.

The head of the local "Courage" apostolate here in Brisbane reports numerous conversions from the homosexual lifestyle choice.

If you read Rob Messenger's blog, you will see a link to a group of highly-acclaimed psychiatrists who also specialise in such treatments...

http://narth.com/

Dr Caroline Wright said:

Dear Rory

I read the research you gave the internet site for. Whenever I read a review of the literature (as this publication mainly is) I always ask myself who is doing the review because this can and does slant the type of articles reviewed and the subsequent critique of that literature. Where general facts are included in this article it is anecdotal evidence only and thus cannot be generalised to all homosexuals.

If homosexuality can be cured then it follows that homosexuality is about choice. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice...No one would choose to be a homosexual because of how it is perceived in the general population and all that that entails. How many of the males who were cured and married and had children were involved secretly in homosexual activity? Would they admit this?

In regard to the Catholic Church history has shown that very wealthy families paid the Church to take their homosexual sons into the priesthood to avoid a family scandal. Would not such a situation lead to homosexual activity within the confines of the Church?  

To change the topic, has the Catholic Church reviewed the literature on pedophilia? Is that able to be 'cured'? How many priests have been involved in such activity and have they been cured? I would indeed be very interested in any information that you have on this subject or any websites I could use to further research this topic.

Kind regards

Caroline

Rory Donnellan said:

The good news is that, according to the highly respected CMA, this disorder is preventable, treatable, and CURABLE. Please see this exhaustively researched and well-referenced document for further details..

http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html

See also...

http://narth.com/docs/wardle.html

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 18
• Next ›
• Page