Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

[Thepeopl]

I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Why aren't Christians clamouring about heterosexual couples having sex while the woman is having her period? It is in the same lev. 20.
They, too, should have their parental rights revoked.

[Necroghastia]

I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

You do realize how how pyrrhic the thing you're advocating for is? You say you don't want gay people to spend their lives alone, but you would reduce options to a hollow, unfulfilling mockery of a true relationship or celibacy. Would a loving God truly reduce gay people to those options and those alone? Especially if he made them gay to begin with?

[The Free Joy State]

I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

You have been made aware of the psychological harm this terrible and damaging plan would cause:

Discrimination (such as disallowing marriage and IVF to same-sex couples) is shown to raise rates of depression and anxiety, while hiding the fact you're LGBT+ can lead to mental harm (including dissociation, self-hatred and low self-esteem), not to mention a mass of half-truths and small lies.

So... no. What you advocate is not a recipe for happiness. Or truth.

Yet you persist anyway.

I am starting to suspect your argument really is nothing more than homophobia, albeit couched in nicer, softer language than has been used by some others. Deprivation of rights -- the causing of massive suffering, on people who share none of your beliefs -- for some ill-formed idea of "their good".

[Thepeopl]

Yet you don't want LGBT to be able get married or have children? Do you even want to allow them to be in relationship because that sounds like you want them to remain alone.

No. I want people to marry and have children within sacramental marriages and familial structures. That, or practice celibacy in its various forms. I want all people to be an active part of such communities. Beyond family, friendship, romance, there is a love to quote Dante, that "moves the sun and the other stars."

So all adulterers will have their parental rights revoked too?

[Sundiata]

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?

Love is not just a physical thing.

[Freiheit Reich]

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Why aren't Christians clamouring about heterosexual couples having sex while the woman is having her period? It is in the same lev. 20.
They, too, should have their parental rights revoked.

This might help. Note, I don't agree with some of these rules, but I found it awhile ago and remember these rules. They are pretty strict. :

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm#02

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?

Yes, natural intercourse is permitted between a husband and wife during those times.

Although the natural marital act does not result in a new conception during pregnancy, the act itself is still inherently directed toward procreation. Natural intercourse is the type of sexual act that is inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning, as well as toward the marital and unitive meanings. And so the marital act remains moral even when conception cannot occur due to pregnancy.

There are two common reasons that Catholics ask if marital relations is moral during the wife's period. First, some ask because St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that marital relations is not moral during menstruation. However, his opinion was based on a misunderstanding about reproductive biology, in that he thought harm would result to the offspring. Given the medical knowledge that no such harm results to the offspring from marital relations during menstruation, his opinion on this point is in error.

Second, some ask because they mistakenly think that conception cannot occur as a result of sexual relations during menstruation, and they mistakenly think that marital relations is not moral if procreation cannot possibly result. But as long as the sexual act is the type of act inherently directed at procreation, i.e. natural genital-to-genital intercourse, the act retains the procreative meaning intended by God for marital relations. For it is the inherent ordering of an act toward its moral object, not the attainment of the moral object, that causes an act to be either good, or intrinsically evil.

Even when natural intercourse is unable to attain procreation, it remains ordered toward procreation, and so it retains its proper procreative meaning. Natural marital relations is moral, even when the husband and wife are unable to conceive, because the essential moral nature of the act remains inherently ordered toward the threefold good intended by God for sexual relations: the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings.

[San Lumen]

So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?

Love is not just a physical thing.

Yes it’s also about chemistry and personality. I don’t understand why Lgbt people should have to marry someone they don’t love to not be alone and have children. You don’t see the harm that could cause someone?

[Necroghastia]

So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?

Love is not just a physical thing.

While romantic orientation does not always follow sexual orientation, I'm fairly sure that most most homosexual people are not heteroromantic.

[The Free Joy State]

So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?

Love is not just a physical thing.

If you will never be romantically interested in another party, because you are sexually incompatible, there will always be something missing. Any physical activity will be viewed with negative emotions, if it is tolerable at all (and as sex an important part of bonding, that will not help the relationship). Also, deep, lasting love comes from sharing who you fully are as a person -- not withholding who you are and pretending to be the heterosexual society demands you be, because who you are is a crime.

So, what Lumen said was accurate. People will be forced -- as their grandparents' generation were -- into loveless, possibly unconsummated marriages for the sake of appearances. Forced into societal roles that won't suit them. Cursed to live lives of depression and self-hatred.

That is what your plan would bring to the world.

[The New California Republic]

I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Those aren't choices, they want to be with someone of the same sex, but you are telling them that instead they are being denied something that straight people take for granted, i.e. form a consenting relationship freely with another adult. It may make you feel better to think that you are being generous by offering two shitty things in place of something you are taking away, but don't try to act as though you are being benevolent by offering this "choice."

[The Free Joy State]

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Those aren't choices, they want to be with someone of the same sex, but you are telling them that instead they are being denied something that straight people take for granted, i.e. form a consenting relationship freely with another adult. It may make you feel better to think that you are being generous by offering two shitty things in place of something you are taking away, but don't try to act as though you are being benevolent by offering this "choice."

"You may not have a house to live in. But, you are not forgotten: you may live in this box or this charming doorway, if you so choose."

An overdramatic comparison? Perhaps. But it is not I who proposes denying a whole group of people real choice, genuine love, social acceptance, a family and happiness on the sole basis of my personal beliefs, and appears to wish to appear merciful while doing so.

But, this seems to have broadened rather a lot from the original OP and same-sex parents...

[Kernen]

I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

"I want you to be happy, but only by my definition of happiness. Tough shit if that doesn't make you happy."

So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?

Love is not just a physical thing.

And yet society recognizes the serious value physical aspects of love play in relationship, families, and society. Let's stop pretending it doesn't matter.

[Kannap]

I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

So you want homosexuals to marry/procreate in a loveless marriage and via sexual activity that they find no pleasure or enjoyment in?

Sounds utterly miserable, why would you wish that upon people?

[Celritannia]

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

So you want homosexuals to marry/procreate in a loveless marriage and via sexual activity that they find no pleasure or enjoyment in?

Sounds utterly miserable, why would you wish that upon people?

Is he still going on about this?
FFS!

[Celritannia]

Why aren't Christians clamouring about heterosexual couples having sex while the woman is having her period? It is in the same lev. 20.
They, too, should have their parental rights revoked.

This might help. Note, I don't agree with some of these rules, but I found it awhile ago and remember these rules. They are pretty strict. :

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm#02

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?

Yes, natural intercourse is permitted between a husband and wife during those times.

Although the natural marital act does not result in a new conception during pregnancy, the act itself is still inherently directed toward procreation. Natural intercourse is the type of sexual act that is inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning, as well as toward the marital and unitive meanings. And so the marital act remains moral even when conception cannot occur due to pregnancy.

There are two common reasons that Catholics ask if marital relations is moral during the wife's period. First, some ask because St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that marital relations is not moral during menstruation. However, his opinion was based on a misunderstanding about reproductive biology, in that he thought harm would result to the offspring. Given the medical knowledge that no such harm results to the offspring from marital relations during menstruation, his opinion on this point is in error.

Second, some ask because they mistakenly think that conception cannot occur as a result of sexual relations during menstruation, and they mistakenly think that marital relations is not moral if procreation cannot possibly result. But as long as the sexual act is the type of act inherently directed at procreation, i.e. natural genital-to-genital intercourse, the act retains the procreative meaning intended by God for marital relations. For it is the inherent ordering of an act toward its moral object, not the attainment of the moral object, that causes an act to be either good, or intrinsically evil.

Even when natural intercourse is unable to attain procreation, it remains ordered toward procreation, and so it retains its proper procreative meaning. Natural marital relations is moral, even when the husband and wife are unable to conceive, because the essential moral nature of the act remains inherently ordered toward the threefold good intended by God for sexual relations: the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings.

So let's pick and choose what we want to follow from Leviticus?

[Geneviev]

I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

That just sounds depressing. I don't think that's what God would want for anyone.

[Celritannia]

I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Would you force them to do this? Or force them to be celibate?

[Sundiata]

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Would you force them to do this? Or force them to be celibate?

They'd choose between the two.

[Celritannia]

Would you force them to do this? Or force them to be celibate?

They'd choose between the two.

So they choose between 2 options that will never make them happy?

Yeah, that's still being forced.

[Reko Guire]

They'd choose between the two.

So they choose between 2 options that will never make them happy?

Yeah, that's still being forced.

If they want to be happy they could just choose to be straight.

[Sundiata]

So they choose between 2 options that will never make them happy?

Yeah, that's still being forced.

If they want to be happy they could just choose to be straight.

Come on man, same-sex attraction is not a choice. Are you joking?

[Celritannia]

If they want to be happy they could just choose to be straight.

Come on man, same-sex attraction is not a choice. Are you joking?

But they are not allowed to choose to be happy, by your logic.

[Kannap]

Would you force them to do this? Or force them to be celibate?

They'd choose between the two.

Are you going to force them to do this?

[Kannap]

So they choose between 2 options that will never make them happy?

Yeah, that's still being forced.

If they want to be happy they could just choose to be straight.

Can straight people just choose to be gay? If it's possible, do it.

[Sundiata]

Sounds utterly miserable, why would you wish that upon people?

I don't wish suffering upon people but these trials, as well as similar trials are necessary to forge us well. Struggles aren't arbitrary. "They are always there to show which way is safe to go," to quote St. Josemaria. Pain and difficulty will someday cease.