Acceptance of Homosexual Marriage

[cmforte]

1. there are things such as medicare, medicaid, free clinics, health clinics, and reduced pay providers

I know this is a little off-topic, but let me expose a huge myth here:** there is no such thing as free medical care in the USA**. Take it from me. Before I got a job that offered medical insurance, I could not afford private health insurance, so I would visit so-called “free clinics” (that don’t offer many services and are few and far between anyways) and emergency rooms. These places** do bill you**. Not at the time of service, but they will send you a bill. And if you don’t pay, they hire a collection agency to go after you and put it on your credirt report. These days almost every potential employer and landlord looks and makes a decision about you based on your credit report, so one five-minute visit to an emergency room can negatively affect your life and possibly for years (this has happened to me). Some hospitals/medical centers/clinics may even sue you.

There is no such thing as free medical care, even emergency medical care, in the USA.

-Chris

 

[Nate13]

I know this is a little off-topic, but let me expose a huge myth here:** there is no such thing as free medical care in the USA**. Take it from me. Before I got a job that offered medical insurance, I could not afford private health insurance, so I would visit so-called “free clinics” (that don’t offer many services and are few and far between anyways) and emergency rooms. These places** do bill you**. Not at the time of service, but they will send you a bill. And if you don’t pay, they hire a collection agency to go after you and put it on your credirt report. These days almost every potential employer and landlord looks and makes a decision about you based on your credit report, so one five-minute visit to an emergency room can negatively affect your life and possibly for years (this has happened to me). Some hospitals/medical centers/clinics may even sue you.

There is no such thing as free medical care, even emergency medical care, in the USA.

-Chris

Yeah that’s because all their funding went to purchasing contraceptives to hand out for free and having to deal with all the sexual diseases that are caused by the amounts of sex that happen because of the extensive use of contraceptives

I’m going to argue that we make premarital sex illegal because STD’s are costing the tax payer over 10 billion/year

www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=5284

 

[Elizabeth502]

As an American, I believe in freedom and the separation of Church and State.

All of this, and what follows, absolutely proves that you have not read the documents linked in the thread I referenced. Or you do not understand them. Or you refuse to accept them. Those documents include:

The document on Faithful Citizenship
The documents from the Vatican on Homosexuality, homosexual “marriage,” and gay “unions.”
The documents which proceeded from the US Bishops (both on marriage and on civil unions).

All of the above address the relationship between faith traditions and the responsiblity of Catholics informed about the core tenets of their faith to apply such knowledge to the civic square.

The “separation of Church and state” does not refer to the irrelevancy of religion in political matters. It refers to the freedom of religious sects to advocate their views in secular society without restriction by the State, and the restriction of the State from identifying with a particular religion and excluding other religions from participation in public debate. Learn your American political system and its history.

The above is also addressed in the excerpt from Professor Robert George which you did not read.

I don’t remember what country you’re from, but you can’t be an American and believe that the RCC or ANY religious group has the right to force its theology on to others,

Advocacy is not “imposition.” And again if you had read and understood the documents, let alone kept up with similar discussions on CAF, you would understand that the Church’s position is in full keeping with American governance.

As to your earlier point about abortion not being “similar” to homosexual “marriage” or “unions,” the point is that all of the Church’s teaching on Life is intertwined. It is not possible to deconstruct it. It is a whole. Opposing the exclusiveness of traditional marriage is an opposition to Life as the Church defines it: life within the Divine Order, within the Divine law, and all that proceeds form that Order.

 

[cmforte]

All of this, and what follows, absolutely proves that you have not read the documents linked in the thread I referenced. Or you do not understand them. Or you refuse to accept them. Those documents include:

The document on Faithful Citizenship
The documents from the Vatican on Homosexuality, homosexual “marriage,” and gay “unions.”
The documents which proceeded from the US Bishops (both on marriage and on civil unions).

All of the above address the relationship between faith traditions and the responsiblity of Catholics informed about the core tenets of their faith to apply such knowledge to the civic square.

The “separation of Church and state” does not refer to the irrelevancy of religion in political matters. It refers to the freedom of religious sects to advocate their views in secular society without restriction by the State, and the restriction of the State from identifying with a particular religion and excluding other religions from participation in public debate. Learn your American political system and its history.

The above is also addressed in the excerpt from Professor Robert George which you did not read.

Advocacy is not “imposition.” And again if you had read and understood the documents, let alone kept up with similar discussions on CAF, you would understand that the Church’s position is in full keeping with American governance.

As to your earlier point about abortion not being “similar” to homosexual “marriage” or “unions,” the point is that all of the Church’s teaching on Life is intertwined. It is not possible to deconstruct it. It is a whole.that. Opposing the exclusiveness of traditional marriage is an opposition to Life as the Church defines it: life within the Divine Order, within the Divine law, and all that proceeds form that Order.

I am informed on the core tenets of the faith, I object to it in this context. Advocacy certainly is imposition when you want to explicitly outlaw something, like gay marriage, through legislation and Constitutional amendments. The Church says gay marriage is wrong and should be outlawed. The Church encourages (if not requires) its members to advocate this position in the “civic square”. Thus, The Church is trying to impose its views on to others. I am against that.

A religious sect advocating its view through such means certainly is violating the separation of Church and State and the concept of liberty. What else can a religious group advocate legislation for? Should we bring back Prohibition? Many conservative christian groups were for it. Allowing a religious group to impose (and advocating legislation that does this certainly is an imposition) its view on to others, particularly those that do not agree with it, would start a terrible precedent.

“Opposing the exclusiveness of traditional marriage is an opposition to Life as the Church defines it:”: I certainly do object to this. I have read these documents and still don’t get how letting two gay guys, who wouldn’t procreate and create life anyways since they are gay, is an opposition to life. I have no faith in The Church on biological issues in general. My reason is because it (through the Pope and Bishops) is still blaming outward society for pedophilia, instead of placing the blame on the perversed biological desires of the pedophile. It has no credibility on biological matters to me. I completely disregard the “Theology on the Body,” just rolling my eyes at it.

Anyways…I am not gay and I am certainly not an advocate for gay marriage. I can care less anyways. I just don’t want any religious group forcing its view, like its view on marriage, on to others. And this is certainly the case when it encourages or even requires its members to “advocate” for outlawing or keeping outlawed gay marriage. This is a church/state separation issue to me. If two gay guys want to participate in this sinful act and condemn themselves to Hell, that is their choice. Isn’t faith suppose to be a free choice? We can preach the Gospel to them and pray that they repent, but we can not force repentance and faith on to them. And we certainly can not or should not use the government to do so.

Btw, people who know “the American political system and its history” still do disagree on the interpretation and application of the separation of church and state and on the words in the First Amendment. I am one of those.

-Chris
(I know much of this post is redundant, but I just can’t say those things often enough.)

(I also know that many of you, especially you die-hard, The-Church-can-do-and-say-no-wrong Catholics are going to jump on me for my confession that I do not trust the Church heirarchy on biological matters (as is the same on illegal immigration and the role of secular governments )…some may even demand to know why I would still be a Catholic if I ***dare ***disagree with the Bishops and especially the Holy Father himself…well, that is a discusion for another thread…)

 

[NeedImprovement]

Accepting the application of a same-sex marriage was part of Mrs. Belforti’s job. When you go to a job, to work, especially for the government which affects many people who are different than you and share different views, you need to and should leave your personal and religious beliefs at the door. If you don’t like that, dion’t work that job.

-Chris

…:dts:…Close … but no cigar. That wasn’t the point I was making at all. Feel free to read it again - in context if you like:

That’s good advice for all of us.

Sometimes I wonder if it’s also part of the objective of naysayers/trolls/instigators , who all of a sudden show up, and stir up, set up, and upset - to tire us out swinging at shadows and (maybe inadvertently) knock us out of any prayer routine we may have.

As a repeat “dupee” I was a little reticent to post on this thread once the controversy started. How someone could be claiming on this thread that same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’ (it will never be marriage) has been ‘legal’ for some years and imply it has never harmed anyone ; how they could challenge CAF members repeatedly to cite examples where the homosexual agenda has harmed someone, implying otherwise, yet …

…at the time be posting on this thread based on a NY Times article about a Ledyard NY elected town clerk, Mrs. Rose Marie Belforti who first won election as a town clerk a decade ago and who has served her constituents well and now may be forced out of her job because she cannot conscientiously “participate in the same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’ application process” (God bless her) … is , to say the least… perplexing. Given that same sex (ahem) ‘marriage’ (it will never be marriage) has only been legal in NY since June, and that the article states two other town clerks have already been forced out of their jobs by that exact legislation, it can leave one pondering how many sides of a keyboard a person can type out of at the same time…

@ EasterJoy : I thought posts #'s 56 & 57 were very well written and a most informative read. Thanks for posting them.

While on the subject of well written pieces, in post # 3 of this thread JamestheOlder posted a link to an excellent article written on the topic of this thread. If any of our brothers or sisters who are in harmony with the objectives of Catholic Answers Forums missed it, it can be read here : First Things, The Homosexual Movement

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

As an American, I believe in freedom and the separation of Church and State. I don’t remember what country you’re from, but you can’t be an American and believe that the RCC or ANY religious group has the right to force its theology on to others, especially through a civil government. I agree with The Church that homosexuality is a disorder and gays should be celibate, but when it comes to State recognition (not The Church’s), that is totally different. This is along the same lines as my disagreement with The Church on illegal immigration and the role of government: separation of Church and State, FREEDOM.

-Chris

To truly be Catholic God must come before your country because Christ is the king of kings

 

[cmforte]

To truly be Catholic God must come before your country because Christ is the king of kings

Wow!! It happened!! Why did it take so long?!!!

We are saved by faith (with works), thus to be truely saved you must have true faith. True faith can not be forced. Even The Church has finally recognized this fact.

-Chris

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Wow!! It happened!! Why did it take so long?!!!

We are saved by faith (with works), thus to be truely saved you must have true faith. True faith can not be forced. Even The Church has finally recognized this fact.

-Chris

As such since the Church is the Bride of Christ Her teachings transcend the law of nations though She tries to work within them.

 

[cmforte]

As such since the Church is the Bride of Christ Her teachings transcend the law of nations though She tries to work within them.

But Her teachings should not be forced on to others.

-Chris

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

But Her teachings should not be forced on to others.

-Chris

Is that why She in Her infinite wisdom excommunicates those who support abortion and gay marriage?

 

[cmforte]

Is that why She in Her infinite wisdom excommunicates those who support abortion and gay marriage?

When did She ever do that? So-called “Catholic” politicians who support abortion still receive the Eucharist!! This is a controversy that has even been discussed here on CAF…and many times. (btw, I am against abortion. That is a life/death issue. Abortion is the taking of a human life. Gay marriage isn’t.)

-Chris

(And yes, The Church would have every right to excommunicate me if She wished. Ultimately I will answer to God.)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

When did She ever do that? So-called “Catholic” politicians who support abortion still receive the Eucharist!! This is a controversy that has even been discussed here on CAF…and many times. (btw, I am against abortion. That is a life/death issue. Abortion is the taking of a human life. Gay marriage isn’t.)

-Chris

(And yes, The Church would have every right to excommunicate me if She wished. Ultimately I will answer to God.)

I apologize, on research it appears that it is not excommunication it is mortal sin. If I Recall Correctly one must be sorry (even if only motivated by a fear of Hell) for an action to be forgiven of it…

 

[cmforte]

I apologize, on research it appears that it is not excommunication it is mortal sin. If I Recall Correctly one must be sorry (even if only motivated by a fear of Hell) for an action to be forgiven of it…

Is ***agreeing ***with gay marriage a mortal sin? Or is advocating gay marriage a mortal sin? I don’t go around advocating it. For me, this is not so much a gay marriage issue as it is a Church/State separation one. I’m on no crusade to legalize gay marriage.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Is ***agreeing ***with gay marriage a mortal sin? Or is advocating gay marriage a mortal sin? I don’t go around advocating it. For me, this is not so much a gay marriage issue as it is a Church/State separation one. I’m on no crusade to legalize gay marriage.

-Chris

Off to bed. Will catch up tomorrow.

-Chris

 

[NeedImprovement]

But Her teachings should not be forced on to others.

-Chris

But the homosexual agenda of the gay militants should be forced on others ? … - on a majority ?

They are doing precisely what separation of state and Church is intended to prevent. That they don’t claim God as their head is merely a technicality. With time, this is going to become painfully clear to a lot of surprised people if nothing major changes. They go out of their way to silence Christians because we have a set of moral beliefs different to theirs . The militant homosexual agenda being the antithesis of these moral beliefs means they also have a set of beliefs or standards ( I hesitate to use the word “values”). And more and more the larger part of society is being forced to live by them under the threat of fines, lawsuits and or imprisonment.

There are a lot more people than only Catholics who disagree with this agenda. Maybe it would be a fairer representation to include them too instead of singling out the Catholic Church ?

 

[Dawnia]

But Her teachings should not be forced on to others.

-Chris

Regardless of which side wins, someone’s beliefs will get trampled on. If gay “marriage” wins out, those who don’t believe that two people of the same gender can get married will be forced to recognize those unions and materially support such unions or risk government sanction.

If current marriage laws are maintained, gays aren’t out anything (in the States that currently don’t recognize it). They will still have the right to form whatever private unions they decide to enter into without government sanctions just like everyone else, they just won’t gain the government perks (like divorce) that go with marriage.

The RCC also opposes murder, rape, incest, theft and a number of other things enshrined in law. Just because a law or political issue lines up with RCC teaching doesn’t mean the RCC is forcing its religious beliefs on others. The RCC is not alone in this fight against gay marriage. There are religious and nonreligious alike who are against changing the marriage laws. Until very recently in history (with a few exceptions) homosexual behavior was universally wrong.

 

[Nate13]

Is ***agreeing ***with gay marriage a mortal sin? Or is advocating gay marriage a mortal sin? I don’t go around advocating it. For me, this is not so much a gay marriage issue as it is a Church/State separation one. I’m on no crusade to legalize gay marriage.

-Chris

haha what are you agreeing about then? To hand them a piece of paper and a tax break? I’m sorry but you and I both know they are not out there fighting for that. They want to make speaking out against homosexuality hate speech. That is the end goal. Right now they have no ground to stand on to try and achieve that goal. If you allow for the redefining of what marriage is, you will give them the ground they need to stand on to make that happen. Preventing discrimination against homosexual people and redefining what marriage is are not one in the same. What the homosexual movement hates is that a vast majority of Americans view what they do to be wrong. Even though its now about 50/50 on legalizing gay marriage of some sort, a majority of Americans personally believe that homosexual acts are wrong. How good can a person committing these acts feel knowing 75% of their own people believe they are morally wrong?

 

[CMB3884]

haha what are you agreeing about then? To hand them a piece of paper and a tax break? I’m sorry but you and I both know they are not out there fighting for that. They want to make speaking out against homosexuality hate speech. That is the end goal. Right now they have no ground to stand on to try and achieve that goal. If you allow for the redefining of what marriage is, you will give them the ground they need to stand on to make that happen. Preventing discrimination against homosexual people and redefining what marriage is are not one in the same. What the homosexual movement hates is that a vast majority of Americans view what they do to be wrong. Even though its now about 50/50 on legalizing gay marriage of some sort, a majority of Americans personally believe that homosexual acts are wrong. How good can a person committing these acts feel knowing 75% of their own people believe they are morally wrong?

Just curious where you got those numbers…I haven’t seen any polls with those results so I’d like to be able to look into them. Here are the most recent numbers I’ve seen:

gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx : majority support of same-sex marriage.

fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/ : majority support of same sex marriage.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/support-for-gay-marriage-the-details/2011/03/18/ABIrctp_blog.html : majority support for same sex marriage.

zogby.com/news/2011/07/07/ibope-zogby-interactive-poll-same-sex-marriage-opposed-slightly-huge-support-civil-unions/ : in this poll, a majority does not support same sex marriage but overwhelmingly support Civil Unions so this would seem to go against your assertion that “a majority of Americans personally believe that homosexual acts are wrong”

Now I am just presenting the numbers that I have seen, I am not personally advocating for anything so please do not come back questioning my faith or morals or telling me I mustn’t be Catholic. If you can just give me a link for what you said above, I’d love to look at it.

Thanks!

 

[NeedImprovement]

Just curious where you got those numbers…I haven’t seen any polls with those results so I’d like to be able to look into them. Here are the most recent numbers I’ve seen:

gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx : majority support of same-sex marriage.

fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/ : majority support of same sex marriage.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/support-for-gay-marriage-the-details/2011/03/18/ABIrctp_blog.html : majority support for same sex marriage.

zogby.com/news/2011/07/07/ibope-zogby-interactive-poll-same-sex-marriage-opposed-slightly-huge-support-civil-unions/ : in this poll, a majority does not support same sex marriage but overwhelmingly support Civil Unions so this would seem to go against your assertion that “a majority of Americans personally believe that homosexual acts are wrong”

Now I am just presenting the numbers that I have seen, I am not personally advocating for anything so please do not come back questioning my faith or morals or telling me I mustn’t be Catholic. If you can just give me a link for what you said above, I’d love to look at it.

Thanks!

For me the question would have to be “Why” are the poll results being presented if there is no objective to presenting them ?

Polls can be manipulated . With all the heightened accusations using buzzwords such as “homophobe” , “hate”, “discrimination” ,"** bigot**", “equality”, "diversity" , and seeing how people who don’t agree with same sex marriage in a practical way, are being, fined, sued and losing their livelihood, you really have to wonder if a person might be somewhat intimidated by a stranger phoning them and asking if they approve of same sex marriage. Really, what do you expect them to answer - now that the ones asking have their phone number too … …?

• • Note that the poster quoted above has added, beside the link to the NY Times article, his/her own personal comment

CMB3884:

majority support of same-sex marriage.

, but when we read the article, it states
NY Times:

“There is a margin of error associated with the calculation of the trendline, so it is too soon to say with confidence that support for gay marriage has become the plurality position (let alone the majority one).”

…

and
NY Times:

" it’s always possible that the momentum toward increasing support for gay marriage could flatten out or even reverse itself."

Let’s dispense with the polls for the moment. They’re unreliable. If someone really is interested in “looking into” some other polls, in this particular case it would seem to make every bit of sense to look more closely into the ones they have posted themselves first - It goes a long way in establishing credibility .

 

[NeedImprovement]

A more accurate measurement which isn’t as easy to manipulate is the ballot. Now , according to one of those same links provided two posts ago - from the New York Times :
New York Times:

The only time a statewide ballot proposition to limit gay marriage was defeated was in Arizona in 2006, …

But wait, it gets better, let’s read a little of the material surrounding that excerpt:
New York Times:

… Gay marriage advocates still face some challenges, however. The only time a statewide ballot proposition to limit gay marriage was defeated was in Arizona in 2006, although a narrower version of that initiative was passed by the state’s voters in 2008. Gay marriage advocates lost key ballot proposition battles in California in 2008 and Maine in 2009.

Both the California and Maine results were close, and because opinion is shifting so quickly on the issue, the outcomes would probably be different if they were voted on again today.

“Gay marriage” (it will never me marriage) “advocates lost key ballot proposition battles in California in 2008” … Yeah right . All my brothers and sisters who are in harmony with the objectives of Catholic Answers Forums please look very carefully at this next part :

Once the people spoke their will and voted in California in 2008, look what happened , in the words of Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. - senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland, and founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) Same sex marriage Will Hurt Families, Society : (highlights mine)
CNN:

"In California, a U.S. District Court Judge last week overturned Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. It was passed in November 2008 by California voters to recognize ‘only marriage between a man and a woman.’

The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state’s black voters, have just had their core civil right – the right to vote – stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state’s people.

The implicit comparison Judge Vaughn Walker made between racism and opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all who remember the reality of Jim Crow. It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples…"

Polls have been a long-time implement of the homosexual and gay militant propagandists. If the numbers are accurate (which I sincerely doubt - borne out by the concrete results of the ballot and the pollster’s own admission of potential inaccuracy and uncertainty) it simply means they’re running a successful disinformation and propaganda campaign, continuing to wield legislation as it becomes available.

As of 2011 , The Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law estimates that

“about 3.8% of Americans identify as gay, lesbian bisexual or transgender” .

The about.com article goes on to say it is difficult to calculate exactly how many there are ( a people that can’t be counted - how convenient for fudging figures) but a recent government survey

“found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as ‘homosexual’ or ‘bisexual.’ A similar proportion of voters identify as GLB. If you define gay as having same-sex attractions or behaviors, you do get higher proportions that are a bit closer to the one in ten figure.”

We call that a minority (although they can’t be counted - how’s that for an oxymoron ?) .

How is it that such a small amount of the population is able to impose their beliefs and standards on society, undermine the family and threaten those who don’t toe the line with lawsuits, fines, imprisonment ?

I don’t know if I can spend too much more time on this thread… currently looking at something much larger being accomplished by the homosexual activists which is going to require time to present.

Let’s remember to pray too guys. Catholics are a people of prayer.