Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?

[Allegra]

No one is against the vocalization of your religious beliefs…but the restriction of other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religious convictions that not all of us hold is what is the sticking point for me:

Actually, that’s not true. Many gay activists consider the vocalization of our religions beliefs “hate speech” and would see it punishable by law. They would also like to see us put out of business if our business policy is to refuse to participate in a gay “wedding” based on the fact that it is morally wrong and a complete lie. We would also face difficulty in public schooling because our children would be forced to submit to this new moral code. There is also a pretty good chance of descrimination in employment as well, though it will probably be at least a generation before this is a widespread problem.

 

[stanczyk]

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?

That is not what I’m saying at all!

I’m saying that it is right and good to treat unwed cohabiting couples with love and toleration, despite their sin. We should welcome sinners with love like Jesus! It is right and good that they should be a part of the community and nobody should bat an eye at the fact that such a couple might raise a child and never get married and so on. That is how Christians should behave. We should demonstrate the word of Christ by example, instead of getting all in their face about how they shouldn’t be living the way they do.

So why can’t we extend the same love and tolerance to gay couples? (That’s a rhetorical questions, by the way, since there is no good answer. Please, nobody attempt an answer.)

 

[He_Man]

What does the number of states who hold a position on something mean in a discussion? That’s the number of states who hold that position now. Next week, it may change and the situation we currently have will be in the past. The other thing that’s in the past is states not allowing whites and blacks to get married. There were alot of states that agreed with that too. The number of states who agree on an issue at any given point in time does not prove anything.

It proves the states can regulate marriage.

 

[He_Man]

Thing is, that’s a rather flawed argument in that it could be used against you in cases such as abortion…

No, it is a statement of fact, not morality. States can regulate marriage, by law. The Feds can regulate abortion, by law.

It does not legitimize gay “marriage” or abortion at all, but is merely a fact legally. Kind of like saying states regulate speed limits. They simply do, whether or not you believe in speed limits. That is all.

 

[EviPolevhia]

It proves the states can regulate marriage.

Do they regulate the Civil contract of Marriage or do they regulate the Catholic Sacrament of Marriage?

 

[He_Man]

Do they regulate the Civil contract of Marriage or do they regulate the Catholic Sacrament of Marriage?

I have no interest or time for this debate, since I’d rather watch the Orioles pound the Yankees, but this is what stanzcyk said:

“Do you really not understand that it is discriminatory to now allow to people of the same sex to marry?”

I said that a number of states disagree that it is discriminatory as defined by law. That is a simple fact, unless you deny many states do not allow gay “marriage.”

There really shouldn’t be any disagreement, unless you deny some states forbid it.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I have no interest or time for this debate, since I’d rather watch the Orioles pound the Yankees, but this is what stanzcyk said:

“Do you really not understand that it is discriminatory to now allow to people of the same sex to marry?”

I said that a number of states disagree that it is discriminatory as defined by law. That is a simple fact, unless you deny many states do not allow gay “marriage.”

There really shouldn’t be any disagreement, unless you deny some states forbid it.

Nobody denies that states do it; we are saying that we think that is wrong.

 

[Allegra]

That is not what I’m saying at all!

I’m saying that it is right and good to treat unwed cohabiting couples with love and toleration, despite their sin. We should welcome sinners with love like Jesus! It is right and good that they should be a part of the community and nobody should bat an eye at the fact that such a couple might raise a child and never get married and so on. That is how Christians should behave. We should demonstrate the word of Christ by example, instead of getting all in their face about how they shouldn’t be living the way they do.

So why can’t we extend the same love and tolerance to gay couples? (That’s a rhetorical questions, by the way, since there is no good answer. Please, nobody attempt an answer.)

Ignoring the fact that a person is in mortal sin is loving and tolerant? It might be tolerant, but isn’t loving at all! A person who is cohabitating should be treated with respect, but they certainly should be told that what they are doing is wrong and could lead them to hell. The couple should be encouraged to go through precana and hopefully get married! If not, they should split up. If there is a financial reason the couple is living together, then members of the parish should be supportive and offer an alternative until the couple is married. Nothing about what you are describing is anything close to demonstrating the words of Christ! We are supposed to encourage each other to do the right thing. When I find myself seeking something before God, I need my friends and family to speak up in charity and remind me what the goal is. What you are recommending is not for anyone’s good.

 

[fastenatingguy]

nobody should bat an eye at the fact that such a couple might raise a child and never get married and so on

Stanczyk-

Assuming Catholics:

But what if they never get married, but do have more kids (sex)? Should we condone that fornication? What happened to “go and sin no more” as Jesus instructed?

Sorry to jump in, but it’s been an interesting read…

 

[fastenatingguy]

nobody should bat an eye at the fact that such a couple might raise a child and never get married and so on

Stanczyk-

Assuming Catholics:

But what if they never get married, but do have more kids (sex)? Should we condone that fornication? What happened to “go and sin no more” as Jesus instructed?

Sorry to jump in, but it’s been an interesting read…

Allegra,

Just saw your post, I am along your line of thinking.

 

[stanczyk]

nobody should bat an eye at the fact that such a couple might raise a child and never get married and so on

Assuming Catholics:

But what if they never get married, but do have more kids (sex)? Should we condone that fornication? What happened to “go and sin no more” as Jesus instructed?

Sorry to jump in, but it’s been an interesting read…

You are most welcome to jump in as far as I’m concerned!

I don’t think we should condone fornication by any means. But is that what we are doing when we welcome an unmarried couple into the community without passing judgment? I don’t think so.

I think we are, in fact, making it more likely they will see the error of their ways. Attacking somebody with harsh words and a judgmental attitude puts them on the defensive. If you are accepting and offering unconditional love, it allows them to open themselves up to the word of Christ.

This is how Christ Himself taught, He showed the utmost love and tolerance to the worst sinners. Sexual deviants of all kinds, homeless, shut-ins, the insane, even the worst sinner of all-- the dreaded tax collector! Jesus was the best of friends with all of them, He never made them feel bad about themselves. He led by example, and that was more than enough. That’s how we should strive to be.

 

[fastenatingguy]

You are most welcome to jump in as far as I’m concerned!

I don’t think we should condone fornication by any means. But is that what we are doing when we welcome an unmarried couple into the community without passing judgment? I don’t think so.

I think we are, in fact, making it more likely they will see the error of their ways. Attacking somebody with harsh words and a judgmental attitude puts them on the defensive. If you are accepting and offering unconditional love, it allows them to open themselves up to the word of Christ.

This is how Christ Himself taught, He showed the utmost love and tolerance to the worst sinners. Sexual deviants of all kinds, homeless, shut-ins, the insane, even the worst sinner of all-- the dreaded tax collector! Jesus was the best of friends with all of them, He never made them feel bad about themselves. He led by example, and that was more than enough. That’s how we should strive to be.

I apologize if you take this the wrong way. Stick to your line of argument from earlier in which you showed the legal constructs and “logic” of your argument. Now you are getting into touchy/feely conjecture. Some people will see the error of their ways; others won’t. Most will ignore correction, but some will accept it. You say potato…

Jesus never made them feel bad about themselves? Not because he was master psychiatrist, because he was pure love. But that didn’t stop him from instruction: go and sin no more. He wanted to love them forever, not just temporally.

 

[stanczyk]

I apologize if you take this the wrong way. Stick to your line of argument from earlier in which you showed the legal constructs and “logic” of your argument. Now you are getting into touchy/feely conjecture. Some people will see the error of their ways; others won’t. Most will ignore correction, but some will accept it. You say potato…

Jesus never made them feel bad about themselves? Not because he was master psychiatrist, because he was pure love. But that didn’t stop him from instruction: go and sin no more. He wanted to love them forever, not just temporally.

Well, the legal side of it is so cut and dried, I feel like I’m spinning my wheels trying to convince people about that. It might be touchy-feely, but I truly think tolerance is what we need at the end of the day.

The law, I think, is very clear. The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all people, and “separate but equal” (as in civil unions or domestic partnerships, etc) is not enough to constitute as equal protection. So if we are going to have marriage for two people, it cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex.

There is really no escaping the inevitable conclusion that the government is giving out marriage licenses, they cannot discriminate based on whether there are two people of the same sex or opposite sex.

 

[Hokomai]

Is anyone interested in my OP? :nope:

 

[TracerBullet]

No one is against the vocalization of your religious beliefs…but the restriction of other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religious convictions that not all of us hold is what is the sticking point for me…if your religous beleifs demand you not engage in same sex unions…>DON’T…but why seek to refuse other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religous convictions?

 

[TracerBullet]

Actually, that’s not true. Many gay activists consider the vocalization of our religions beliefs “hate speech” and would see it punishable by law.

The definition of hate speech is rather fluid and hard to nail down. Do some Christian organizations and individuals engage in hate speech? Of course they do. But how many of them are actually prosecuted under the law?

They would also like to see us put out of business if our business policy is to refuse to participate in a gay “wedding” based on the fact that it is morally wrong and a complete lie.

Just like what would happen if such a business refused to provide services to an interracial couple or a non-Christian couple. Business don’t get to refuse services just because a customer is a member of a minority.

We would also face difficulty in public schooling because our children would be forced to submit to this new moral code.

What “code” are you talking about exactly?

There is also a pretty good chance of descrimination in employment as well, though it will probably be at least a generation before this is a widespread problem.

Currently it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone just because they are LGBT. The fired individual has no legal recourse in these states.
So I don’t think you can really talk about you being the victim of employment discrimination

 

[Allegra]

Is anyone interested in my OP? :nope:

Sorry. What was it you wanted to know again?

 

[TracerBullet]

It proves the states can regulate marriage.

And that is why so many sates prohibit interracial marraige

 

[Allegra]

The definition of hate speech is rather fluid and hard to nail down. Do some Christian organizations and individuals engage in hate speech? Of course they do. But how many of them are actually prosecuted under the law?

Just like what would happen if such a business refused to provide services to an interracial couple or a non-Christian couple. Business don’t get to refuse services just because a customer is a member of a minority.

What “code” are you talking about exactly?

Currently it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone just because they are LGBT. The fired individual has no legal recourse in these states.
So I don’t think you can really talk about you being the victim of employment discrimination

And when a government does try to “nail down” a definition of hate speech, they catch even more flack if they try to ensure the safety of those who oppose homosexual acts on a moral basis or homosexual marriage. Currently, very few people are prosecuted for “hate speech” because firstly, homosexual acts are not currently protected by law in most states, and secondly most of what is considered “hate speech” by these groups turns out to be nothing like hate speech at all. I’m slightly concerned about injustices that are currently taking place. I’m very concerned about what will take place if certain gay activists get their way. How would you protect the rights of all those who believe this is wrong? (And I mean everyone, not just guys in white collars. Remember, every time this is put to a vote of the people, it is voted down, so there are alot of people out there who are intolerant, hate-spewing bigots.)

Refusing services to a biracial or minority person because of their color is an injustice and it should be illegal. It hasn’t much to do with refusing to perform a service because the service itself goes against your beliefs. We aren’t talking about refusing to sell a gay person a cupcake. We are talking about refusing to participate in a gravely immoral action, one which you believe your participation in could put you in a state of mortal sin. No business owner or employee should be forced by law to participate in something they believe in inherently evil. Even if homosexual lifestyles were a “civil right” (and I don’t believe they are) the service provider isn’t refusing to provide service because of the fact that the couple is gay. The same couple could ask for a birthday cake and there wouldn’t be a problem. The issue is what they are asking them to participate in by make a wedding cake for an immoral event. Meanwhile, a straight couple could come in and ask for a cake to take to a pro-choice rally and the baker would be perfectly within his right to refuse to make it for them.

 

[Allegra]

What “code” are you talking about exactly?

Already, there are schools that have developed programs to indoctrinate children into a belief system that affirms homosexual acts and lifestyles as normal and okay. I expect such programs will become more common and more intense if other states begin to accept gay marriage. (Once again, most of the times the issue is voted on by the people it is voted down. Even when it is not, it doesn’t win by a very large margin. So gay activists have alot of intolerant, biggoted children to reeducate.)