-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why does homosexuality seem to get more hate?
- Thread starter MoonWater
- Start date
waitasec
Veteran Member
what a load of crap...
if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage... worry about your own marriage
PeaceLoveJoy
Member
I think Jesus said it best when he said love your neighbor and mind your own business (do not judge).
kepha31
Active Member
75-80% of scandals are HOMOSEXUAL priests preying on post pubescent children. That means teenagers. The media avoids mention of the fact, and over-emphasizes pedophilia, (20-25%) just like you. If you want the numerous studies on the subject, just ask.
Allowing gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage.
How would allowing homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage?
One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces. Human nature being what it is, if the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce. Look at what happened when "no-fault" divorce was legalized. The divorce rate skyrocketed.35 If the nature of marriage is further undermined in the minds of couples then when things get rocky, more couples will be tempted not to work through their problems and get happy again but rather to divorce and find someone else.
That is a bad idea, because most marriage therapists agree that divorce generally "doesn't work." Divorce doesn't solve the problems that caused the first marriage to break up. Divorced people bring the same problems to their new marriages that broke up their old ones. That's why second and later marriages are statistically far more likely to end in divorce than first marriages are.36 Also, a large majority of couples who contemplate divorce but stay together describe themselves as "happily married" five years later.37 So staying together "works" better than divorce.
Why would same-sex marriage increase the divorce rate?
Feelings of love are only part of what holds a couple together. When things get tough, as they do from time to time in every marriage, external factors help hold the spouses together-external factors such as concern about their kids or about the attitudes of society, including their friends, relatives, co-workers, or church. The exploding divorce rate we have seen since "no-fault" destroyed much of the stigma of divorce shows how important external factors are in keeping couples together.
References:
Feelings of love are only part of what holds a couple together. When things get tough, as they do from time to time in every marriage, external factors help hold the spouses together-external factors such as concern about their kids or about the attitudes of society, including their friends, relatives, co-workers, or church. The exploding divorce rate we have seen since "no-fault" destroyed much of the stigma of divorce shows how important external factors are in keeping couples together.
References:
35. Leora Friedberg, "Did Unilateral Divorce Raise Divorce Rates? Evidence from Panel Data," American Economic Review 88 (1998): 608-27.
36. Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000), 295, 297.
37. Waite and Gallagher, op. cit., 148-9
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
37. Waite and Gallagher, op. cit., 148-9
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
waitasec
Veteran Member
interesting, you never defined the meaning of marriage...
do you want to give it a shot?
something else...aren't heterosexual couples divorcing? i don't see your point...not at all.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
I would like to see these studies because I know you are not talking about the findings of the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse from a couple of years ago nor the Cloyne report nor the Jay report.
edit: To add, those commissions found it was a culture of respect for a religious institution and deference granted to religious authority that led to the long term climate of abuse in Ireland. Not gay people.
PeaceLoveJoy
Member
No couple and I repeat NO COUPLE should stay in a marriage just because of any "external factor" or anything. I am sorry but I understand if their is a problem fix it, but if it an all out war every day then that is not a good situation to be in no matter who you are.
A big cause of divorce is because couples get married too early, why does this happen, because they get pregnant. Now you have homosexuals who can wait for the right person and who have less of a divorce rate then heterosexuals. And I am sorry but "weakening the meaning of marriage" has nothing to do with gay people. Hell they hold the word and definition a lot better then most heterosexual couples. And when you pass a law that lets people get divorced easier of course the numbers are going to go up. You can't use that as an example to not let gays marry though.
I believe God made us all special he loves everyone of us. Like I said he teaches us to love on another and mind your own business we should do as he says.
And if the bible isn't the reason you hate homosexuality, then I hate to say it but your no better then any racist who hates just cause.
As long as you give hate you will receive it. That means as long as we discriminate against one another we will never have peace, love, and unity. All things we should be reaching for with all our hearts.
A big cause of divorce is because couples get married too early, why does this happen, because they get pregnant. Now you have homosexuals who can wait for the right person and who have less of a divorce rate then heterosexuals. And I am sorry but "weakening the meaning of marriage" has nothing to do with gay people. Hell they hold the word and definition a lot better then most heterosexual couples. And when you pass a law that lets people get divorced easier of course the numbers are going to go up. You can't use that as an example to not let gays marry though.
I believe God made us all special he loves everyone of us. Like I said he teaches us to love on another and mind your own business we should do as he says.
And if the bible isn't the reason you hate homosexuality, then I hate to say it but your no better then any racist who hates just cause.
As long as you give hate you will receive it. That means as long as we discriminate against one another we will never have peace, love, and unity. All things we should be reaching for with all our hearts.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Homosexuality didn't make the priests commit such atrocity, pedophilia did. Maybe now we could start a devate saying that 80% of the priests had brown hair so we should we aware of the brown-haired people.
I still don't see how same-sex couples would weakening the divorce. Plus divorce is a human right and you are pointless standing against it.
I seriously doubt it, but even if that were true, still there would be a minority who needs divorce to solve their problems. And also there's no point on condemning divorce as you do: you choose to marry, and you choose equaly free to divorce. Maybe divorce isn't the best solution, but maybe to marry with that person wasn't the right thing to begin with.
Well if you remain married because of external factors, I advice you better divorce.
Where does God say "mind your own business"?
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
My question is why God would sanctify marriages with people that aren't doing it for the right reasons. Seems to be a concern for a lot of Christians. Odd that an all-powerful being would need human intervention to keep his unions holy. If I were a Christian I wouldn't automatically assume that a couple was married in God's eyes simply because they have a paper stating such.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Come on, stop trolling already and get out of the closet, we have cheezburger. :rainbow1:
You have sinburger. :rainbow1:
Someone has to help the unwitting steer clear of your landmines.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
You have sinburger. :rainbow1:
Someone has to help the unwitting steer clear of your landmines.
Why take it upon yourself to decide for others that they can't sin if they want to?
Thats the kind of arrogance (making decisions on behalf of others) that makes certain religions repulsive and their adherents useless to humanity.
kepha31
Active Member
Getting back on track
"...Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain." Catholic Answers Special Report: Gay Marriage
WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS HEADED
June 27, 2011
Whenever the American people have had a chance to approve gay marriage, they have rejected it. In the more than 30 states that have put this issue to a vote, homosexuals have never won. The only arenas they have been able to score a victory are in some state legislatures and courts. In other words, this is a classic case of the people vs. the elites.
Ultimately, this issue will not be resolved in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court: it will be decided by a constitutional amendment. Though the Federal Marriage Amendment prevailed in the House in 2006 by a margin of 236-187, it failed to achieve the necessary 290 votes required to pass a constitutional amendment; two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, and three-fourths of the states (38), are needed.
Standing in the way of a constitutional amendment is the legitimate reluctance on the part of federal lawmakers to decide what many believe to be a matter for the states. But given that we are left with the scenario of the people vs. the elites, we are quickly reaching a tipping point, and when that happens, chances are good that this issue will be resolved by a constitutional amendment.
Currently, 30 states have constitutional language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. At the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act also defines marriage in the traditional sense. But unless there is a constitutional amendment, we will continue to have an uneven playing field, one that is ripe for further exploitation. Once marriage is separated from procreation, and Tom and Dick are allowed to marry, there is no principled reason why Tom, Dick and Harry can't do so. After all, wouldn't it be discrimination to say no to Harry?
"...Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain." Catholic Answers Special Report: Gay Marriage
WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS HEADED
June 27, 2011
Whenever the American people have had a chance to approve gay marriage, they have rejected it. In the more than 30 states that have put this issue to a vote, homosexuals have never won. The only arenas they have been able to score a victory are in some state legislatures and courts. In other words, this is a classic case of the people vs. the elites.
Ultimately, this issue will not be resolved in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court: it will be decided by a constitutional amendment. Though the Federal Marriage Amendment prevailed in the House in 2006 by a margin of 236-187, it failed to achieve the necessary 290 votes required to pass a constitutional amendment; two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, and three-fourths of the states (38), are needed.
Standing in the way of a constitutional amendment is the legitimate reluctance on the part of federal lawmakers to decide what many believe to be a matter for the states. But given that we are left with the scenario of the people vs. the elites, we are quickly reaching a tipping point, and when that happens, chances are good that this issue will be resolved by a constitutional amendment.
Currently, 30 states have constitutional language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. At the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act also defines marriage in the traditional sense. But unless there is a constitutional amendment, we will continue to have an uneven playing field, one that is ripe for further exploitation. Once marriage is separated from procreation, and Tom and Dick are allowed to marry, there is no principled reason why Tom, Dick and Harry can't do so. After all, wouldn't it be discrimination to say no to Harry?
I have yet to see where society loses if homosexuals are allowed to marry. Wasn't too long ago that interracial marriage was illegal. Where would we be if that was still enforced? Did society lose?
otokage007
Well-Known Member
If you think that because people is against it and God is against it, will not be legalized, you are too naive.
That's not what I said. Why have you missed the true meaning behind my message? Is it deliberate? I said someone has to help the unwitting. Their willingness to be helped is implied.
It's this kind of errant hypocrisy that will destroy the civilized world.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
We are not civilized, we still believe in God, magic and Harry Potter.