Catholics are bigots?!

[sw85]

Sadly, I think you’ve hit the nail on its head. There really isn’t a good secular argument against gay ‘marriages’.

The fact that there is no reason to adopt a gay “marriage” is itself a good reason not to. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It serves no public interest. Homosexuals are not entitled to have their unions endorsed and subsidized by the state because they serve no public interest (indeed, given that

Homosexuals demand “equal treatment.” But they are not entitled to it in this case because they are not behaving in an equivalent manner. If they want the benefits of marrying, they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

“But they don’t want!” someone claims? The protest itself reveals homosexuals’ objection: they want free stuff on their own terms. Sorry, but no, it doesn’t work that way.

 

[fix]

Homosexuals demand “equal treatment.” But they are not entitled to it in this case because they are not behaving in an equivalent manner. If they want the benefits of marrying, they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

Indeed. As is said unequals need to be treated unequally. We ought not treat faux marriage as if it were authentic marriage.

As far as arguments go the problem is not bad arguments the problem is no argument is acceptable to people who refuse to be convinced.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**No this is not my "Atheistic point of view. It’s the law. It’s the beauty of the separation of church and state. Don’t forget, the church is sovereign in the Unites States. It’s separate. You should read what John Adams had to say about religion when you start saying things like this country was created to be a religious state. Because it simply isn’t true. The people who came here wanted freedom from religion and the church has taken this country back. That’s what this battle ultimately is going to do. Put the church back in it’s place. In the church and homes of it’s parishioners and out of the government and courts. **

It is your INTERPRETATION of what the Law should be.
I have read the contemporaneous writings of those who wrote and ratified the 1st Amendment. They NEVER, as you assert, intended a nation Free from Religion or laws devoid of a basis in Christian morality. That, frankly, is a lie.
Thomas Paine certainly wanted such things, but most of the others did NOT.
The people “who came here” were nearly ALL Christians of largely various PROTESTANT persuasions who wanted to be free of the dictatorship of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND, a mandatory State Denomination. THAT is what the 1st Amendment was written to prevent. Neither we, nor our protestant brethren, want a State Religion of ANY sort.
The Church, sir, is backed by the power of God, whether you believe that or not.
There is an old saying that has proven 100% true in every case, and that is that
those who eat pope will die of it. That’s just a roundabout way of saying that those who fight against the Lord and his Faith will be, when they least expect it, surprised out of their wits, with no appeals, directly by HIM, not by any of us paltry humans.
The church’s “place” is what GOD has determined it to be, not the godless,
and despite what you think, you are NOT going to win this “war”. You probably will win many battles, but the war itself? Never.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

You should read what John Adams had to say about religion when you start saying things like this country was created to be a religious state.

And I never, never, never said nor implied that “this country was created to be
a religious state.”

Again, there was NEVER to be a State Church in America, and America was never intended to be a Theocracy. Not ever.

What I asserted, and I am correct, was that the founders were not at all opposed to Chrisitan morality influencing the writing of Law.
Modern day liberals DO want to prevent that, and have their godless views be the basis of all Laws.
Not gonna happen, not in the long run anyway.
We are NOT going to be forced “into the closet.”
Not by anyone.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Some above also used the fact that SOME MIS-used the scriptures in America
to attack and try to prohibit Inter-Racial marriages
as proof that scriptural arguments against gay marriage are just bigotry hiding behind
misinterpretations and misuses of Scripture.

Nonsense.

First of all, the Catholic Religion has NEVER taught that inter-racial marriages of any sort are inherently immoral at all.
This was Southern USA example of deliberate scripture-twisting on the part of UNSCRUPULOUS, black-hating pastors who deliberately twisted the holy scriptures to make it LOOK like they prohibited something that they, in fact, do not prohibit.
Interracial marriages, among blacks and whites, has never been prohibited by the holy Scriptures.

ALL forms of same sex copulation, however, have ALWAYS been explicitly forbidden by the scriptures of BOTH the Old (the Tanakh) and the NEW Testaments. And no amount
of scripture-twisting-in-reverse, by the Liberals, can change that fact one iota.

If the copulation is forbidden (it is, always, a form of serious fornication), period, and it is, then the scriptures which point blank forbid any engaging in that activity, can never be used to justify a “marriage” intended, even if only by the state, to “bless” that sinful sexual activity.

There are denominations now, mainly the “mainlines”, that claim this activity is okay, but they are blaspheming and in a state of Apostasy and Declension.

 

[Allan_Bradburn]

It’s ironic that you should use the phrase “into the closet”. Doesn’t feel too great soes it? But that is exactly what the church is trying to do to homosexuals isn’t it?

You should read what John Adams had to say about religion when you start saying things like this country was created to be a religious state.

And I never, never, never said nor implied that “this country was created to be
a religious state.”

Again, there was NEVER to be a State Church in America, and America was never intended to be a Theocracy. Not ever.

What I asserted, and I am correct, was that the founders were not at all opposed to Chrisitan morality influencing the writing of Law.
Modern day liberals DO want to prevent that, and have their godless views be the basis of all Laws.
Not gonna happen, not in the long run anyway.
We are NOT going to be forced “into the closet.”
Not by anyone.

 

[Allan_Bradburn]

It’s ironic that you should use the phrase “into the closet”. It doesnt feel too great does it?

 

[Allan_Bradburn]

You’re taking this way too far. I don’t know why. Fear perhaps. Believe me when i say that I’ve heard all of the reasons you all have for your discrimination. And you’re absolutely right when you say that the same reasons were used to prevent womens rights and African American rights and marriage equality amongst the races. And i have to tell you that your arguement of morality is pointless to me an millions more. Your moral law has no credibility to us. It is yours and you are welcome to it. Further, the church, has no right to invoke the first amendment while attempting torevoke that right from us.

Some above also used the fact that SOME MIS-used the scriptures in America
to attack and try to prohibit Inter-Racial marriages
as proof that scriptural arguments against gay marriage are just bigotry hiding behind
misinterpretations and misuses of Scripture.

Nonsense.

First of all, the Catholic Religion has NEVER taught that inter-racial marriages of any sort are inherently immoral at all.
This was Southern USA example of deliberate scripture-twisting on the part of UNSCRUPULOUS, black-hating pastors who deliberately twisted the holy scriptures to make it LOOK like they prohibited something that they, in fact, do not prohibit.
Interracial marriages, among blacks and whites, has never been prohibited by the holy Scriptures.

ALL forms of same sex copulation, however, have ALWAYS been explicitly forbidden by the scriptures of BOTH the Old (the Tanakh) and the NEW Testaments. And no amount
of scripture-twisting-in-reverse, by the Liberals, can change that fact one iota.

If the copulation is forbidden (it is, always, a form of serious fornication), period, and it is, then the scriptures which point blank forbid any engaging in that activity, can never be used to justify a “marriage” intended, even if only by the state, to “bless” that sinful sexual activity.

There are denominations now, mainly the “mainlines”, that claim this activity is okay, but they are blaspheming and in a state of Apostasy and Declension.

 

[DCNBILL]

You’re taking this way too far. I don’t know why. Fear perhaps. Believe me when i say that I’ve heard all of the reasons you all have for your discrimination. And you’re absolutely right when you say that the same reasons were used to prevent womens rights and African American rights and marriage equality amongst the races. And i have to tell you that your arguement of morality is pointless to me an millions more. Your moral law has no credibility to us. It is yours and you are welcome to it. Further, the church, has no right to invoke the first amendment while attempting torevoke that right from us.

Exactly what right is the Church trying to revoke from you?

 

[Armyvet007]

Your moral law has no credibility to us. It is yours and you are welcome to it. Further, the church, has no right to invoke the first amendment while attempting torevoke that right from us.

Please cite the historical examples of homosexual marriage being considered a right in either a) American legal history or b) European legal history.

 

[snarflemike]

It’s ironic that you should use the phrase “into the closet”. Doesn’t feel too great soes it? But that is exactly what the church is trying to do to homosexuals isn’t it?

Quite the contrary. The Church desires all of us to leave the darkness of our sin and disorder (and BTW being homosexual itself is not a sin, but it is a disorder) and come into the light of God where alone we can be fully free and fully human.

 

[Farsight001]

It’s ironic that you should use the phrase “into the closet”. Doesn’t feel too great soes it? But that is exactly what the church is trying to do to homosexuals isn’t it?

That’s not at all what the church is trying to do to gay people. Nice try though.

 

[LaSalle]

The fact that there is no reason to adopt a gay “marriage” is itself a good reason not to. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It serves no public interest. Homosexuals are not entitled to have their unions endorsed and subsidized by the state because they serve no public interest (indeed, given that

Homosexuals demand “equal treatment.” But they are not entitled to it in this case because they are not behaving in an equivalent manner. If they want the benefits of marrying, they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

“But they don’t want!” someone claims? The protest itself reveals homosexuals’ objection: they want free stuff on their own terms. Sorry, but no, it doesn’t work that way.

I think they would say -

a) If we don’t contribute to society because we don’t procreate, then couples who decide not to have kids ought not to be allowed to marry and get all the perks as well. (and don’t use the argument that these couples can change their minds; there are couples will will even abort if they get pregnant - it is to these couples that they would refer to) Oh! And they can also say that they can contribute by ADOPTING! The exact same way a barren couple would!

b) If they were born to be attracted to someone of the same sex, why should they not be allowed to marry? It would be unnatural for them to marry someone of the opposite sex. How would it be different if there was a law stating that if you’re blue, you could only marry someone blue. But what happens if a blue guy wants to marry a green girl? The argument that you can marry anyone you want as long as she’s blue cannot stand.

How would you respond to that?

 

[Allan_Bradburn]

“They don’t contribute? They aren’t entitled”? Gay people contribute more than $1000.00 per year in taxes on average not to mention that they put more money back into the economy than the hetrosexual people do. And not entitled? Do you really want to have a discussion about who pays for the entitlements the baby factories recieve every year per child? That’s really what this battle is all about. Aquiring over 1100the rights to the entitlements we pay for but have no access to. The only reason the church is involved in this battle at all is because they have spent millions of $$$ to put themselves in the middle of the battle. In my opinion the only reason I can see for their involvement is because they don’t want to lose the source of their entitlements. . Well, get ready. Because it’s dead wrong.

I think they would say -

a) If we don’t contribute to society because we don’t procreate, then couples who decide not to have kids ought not to be allowed to marry and get all the perks as well. (and don’t use the argument that these couples can change their minds; there are couples will will even abort if they get pregnant - it is to these couples that they would refer to) Oh! And they can also say that they can contribute by ADOPTING! The exact same way a barren couple would!

b) If they were born to be attracted to someone of the same sex, why should they not be allowed to marry? It would be unnatural for them to marry someone of the opposite sex. How would it be different if there was a law stating that if you’re blue, you could only marry someone blue. But what happens if a blue guy wants to marry a green girl? The argument that you can marry anyone you want as long as she’s blue cannot stand.

How would you respond to that?

 

[Allan_Bradburn]

That’s not at all what the church is trying to do to gay people. Nice try though.

Denying it doesn’t make it so. I also want to add… mostly because I’m coming on too strong here… that even though I’m in opposition with the position the church has taken on this issue, I’m not in opposition to the church itself. And I want all of you who read this to know that, as my neighbors, family, and friends, I care for you all. But, I must make it known, this is persecution in every sense and as long as the church stands against us and civil rights, there can be no reconciliation.

 

[Farsight001]

Denying it doesn’t make it so. I also want to add… mostly because I’m coming on too strong here… that even though I’m in opposition with the position the church has taken on this issue, I’m not in opposition to the church itself. And I want all of you who read this to know that, as my neighbors, family, and friends, I care for you all. But, I must make it known, this is persecution in every sense and as long as the church stands against us and civil rights, there can be no reconciliation.

You’re right that denying it doesn’t make it so. The fact that it’s an ignorant lie makes it so. No church teaching or doctrine is implying, even extremely vaguely, that gays should remain in the closet.

It’s not about you coming on too strongly. It’s about you clearly not caring enough about our real beliefs before you speak out against them.

 

[sw85]

I think they would say -

a) If we don’t contribute to society because we don’t procreate, then couples who decide not to have kids ought not to be allowed to marry and get all the perks as well. (and don’t use the argument that these couples can change their minds; there are couples will will even abort if they get pregnant - it is to these couples that they would refer to) Oh! And they can also say that they can contribute by ADOPTING! The exact same way a barren couple would!

As I said, marriage is in principle an arrangement ordered toward procreation. Therefore it belongs properly to those who are in principle capable of procreation, i.e., men and women.

As far as adopting, there is no right to adopt, so that argument simply doesn’t work. There is, by contrast, a right to have and conceive children, and marriage provides a legal framework for the exercise of those rights.

b) If they were born to be attracted to someone of the same sex, why should they not be allowed to marry?

Again, there is no compelling public interest in allowing their “marriages.” You have the question precisely backwards. It isn’t “why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry” because the state doesn’t promulgate laws on the basis that they don’t harm anyone. It promulgates laws on the basis that they are of benefit to the commonwealth. Therefore the question should be “why should they be allowed to marry.” The answer is that there is no answer, therefore they shouldn’t.

It would be unnatural for them to marry someone of the opposite sex.

No, it would be perfectly in accord with human nature, which includes a sexual faculty ordered toward procreation.

Perhaps you mean “they would experience it as unnatural.” But who cares? The state doesn’t exist to validate people’s subjective pathologies. If they don’t like the thought of marrying someone of the opposite sex, they can just not get married.

How would it be different if there was a law stating that if you’re blue, you could only marry someone blue. But what happens if a blue guy wants to marry a green girl? The argument that you can marry anyone you want as long as she’s blue cannot stand.

That’d be silly because being “blue” or “green” (you really mean “African” or “Caucasian”) has no bearing on the natural end of marriage, which is procreation. This is why laws forbidding interracial marriage are, at least in that respect, unjust.

By contrast, who you have sex with does have a bearing on the natural end of marriage. This is why laws forbidding homosexual “marriage” are, in fact, perfectly just, which is to say they give everyone their

 

[Corki]

Denying it doesn’t make it so. I also want to add… mostly because I’m coming on too strong here… that even though I’m in opposition with the position the church has taken on this issue, I’m not in opposition to the church itself. And I want all of you who read this to know that, as my neighbors, family, and friends, I care for you all. But, I must make it known, this is persecution in every sense and as long as the church stands against us and civil rights, there can be no reconciliation.

I think you are very confused about the Catholic Church. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that allows, let alone advocates that homsexuals go “into the closet” or that permits any kind of persecution of homosexuals. There are undoubtedly some individuals who may espouse such ideas, some of them may even be Catholics. However, the Church stands firmly against such persecutions and she acts to end the marginalization of homosexuals, and everyone else, for that matter. None of the Church’s teachings regarding sexuality are persecutions or acts against rights (civil or other).

 

[snarflemike]

Denying it doesn’t make it so. I also want to add… mostly because I’m coming on too strong here… that even though I’m in opposition with the position the church has taken on this issue, I’m not in opposition to the church itself. And I want all of you who read this to know that, as my neighbors, family, and friends, I care for you all. But, I must make it known, this is persecution in every sense and as long as the church stands against us and civil rights, there can be no reconciliation.

And as long as people want the Church to recognize and approve a sinful arrangement (unless we’re talking here about celibate homosexual marriage, which I doubt), then there can be no reconciliation.

BTW, to get to core principles, why do homosexuals want to be able to marry?