Being against same-sex marriage, assumed to be hateful

[marymary1975]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China

The Cuban constitution also guarantees the freedom.of.religion. then why one.of the firsts things they did was.killing.and.kicking out of.the country every single priest, pastor, rabbis that was in Cuba and why did they destroy every single church, synagogue or religious temple that existed in Cuba?

Ironically in Pinochet`s Chile freedom.of expression was also guarantee by the.constitution. My point is if you are going to.rely, to make.your judgment , on.information provided by the person accused, you are relying on the wrong source…and little less when we are talking about dictatorial regimes.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’ve read their website now, and nowhere could I see them calling for the Catholic Church to perform same sex marriages within the Church presided by a Priest performing a Sacramental marriage.

If the certification of a same-sex union as a “marriage” and hence a family as a standard building block for society is demonstrably more detrimental than the civil support of male-female marriages only, it makes no difference if Churches are forced to perform the ceremony or not. It also doesn’t cut to the heart of the question - what is a marriage. Is it just genital touching? Two people who “love” each other? Can siblings call themselves “married” and get tax credits? Mother and son? Woman and cousin? What if they “love” each other too? If it is an ontological impossibility for two same-gendered people to be “married,” isn’t it the loving response to tell them the truth about that? At any rate, religious people have just as much a right to the conversation as any other voter.

 

[the]

The Cuban constitution also guarantees the freedom.of.religion. then why one.of the firsts things they did was.killing.and.kicking out of.the country every single priest, pastor, rabbis that was in Cuba and why did they destroy every single church, synagogue or religious temple that existed in Cuba?

Ironically in Pinochet`s Chile freedom.of expression was also guarantee by the.constitution. My point is if you are going to.rely, to make.your judgment , on.information provided by the person accused, you are relying on the wrong source…and little less when we are talking about dictatorial regimes.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[marymary1975]

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_pope_fidel_castro_dm_120328_wg.jpg

Fidel.relaxed his religion policies after he spoke and.met with pope.Jon Paul second. I can assure that the luck.of.priests in Cuba in 1960.was very different to the one of.the priests after John Paul intervened for.religious liberty in Cuba.

 

[atheistgirl]

The Cuban constitution also guarantees the freedom.of.religion. then why one.of the firsts things they did **was.killing.and.kicking out of.the country every single priest, pastor, rabbis **that was in Cuba

Not true.

Another baseless claim.

Between 1957 and 1961 20% of religious leaders remained in Cuba, despite all the trials and tribulations, and the numbers have consistently grown from there.

Look up the Cuban Catholic Bishops Conference’s website for actual information, not made up stuff.

and why did they destroy every single church, synagogue or religious temple that existed in Cuba?

Not true.

havana-guide.com/churches-in-cuba.html

jewishcuba.org/synagogues.html

Once again, you are demonstrating you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Sarah x

 

[RedFox0456]

atheistgirl, it is incredibly unfortunate that any people would be imprisoned, tortured, executed, or even discriminated against in any place in the world and for any unjust reason. However, this train of thought doesn’t actually make a real case for same sex marriage. Catholicism itself does not say that gay people should be treated in any discriminatory way whatsoever. More than that, we shouldn’t be turning our backs on people for things they cannot control, such as who they are attracted to. Because some countries with a Christian population do not actually practice their faith properly doesn’t mean the True moral values of that faith are bad.

Now, you believe that being against same sex marriage is discriminatory. I would argue that if same sex couples truly just want to have financial benefits and legal rights then they are certainly entitled to them. That is called a civil union. True, legislation in its current form means a civil union lacks the full benefits of marriage, but as we all know, laws can be changed. I know it seems that separating might seem discriminatory, but it would actually offer a unique distinction to marriage. For instance, a civil union would not mean that a couple is gay. Simply that it is a state-sponsored union. Straight couples would also be able to get a civil union if they do not have interest in sacramental marriage, or if the Church is unwilling to marry them for some other reason, like a past marriage that ended in divorce. This preserves all of the freedoms, but does not redefine marriage as we see it.

Of course, the objection isn’t just in calling it marriage or civil union. Here’s one example. Legally, marriage was intended for couples who had or planned to have children, and as a same sex couple can’t actually have children by natural means, there would not be a reason to have all the benefits of marriage. Now, we can redefine marriage to cover couples who simply love each other and want to spend their lives together, but I think that poses a logical issue. By changing what marriage is, we have opened the door to changing it again. I’m not going to start spouting polygamy and bestiality, etc.

Instead I’m going to follow through with some logic. Consider that there are people who might not have sexual interests or the ability to have sex due to a disability. Perhaps they are just good friends. Because they don’t have sexual interest, they won’t have to worry about infidelity. They are still capable of building a strong emotional bond. Since sexual attraction or function isn’t a criteria, why are we to say the love they feel is worth any less than that of a couple that has sex? Why can’t they get married and have those legal rights and financial benefits? Surely you aren’t suggesting people who don’t have sex are any less important or deserving of this.

So what about people who are single and are just good friends. Maybe they like to sleep around, but don’t actually believe in settling down. Remember, sexual interests aren’t a criteria here. Why can’t two friends be married and still have their own private lives? They are best friends. They spend time all their free time together. Maybe they are roommates to even save money. Why can’t they have the same legal benefits? It’s not like they chose to never have emotional love the way society has defined it.

In removing or changing one aspect to the definition of marriage, the problem is the whole thing really starts to become meaningless. The end result might seem a little absurd, but I don’t really know where you can draw the line here without shutting the door on someone’s face.

 

[atheistgirl]

At any rate, religious people have just as much a right to the conversation as any other voter.

I agree.

Where I disagree is religious getting to define for others what their life should be like, when they do not adhere to or believe in that faith.

I am just as opposed to homosexual men and woman demanding something from the Church that is against the faith of that Church as I am against that Church attempting to impose it’s morality and beliefs on a secular couple who can rightly and legally marry within the law, as is the case in many States and Countries around the world.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

atheistgirl, it is incredibly unfortunate that any people would be imprisoned, tortured, executed, or even discriminated against in any place in the world and for any unjust reason. However, this train of thought doesn’t actually make a real case for same sex marriage.

I agree.

My point was made to address baseless claims by another poster and another claim Christians are more discriminated against than homosexuals.

Uganda, a majority Christian, majority Catholic country is a good example of why that’s just not true.

Catholicism itself does not say that gay people should be treated in any discriminatory way whatsoever. More than that, we shouldn’t be turning our backs on people for things they cannot control, such as who they are attracted to. Because some countries with a Christian population do not actually practice their faith properly doesn’t mean the True moral values of that faith are bad.

I agree.

I’ve read the relevant passages of the CCC and the Church should be rightly proud of it’s instruction on how those with same sex attraction must be ministered to.

Now, you believe that being against same sex marriage is discriminatory.

I agree.

But I have no problem with this.

People are entitled to their opinion and are entitled to believe and follow the tenets of their faith in relation to same sex marriage.

What they are not entitled to in my opinion is impose those beliefs on those who don’t share their faith or beliefs in relation to marriage.

In removing or changing one aspect to the definition of marriage, the problem is the whole thing really starts to become meaningless. The end result might seem a little absurd, but I don’t really know where you can draw the line here without shutting the door on someone’s face.

That is the price of living in a democracy.

Some group will always lose out.

Sarah x

 

[RedFox0456]

My point was made to address baseless claims by another poster and another claim Christians are more discriminated against than homosexuals.

I just felt the conversation had gone a bit too far off on a tangent and felt the need to end that line of discussion.

atheistgirl:

That is the price of living in a democracy.

Some group will always lose out.

Sarah x

That statement doesn’t sit well with me. What it suggests is that right, wrong, just, unjust is unimportant. That it is only the will of the majority that matters. This leads to many problems. If the will of the majority wanted to have everyone below an IQ of 100 killed, then I mean, sucks for those people. That’s the price of democracy. As it turns out, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic, for the record. I normally wouldn’t call someone out on this, but you do seem to be a stickler for details and in this case the distinction is important.

“A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter or constitution.”

So, since we have a constitution, we need to look at that and not just think about what the current social trend is. For instance, right from the Declaration of Independence, we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, as a society, don’t seem to value the right to life, but I’d not like to get into that can of worms at this time. Liberty. Once again, being against gay marriage actually doesn’t hinder the liberty of a gay person. The pursuit of happiness. This one is trickier, of course. But note the distinction between the right to happiness and the right to its pursuit. Saying that you are denying someone happiness is not a case. If it were so, I wouldn’t be working on a masters degree so I can have a better career. And I don’t know your definition of marriage, but I can’t imagine anyone sees it as a right. Even for straight couples. Sacramental marriage is seen as a gift. State marriage is often seen as nothing more than a legally binding contract. Even the benefits that marriage in our society confers to straight couples are not rights. Therefore, rights are not being infringed upon in the pursuit of happiness for same sex couples.

Rights are, however, being infringed upon when a catering business, photographer, etc. are legally penalized for not offering services towards a same sex ceremony. Note this is not an argument against same sex marriage, but it is partially why so many people are so heated about the issue on this forum, and once emotions get involved people start to lose their ability to make sound logical arguments.

 

[marymary1975]

Not true.

Another baseless claim.

Between 1957 and 1961 20% of religious leaders remained in Cuba, despite all the trials and tribulations, and the numbers have consistently grown from there.

Look up the Cuban Catholic Bishops Conference’s website for actual information, not made up stuff.

Not true.

havana-guide.com/churches-in-cuba.html

jewishcuba.org/synagogues.html

Once again, you are demonstrating you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Sarah x

If you would know how to read you would probably have realized that I said that after Fidel spoke with pope.John Paul, Fidel relaxed his religious policies. You provide two links regarding churches now a days which is obvious that there are because it is after Fidel met the pope and after the change in policies.

You are telling me that I don’t know what I am talking when you cannot even read what has been written. From what you are showing here as to your reading capacities is obvious that when something says one thing you interpreted completely different in your mind so that shows that your information is the one that is baseless, as it is based on improper reading.

And regarding your assertion that is not true, why don’t you come and tell that to my ex.mother in law who.was 13 years old and was inside her classroom in a catholic school in Cuba when Fidel`s people walked armed and shooting into her school, arresting the nuns.and killing the ones they didn’t arrest, and she had to escape through a window to survive the shooting and who, after surviving the shooting, arrived to her house to found the death bodies of her entire family and found that everything inside the house had been taken away, and who had to smuggle herself into a plane to make.it to Miami in order not to get killed. Sincerely you sound pretty ignorant. Stop talking about Cuba when you have never been in your life been there (and apparently you haven’t even been.in Miami) and doesn’t even know anyone who is or has been there and you don’t even know what communism is.

 

[marymary1975]

I agree.

My point was made to address baseless claims by another poster and another claim Christians are more discriminated against than homosexuals.

Uganda, a majority Christian, majority Catholic country is a good example of why that’s just not true.

That is the price of living in a democracy.

Some group will always lose out.

Sarah x

Tell right now in the United states of.America which state is currently persecuting homosexuals… None right? You keep bringing Uganda to.derail the original point that in the United states gays are far away from.being persecuted instead they are,.as stated by justice Roberts, an.economically powered group which can’t be considered oppressors because oppressors people don’t have economical power.

The only thing that so far you have said it is right is that in democracies some.groups will lose, yes that is true, as.democracy is the government of majorities then that means that the minorities are the ones that lose, therefore given that homosexuals are only 4% of the population then according to your logic then gay marriage shouldn’t exist.because they are the minority.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Tell right now in the United states of.America which state is currently persecuting homosexuals… None right? You keep bringing Uganda to.derail the original point that in the United states gays are far away from.being persecuted instead they are,.as stated by justice Roberts, an.economically powered group which can’t be considered oppressors because oppressors people don’t have economical power.

The only thing that so far you have said it is right is that in democracies some.groups will lose, yes that is true, as.democracy is the government of majorities then that means that the minorities are the ones that lose, therefore given that homosexuals are only 4% of the population then according to your logic then gay marriage shouldn’t exist.because they are the minority.

The whole thing is off topic and you fell into the trap. It kinda gets me riled how people can just make statements like athiestgirl and not be challenged. She had people talking about cuba, castro, china etc. Everything but the topic. She even recently implied that homosexuals are killed more so than Christians, and yes. It is tempting to jump down every rabbit hole in the arguments. But each one should have it’s own thread. If you want to discuss with her the litany of homosexual saints and martyrs feel free to start a thread. Or if we are to discuss when Castro was more open to Catholics than not and what a Pope had to do with it that is also a different thread. Or what countries kill Christians, that is also a thread…

But to fall into arguing about how homosexuals are killed the world over while Christians walk around with rosaries on their necks is silly. Don’t get drawn into it.

 

[atheistgirl]

If the will of the majority wanted to have everyone below an IQ of 100 killed, then I mean, sucks for those people. That’s the price of democracy.

These examples are brought up all the time.

Can you seriously see something like that happening, today?

As it turns out, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic, for the record. I normally wouldn’t call someone out on this, but you do seem to be a stickler for details and in this case the distinction is important.

“A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter or constitution.”

You are, of course, correct, but I was referring to democracy in the broader sense as opposed to a dictatorship or a theocracy.

Saying that you are denying someone happiness is not a case.

I agree.

And I don’t know your definition of marriage, but I can’t imagine anyone sees it as a right. Even for straight couples. Sacramental marriage is seen as a gift. State marriage is often seen as nothing more than a legally binding contract. Even the benefits that marriage in our society confers to straight couples are not rights. Therefore, rights are not being infringed upon in the pursuit of happiness for same sex couples.

Are you saying that the right to get married does not exist?

And therefore same sex couples can’t complain that they can’t get married since there is no right for any couple to get married?

I disagree, however:

OK then.

Let religious people accept the gift of sacramental marriage and let those of no religion and who are of the same sex have their legally binding contracts marriage.

Just make sure the two are equitable in terms of any ‘‘rights’’ and benefits conferred as a result of the marriages and treat both marriages as equal

Rights are, however, being infringed upon when a catering business, photographer, etc. are legally penalized for not offering services toward a same sex ceremony.

I disagree.

You’re claiming a religious right of not recognizing same sex marriages and expecting people to accept that trumping civil law.

If they are running a business or service to the public but refuse to provide that service to one section of the community, namely homosexuals, for no other reason than they are homosexuals, then that is nothing short of blatant discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

She had people talking about cuba, castro, china etc. Everything but the topic. .

I didn’t bring these topics up

Another poster did, and I corrected their complete misrepresentation of the facts and highlighted and demonstrated where they were in error and showed where they were simply making stuff up

Back on topic

Sarah x

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

These examples are brought up all the time.

Can you seriously see something like that happening, today?

Kudos atheist girl. A thread should now be started about why 98 percent of Down Syndrome kids are aborted.

You really are quite good at this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I didn’t bring these topics up

Another poster did, and I corrected their complete misrepresentation of the facts and highlighted and demonstrated where they were in error and showed where they were simply making stuff up

Back on topic

Sarah x

Both of you! What is really being accomplished with both of your digs?

 

[atheistgirl]

Kudos atheist girl. A thread should now be started about why 98 percent of Down Syndrome kids are aborted.

You really are quite good at this.

Do you have anything to say about the topic of the thread?

Please keep on topic

Sarah x

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Do you have anything to say about the topic of the thread?

Please keep on topic

Sarah x

You can go back and read my posts if you wish.

I am not quite sure what the topic is anymore.

 

[atheistgirl]

I am not quite sure what the topic is anymore.

We’re having Pizza.

You’re very welcome to come over.



Sarah x

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

We’re having Pizza.

You’re very welcome to come over.



Sarah x

mmmmm Pepperoni!!!