Thursday, May 24, 2012

Same-Sex Marriage – What's it to you anyway?

Questions that come up in the same-sex marriage (SSM) debate are, “What’s it to you anyway? Why not let them marry? How does it affect opposite-sex marriage (OSM)?” I think the questions themselves show a misunderstanding of the concern. Some troubleshooting logic we use at work may help us to understand better.
When taking some action on an issue, we must try to ascertain if we are taking action on the cause of a problem or an effect of a problem.

Ø Action on the cause is called corrective action; it intends to eliminate the cause
Ø Action on the effect is called interim or adaptive action; it intends to limit the effect.
Example 1:

Ø Problem: I have a cold
Ø Cause: a virus
Ø Effect: runny nose (among other things)
v Corrective Acton: kill virus
v Interim or Adaptive Action: blow your nose

We have a problem of sexual sin in our world. The cause of this problem is sexual confusion; by “confusion” I mean not understanding, not knowing, or ignoring the true purpose of sex. A sexual relationship is meant to be something unitive, procreative, mutually exclusive and permanent and none of these aspects can be intentionally separated. It only makes sense in the context of OSM. The Effects of sexual sin are:
Ø  Unwanted pregnancies
Ø  Abortion
Ø  Divorce
Ø  Increased poverty
Ø  Sex addiction
Ø  Child molestation
Ø  Disease (STD’s)
Ø  An unknowable amount of emotional pain
Ø  Probably others I’m forgetting.
This list affects all of us. We do not live in a vacuum. As JP2 has said, there are no private sins.

Example 2:
Ø  Problem: sexual sin
Ø  Cause: sexual confusion
Ø  Effect: STD’s (among other things)
v  Corrective Acton: educate/evangelize
v  Interim or Adaptive Action: medicine/vaccination

I suggest that legalizing SSM is just another effect of the problem, not a cause. Political action defending true marriage is good, but we should be aware that this is addressing more an effect than the cause.
So back to the questions of, “What’s it to you? Why not let them marry? How does it affect OSM?” The government is a kind of teacher with great influence. Public institutions shape our ideas and ideas have consequences. In legalizing SSM, governments are “teaching” society that marriage and procreation are not inexorably linked. This further extends the cause of the problem and thus accentuates its effects. Removing the rational basis for a norm will erode adherence to that norm.
Additionally, if SSM becomes the law-of-the-land, those that defend true marriage (like the Catholic Church) would be seen more and more as a “bigots” that make groundless distinctions. This would logically bring more persecution.
No fault divorce, artificial contraception and legalizing abortion were supposed to make things better for society, make people happier, build stronger marriages, and reduce poverty & STD’s. The data shows the exact opposite. As we s-l-o-w-l-y accept the changes, we are like frogs in water being s-l-o-w-l-y boiled to death, just a few degrees at a time. Legalizing SSM is the next temperature increment we face.
Hey Frog, what's it to ya?


  1. I live in Canada and we've had SSM for 7 years now. I've been married for 15 years now and for the life of me I can't see any difference in my marriage before SSM came into effect and after. I've asked the few people who disagree with it I know how has it affected their marriage and no one can come up with an answer.

    On the positive side it has led several gay couples I know to get married, make a public commitment to each other and for that strong familial bond that is the building block of society.

    And lastly will it affect children seeing same sex couples. I can't say. All I know is that when my sexual awareness started to develop in high school, no gay couples or fellow gay students would have distracted me for one instant from my interest in girls. I remain open to those who feel otherwise but I've never found anyone who says the contrary.

    1. Hello Rationalist1. Hope you are well.
      As the post describes, it not about a direct attack on heterosexuals, it is about adding to “sexual confusion” as the Catholic Church would see it, which impacts almost all aspects of society.

    2. Again I ask, except for some vague systemic sexual confusion attributed to society as a whole, surely this confusion must manifest itself in individuals in a society and yet I've never had any one indicate how it confuses them. And if it's because we're all frogs in a pot and can't see the rising confusion, then who can? If people claim to be able to see this rising confusion please indicate how it's affecting my marriage (OSM, 15 years, faithful, children. etc) as it baffles me.

    3. OK, how about a specific example. Legalizing SSM pushes the popular idea that sex is not related to children and families, so what is left? What could be its ultimate purpose? The focus of sex in society becomes more and more “self” as opposed to “other”. BTW, how are the birth rates in Canada doing?

      So my co-worker is depressed because her boyfriend or husband is using her for sexual pleasure. This is stressing ME out at work because I need my co-workers help and she cannot function well. My wife sees me stressed at home also. By some mysterious magic……the sexual confusion of others has affected MY marriage.

    4. I can play hat game.

      A young couple marry after the woman has had her uterus removed due to cancer. No uterus, no chance of children, no need to track ovulation, take temperatures, examine mucous, they can have sex every night. Meanwhile her faithful co-workers are resenting this as they often have to wait up to a week for sex and their family size is larger than they had planned or can support.

      Co-workers are getting stressed out with family problems and seeing this carefree co-worker enjoying all the benefits of marriage without the responsibility of children.

      Soon there is a movement to declare only couples who are able to produce a child with 5 years validly married, for the good of society.

    5. Birth rate in Canada is just below 2 and has been that way since the early 70's

      I know people,mostly from French Canada who grew up in the 50's with family sizes of 12 to 16.

      Most people seem happier with smaller families, generally 2, and accepting in immigrants to keep the population numbers stable.

    6. To me, your co-worker scenario sounds like a good example of how the sin of envy affects people, possibly mixed in with a bit of sex addiction.

    7. Give me a break. i'm new at imaging how some one else's private sex life affects my marriage. I'll work on it and come up with something.

      What's interesting here is how quickly the Canadian public seem to have accepted it, even those who disagree with SSM. For example in Toronto's last civic election, one of the major candidates for mayor was gay and married. Hardly anyone cared except for a few people who vandalized some of his election signs with anti-gay slurs. The local radio station interviewed a Muslim store owner near the vandalized signs and the store keeper said that even though his religion disapproved of homosexuality he thought that to attack someone for being gay was unCanadian.

      It doesn't take long for attitudes to change and it's a good change.

    8. Perhaps that is because it's not primarily about YOUR (individual) marriage, but about the institution as a whole; and I would expect it to take up to several decades if not longer to see the full effect -- at which point some of the people who started out may be quite old or no longer living. Rome wasn't built in a day either.

  2. "A sexual relationship is meant to be something unitive, procreative, mutually exclusive and permanent and none of these aspects can be intentionally separated. It only makes sense in the context of OSM. "

    Doesn't it make sense to you also only with the context of a Catholic sacramental marriage and all the same harm would follow, from your analysis, from couples living together, civil unions, remarriage and non Catholic marriages? why not equally protest the harm done by that "sexual confusion"?

    1. Yes, I do, given the opportunity. Don't forget IVF. However, I cannot underestimate how entrenched a lot of it was before I ever got here.

  3. "In legalizing SSM, governments are “teaching” society that marriage and procreation are not inexorably linked"

    Until we stop allowing seniors to marry and women with hysterectomies marriage and procreation will not be linked.

    1. ANY heterosexual marriage is of the procreative “type”, although some are infertile as exceptions, not the rule. Homosexual relationships are not of the same “type” of sexual relationship. They are infertile as the rule with no exceptions.

    2. A lesbian or gay couple has the same chance of becoming pregnant as a heterosexual couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy. And besides a marriage where the man is impotent is of the procreative type but is not a valid marriage in the Catholic Church.

    3. You miss Ben's point. Ben is talking about the generic and you are talking about the specifics.

      Man/Woman marriage is of a type that, barring medical problems or age, can be procreative. Certain specific combinations of man/woman cannot be procreative, but that shouldn't bar them. It is not their fault that those impediments prevent children.

      SS pairings can never be procreative.

      I think we have to agree to disagree. Marriage is, by definition, man/woman. Any other pairing is not marriage. Call it something else, but it is not marriage. Calling it marriage is just a misuse of the term.

  4. Joe - We'll agree to disagree.

    Personally I can't understand gay marriage. I just don't feel it's up to me to judge others or to prevent them from experience the happiness ( and sometimes frustration) that comes with sharing one's life with someone you love.

  5. What is the means by which an opinion is formed? It seems to me that this is the great repository of unconscious woo woo thinking amongst most modern people.

    Scenario :
    Controversy arises. Person X states position on matter. Person Y contradicts Person X. Person X asks Person Y how that counter position was arrived at. Person Y says, "What does that matter? I think it so, therefore it is a settled matter.". Person X pulls out hair.

    Or: Thought is what ever comes out of the black box on my shoulders. "Opinion" is the magical act of the modern.

    1. Of course this leads to a dicussion about relativism. It also sounds like you're talking about a premise or axiom. In any discussion it helps to start with a common opinion (premise). For example, we might agree that one purpose of government is to promote the general welfare and to think about a nation's future. This could lead to the discussion about heterosexual marriage being preserved by the government as something unique because it is procreative by its nature and tends to lead to family uinits.

    2. To extend Ben's comment, disagreement about the set of axioms that are used in any discussion will lead to disagreement about conclusions. I would contend that this is the case in SSM discussions.

      If the axiom set excludes knowledge of the consequences of actions (being in the future), then what is to logically stop legalization of SSM? It may not be good enough to promote, but perhaps it's value-neutral. As ColdStanding states, opinion rules. (Rationalist1 states several times that SSM in Canada hasn't affected him and that he knows of no harm done from it. This empirical data is valuable but not conclusive. I suppose someone from Canada could be found to assert the opposite. The numbers are too small for conclusions to be drawn about changes of this magnitude.)

      However, if your axiom set includes wisdom from a source that knows the future consequences of those actions, it becomes clear that SSM is a bad idea. This "a priori" knowledge, being axiomatic, is impossible to PROVE without waiting for the future consequences to manifest. By then it's too late and the damage is done.

    3. All philosophical arguments are based upon their premises. It;s like mathematical systems, once you state the axioms, postulates, definitions, all theorems follow (albeit sometimes with a lot of effort).

      Science on the other hand lets observations change one's postulates and therefore the science changes with time as newer and better observations disprove old postulates.

      Where does religion fit, in the first camp, not the second as most religions are loathe to admit change. I often ask religious people what major doctrine or dogma has changed within religion. They list many changes, but all from other denominations. When I ask to list one major change their own denomination has made, it's silence.

      As to my experience with SSM here in Canada. My interest is more from curiosity when I ask people here (the few I can find who oppose it) how it has negatively affected them and I've never had a response. I've never seen any study of this so my results are purely anecdotal.

  6. Rationalist1, will you guarantee me that if we allow same gender unions to be legitimized as "marriages" that I will not be prosecuted if I quote from scripture those verses that condemn homosexual acts? Will you guarantee I will not be prosecuted by law if my Catholic conscience dictates that I instruct the ignorant that their homosexual acts are evil and they risk the salvation of their souls if they continue in this course? Will you guarantee that I will not be prosecuted by law if I refuse to have my child attend a class in school that is mandatory which promotes homosexual activity as good and normal contrary to my faith?

    If by law, homosexual unions are legislated as "marriages" then automatically homosexual acts will now be considered normal and any speaking out against those acts will be akin to discrimination and hate crimes against homosexuals themselves since they will now be considered a protected group. If allowed to be 'married' then it stands that the acts they commit will be considered normal and acceptable and anything that speaks against that will be prosecuted. Are you willing to guarantee me that my right to freely express my opinion in such an issue will not be met by the full thrust of the law, or that my freedom of practicing my religion, which includes speaking of its truths will also continue to be guaranteed by law even if it speaks against homosexual acts? And I haven't even begun to speak about the morality of homosexual adoptions, the right of a priest NOT to "marry" same gender couples etc... Tell me Rationlist1...can you guarantee me all of the above?

    Do you know how hard it is to defend traditional marriage against something that does not exist? A fantasy? It must be as difficult as trying to promote fantasy as reality...

  7. The previous comment was in response in how same gender "marriages" would affect my life and my rights.

    1. Currently premarital sex is legal but religions have not stopped condemning it. Adultery is legal, yet we still have 10 commandments. Catholics can still preach against remarriage and condemn such acts and even bar remarried Catholics from full participation in the Sacraments. And no one has stopped Catholics from teaching that those actions are wrong.

      Similarly with SSM. You can teach that it is wrong (as may churches still do here in Canada) but remember hate the sin, love the sinner. Teach the act is evil, not the person.

      As to children's education, my son has encountered sex education in school. There is no promotion of activities, nor condemning. It's presented as fact. Because parents have many different moralities on the issue it is left to them to teach the ethics.

      What is taught in schools is that even if you disagree with an action, you can not discriminate against the person. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that, outside of religious organizations, you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

  8. I don't believe if SSM marriage is allowed to be the norm as in Canada and in other places that we'll begin to see all the effects of such decisions until much later, maybe beyond our own lives. There's no such thing as private behavior unless you're willing to ignore what God asks of ALL of us.

  9. Great article!!! This is such a hard topic to grasp, especially for my generation. Soooo helpful

  10. I apologize to TwoCatholicMen for listing this below, and taking up space in this manner, but I felt it important enough to submit it in hopes that Rationalist1 realizes what is happening in his own backyard and that the thinking that such things do not happen in Canada is wishful thinking. We in this country already are seeing inklings of Catholic persecution/prosecutions for voicing our beliefs against homosexuality(acts) and I cannot see any change for the better should same gender "marriage" be legislated.

    Though some of the cases below and elsewhere in Canada were NOT found guilty, the defendants still had to incur expense and appear before their notorious Human Rights Commission to explain themselves...

    Alberta Pastor Fined $7000 and Ordered to Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality

    Hugh Owens, in Canada, was prosecuted for placing a small ad in his local newspaper in response to all that he had been forced to observe during Homosexual Pride Week. His advert listed four Scripture references (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) next to an equal sign and a drawing depicting two men holding hands, superimposed over the line drawing with the universal red circle with a line through it, effectively summarizing the Scriptures listed. For that “crime,” Owen was fined $4,500. The newspaper was also fined. So, in Canada,

    Dianne Haskett, the Mayor of London, Ontario, Canada, was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a “Gay Pride Weekend.

    The head of the Central British Columbia Public Health Board, Chris Kempling, with a PHD in psychology, was suspended from his teaching job at the local high school for writing a letter to the editor of his local newspaper. He stated that homosexuality was not a genetic orientation, that homosexual sex was often unhealthy and promiscuous and that homosexuals could become straight. The judge pronounced Kempling a “bigot.” Although Kempling was never accused of any discriminatory act, he was condemned for having wrong thoughts.

    1. Let's take example of Hugh Owen. In his ad he referred to 4 verses in scripture. One of which was

      Lev. 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them on."

      If you wish to condemn homosexual acts, so be it. If you want to suggest that homosexuals be put to death, then I'm afraid society will no longer accept that.

      Free speech is a right, incitement to violence is not. At east not in my ethics.

    2. Chris Kempling was suspended from his job because he call Catholicism a perversion and a barrier against salvation. He also said that there are successful therapies to get people way from Catholicism and that the conversion rates are high for those who seek help. And because he was a teacher expressing those views in a school where Catholics should feel welcome it was unacceptable. In his evangelical church, sure, but not in a public school.

      Of course I changed homosexuality to Catholicism to make point but not the obvious one. I id it because I grew up Catholic in a predominantly Protestant region of Canada where anti-Catholic sentiments were quite public and students an on occasion school officials (teachers and on principal) voice similar sentiments against Catholics. Because of that I will not countenance any derogatory remarks being made at students because of their colour, race, religion or sexual orientation.

    3. Rationalist1,
      What if I change the word homosexuality to Racism so it reads as follows?

      Chris Kempling was suspended from his job because he called Racism a perversion and a barrier against salvation. He also said that there are successful therapies to get people away from Racism and that the conversion rates are high for those who seek help. And because he was a teacher expressing those views in a school where Racist should feel welcome, it was unacceptable. In his evangelical church, sure, but not in a public school.

      My point is, where does the "norm" come from? How do we know what is true ultimately?

    4. Ben - The norm is tolerance. It's accepting people have a right to act in a way that doesn't affect other people even if you do not agree with it. I do not agree in general with divorce and remarriage, especially as practiced by many celebrities that are in he public eye. But I accept their right to ac that way and at the same time if asked will decry their actions.

  11. Anonymous, when Paul Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, the effects of what he spoke about was not seen for a long time and now are recognized today as being it will be if SSM is allowed to go on...I don't care if I am not children and grandchildren will be...that concerns me..

    1. If the effects of "sexual deviance" takes so long to manifest itself perhaps the strife being experience in he U.S. now is a delayed result of the polygamy practiced in the America West in the 1800's.

      Seriously, one can use that argument against anything. For instance you could say sure polio vaccines are safe for the person, but what ab out their grand children. Let' get realistic.

  12. The Ordinary Catholic,

    You misconstrue my comments if you believe that I was stating them as if I agree with SSM. On the contrary, we are all part of the mystical body of Christ, of those who have come before us, those whom we share the present with, and those who will come after us. As you've stated about Human Vitae, this will also be the same of SSM if "allowed" to continue unabated. I think folks are arguing foolishly to say that SSM does not affect their marriage personally as stated in previous comments because as you've stated ALL the effects of such an arrangement upon society will not be seen immediately and will have their more serious outward repercussions as society is influenced and affected by these orientations as time passes. There is no such thing as private behavior and private sin since in the end everything will be known when Christ returns. I am in agreement with you on this. God bless.

    1. I certainly appreciate you do not agree with SSM.

      I think to say that SSM has no negative effect now but will in a generation or two is difficult to accept.

  13. Rationalist1, don't go off topic here. Even if there is a delay effect it is only to what is observed, not to the effect on our souls, but I want to know why you never mentioned the prosecutions that are and have been conducted in Canada as I have shown? What is it about these prosecutions that you so obviously think does not have an effect on others? The difference, and the BIG difference between the legal cohabitation of male and female and SSM is that the latter is trying to force us to accept it as a normal and good lifestyle, and like unmarried couples living together, NEITHER is good and both sinful. As far as Kempling? You just proved my point: We don't agree with you? Prosecute us despite having religious liberty and freedom of speech if it is speech or a faith you do not agree with. In your view, SSM trumps all. It seems that religious freedom and speech is a one way street with you. Sorry, I will fight this to my last breath, as I do to anyone that tries to coerce me into accepting sin as a good. So, in closing on my part, I have shown how there is already a detrimental effect in making one group that espouses a sinful lifestyle protected, and how those of us that do have religious convictions persecuted, even in a land that is supposedly democratic. You don't like Kempling for speaking the truth about the homosexual lifestyle, punish him. I won't hold my breath for you to explain the cases I listed above, because like the Kempling case? You'll just spin it to your liking and justify them. As I said, if SSM comes to fruition, Christians will have their freedoms restricted so as to not offend a sinful lifestyle. Be sure of your convictions, for they WILL matter when all is said and done.

    Anonymous, I know you were not agreeing with SSM and I'm sorry if I made it seem like you were. I was just commenting on the 'delay' effect. Though it may not be seen right away, spiritually it's already affecting us. Sorry for not being clear on this. Peace

    1. If Kemping had have been private citizen nothing more would have come from it. But he was a teacher in a public school system and because of that he did not have the right to to label students in his schools as abominations. Because of that he lost his job. Imagine if that was not the case, imagine what many teachers would say about Christians in the school and no matter how uncomfortable they made Christians feel, the precedent would be set.

  14. "If you wish to condemn homosexual acts, so be it. If you want to suggest that homosexuals be put to death, then I'm afraid society will no longer accept that."

    I've already answered to the above verse in reply to you in the previous post of "The Unintelligibility of Same-Sex Marriage" if you even bothered to read my reply.

    1. Don't tell me, tell Mr. Hugh Owens. He's the man who quoted scripture which said that people who perform homosexual acts should be put to death. By arguing the unfairness of his case you sided with his statement which now you apparently disavow. Shouldn't we both be condemning some one who states that gays shoold be put to death.

  15. "Shouldn't we both be condemning some one who states that gays shoold be put to death"

    He didn't.

    The [National Catholic]Register reported:

    "Owens DENIES that, as a Christian, he wants homosexuals put to death, as some inferred from the biblical passages. He believes, however, that 'eternal salvation is at stake,' both for those engaging in homosexual acts and for himself, if he fails to inform them about 'what [he believes that] God says about their behavior'." 6

    And neither did I:

    "The Unintelligibility of Same-Sex Marriage" in reply to the same question you asked of me there.

    "As far as Lev. 20:13, Christ TAUGHT US MERCY instead of an eye for an eye. As a matter of fact Rationalist1, the woman caught in adultery was to be stoned under the law, but Christ looked beyond that law and forgave her, BUT, he also told her to go and sin no more.."

    Spin your wheels all you want, you aren't going anywhere with this.

  16. If he doesn't want homosexuals put to death then he shouldn't put an ad in the paper quoting that verse that states as such. He may say later that he doesn't approve of that action but 200 years ago homosexuals were executed in Christian countries, and 50 years ago they were imprisoned. Do you understand why gays are wary?

    We ma disagree on my things but one thing we should agree upon is that threatening violence against people individually or collectively is wrong.

  17. If anyone today thinks that mainline Christians advocate violence against homosexuals because of certain verses in scripture, then they are not being honest. There will always be fringe groups that radically swerve from what is considered to be traditional theology in scripture and use that as an excuse to follow their own agenda. What is happening here and in your country is that the responsibility to commit violence is placed on the shoulders of those that profess their faith instead of on those that commit violence because of their own warped ideas.

    Though Leviticus calls for death to those that commit homosexual acts, the Church correctly interprets those verses in light of Christ's command to love one another as this:

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    Where does the Church incite violence in her teachings? Again, it is the perpetrator that is responsible for committing acts of violence from their own disturbed ideas on Christian love. If we are to ban Leviticus from public discourse because a few may interpret it as a license to kill homosexuals, what other verses in scripture should be banned because some are offended by them? And who determines which are to banned? Should Al Gore be fined and his book on environmentalism be banned because the Uni-bomber had a copy and many of the same ideas as Gore? Did Gore incite the uni-bomber to violence because of his warped sense of environmentalism?

    Once we begin to scrub the Bible of verses because someone doesn't like them or sees and interprets something within them that they feel is violent or discriminatory, where does it stop? Will the verses on fornication and adultery be seen as discriminatory to those that practice these sins? Will these verses possibly incite someone to violence in order to stop these sins?

    This isn't a slippery slope but a major mudslide. It is a direct assault on our religious liberties and our faith. It has already begun as I've shown. Do I understand why gays are wary? For two thousand years Catholics have been you see why we are wary of SSM?

    Thank you for participating in this debate. I wish you well. Peace.

    1. "If anyone today thinks that mainline Christians advocate violence against homosexuals because of certain verses in scripture, then they are not being honest" No I don't think mainline Christian denominations advocate killing homosexuals any more. I also don't think Mr. Owens really would, but I don't know. He's listed as an Evangelical Christian, not a Catholic. In either case to put forward that verse is unacceptable.

      You mention Mr. Gore and the fact that the Unibomber had a copy of his book. Did Al Gore advocate killing of those who are not envirnmentally pure? (Note : he also had Guide to North American Birds. SHould we blaime that too?

      Teach that homosexuals should be chaste, teach that homosexuality is a sin, don't allow gay marriage within you church I will support you 100% but countenance violence against those you perceive as sinners and I, and most of society, will oppose you 100%.

      As I said in an earlier post, rights come with responsibilities. You have the right to believe or not what ever religion you want, but you have the responsibility to to interfere with the rights of others and to practice your religion in a civil manner.

  18. Rationalist1, I agree with the person who said that it is wishful thinking to pretend that gay marriage laws will not infringe on our freedom. I did not have time to research cases in Canada in this regard but I came across this story today from the US:

    Do you agree with the court?

    1. Thanks for the thought Sharon. If SSM becomes the law-of-the-land, we’ll seem more of this type of “effect”. I could see it spreading to churches not allowing an SSM ceremony. It would be seen as “racist”; like a church not allowing a certain race to marry. The logic would be that protecting a class of people trumps religious freedom.

    2. This is a private business. Generally in most jurisdictions private business that offer services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, race, ethnic origin and now increasing sexual orientation. Some people, most recently Paul Ryan, (I believe it was him) in the US lamented this fact and felt that businesses should be able to discriminant as the owner sees fit.

      I personally don't agree and feel that businesses need offer their service to the entire public, otherwise one might as well repeal the civil rights act.

      Religions, on the other hand are free to discriminant as they see fit and I would support them in that cause.

    3. So we are supposed to keep our religion to ourselves? Go to mass on Sunday and leave the doors and our religion inside? If I have a business with over 50 employees, I will have to provide insurance that includes contraceptives and abortifacnts. My faith does not allow me to do that, so I will have to close my doors or make all of my employees part-time and cut their hours. It is an unintended consequence. Once SSM is accepted, will a Catholic priest be able to say no to marrying a gay couple? Will a non-profit adoption agency that is run by Catholics have to close if their faith does not allow them to have a gay couple adopt a child? Will Catholic hospitals, Catholic private schools have to abandon their faith in order to comply with what society has accepted? or will they have to close? If they hold true to their faith, they will have to close...another unintended consequence.
      You state 'This is a private business...and now increasing sexual orientation' cannot be discriminated against." So if I am a faithful Catholi, I cannot own a business. Oh yeah, I can't see how SSM discussion affects me at all.

  19. Sharon, again this proves my point. When EVER the government gives special rights to a distinct group of people, then someones God given rights are violated. Two opposing rights cannot co-exist. In this case SS"M" and the Christian conscience, and in another big case, the rights of the unborn who were protected for two hundred years in this nation, swept away by a governmental right to abortion. Ben is right. Wait and see what happens if SS"M" becomes law of the land...just look at our northern neighbor.

    1. No. These are the same rights you have, not special rights for homosexuals.

      "Two opposing rights cannot co-exist. In this case SS"M" and the Christian conscience" What about many Christian denominations and non Christian religions that see no problem with SSM. Are certain Christian denominations to get special rights to impose their conscience upon all?

  20. Amazing discussion. I am a firm beleiver in gay rights though I am not gay. It was amazing to see varying points of view on such a topic kept very civil. @Rationalist1 I thank you;brilliantly argued.

  21. The issue is inward-facing and outward facing. When we look inward, we begin loving inwardly. This creates a narcissism within ourselves. That inward dwelling then applies to group and groups of groups and then society in general. When an individual looks inward or a society looks inward and loves the self, it dies.

    When we love the self more than others, we look for what we find in the mirror to love. Then we love things that are most like ourselves. Then society does the same thing. And it dies. Christians need to hold fast to the outward-looking perspective (procreative purposes and outward love), then as society dies (which it is) those who don't want to die with it will start learning how to truly love (outward-looking love).

    I'll add that there are only 2 types of loves: 1) the inward looking love and it's actually just a manefestation of power-lust; 2) brotherly/sisterly love (agape) and this type of love comes only to us through Christ Jesus.

    1. This relates well to the tab above called “Soul Check”. Check it out. Thank you for your comment.