Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Now that shows real interest. Deliberately limit your knowledge. Sounds intelligent to me. 😦 What are you afraid of? The truth?

The truth will set you free.
Click to expand...
Of course I deliberately limit my knowledge. My time is a valuable resource. Why throw it away?
 
Benadam said:
Buffalo, Elizabeth, you both bring up points evident in WillieWonka’s posts

underlined and bold emphasis added

WillieWonka

It seems your motivation for debate is not a sincere exchange of ideas but competition.

Can it be assumed that truth is not a necessary component that forms your reason to be here?
Click to expand...
You are free to assume anything. But you are not free to assume your assumption is true.
 
I really liked the argument from MIT b/c so often if you bring up religion people automatically shut their ears. Whatever your personal thoughts might be for opposition, this give a strong case for political/secular opposition. tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
 
There is no love, truth, or charity in encouraging people to embrace a life that will lead to their ultimate death.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
There is no love, truth, or charity in encouraging people to embrace a life that will lead to their ultimate death.
Click to expand...
Thanks for a perfect opening sailor.

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.
Code: 
http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.
 
1catholic said:
I really liked the argument from MIT b/c so often if you bring up religion people automatically shut their ears. Whatever your personal thoughts might be for opposition, this give a strong case for political/secular opposition. tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Click to expand...
This is a REALLY GOOD arguement…and your right…whenever you bring up ‘religion’ people shut down and block you out…imma use this!! 😃
 
j1akey said:
You know, the only “agenda” the GBLT community has is to have the same rights and acceptance as everyone else here. I can’t read the book since I’m at work but I did hit a few parts of it to give me an idea of what it was about and it looked like alot of blame and fearmongering to me.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t the issue be if legally gay marriage should be accepted. B/c most countries still claim to have freedom of religion/thought maybe religions should be free to teach as they will. Catholics aren’t forcing any gays to break up, they are trying to help (you can debate if their help is good).

On legal grounds, gay marriage wouldn’t work b/c it contradicts the premise of our nation. We have a government NOT run by personal creeds (true or not), theoretically, that is. The government cannot then grant financial help to those who do not help the state. Homosexuals can logically get social “benefits” like being able to visit their partner in the hospital, etc, but to grant them all the financial and legal benefits of marriage which is procreative is to have our government throw their money to a set ideology who can only claim to beneficial without any tangible additions to society. I’m not phrasing this well but if you take the time this article does a good job: tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Hope this helps
ha ha i got this backward 🙂 woops. I thought that post was new, but its old…oh well! now u’v got the same link twice on the same page :cool:
 
1catholic said:
Shouldn’t the issue be if legally gay marriage should be accepted. B/c most countries still claim to have freedom of religion/thought maybe religions should be free to teach as they will. Catholics aren’t forcing any gays to break up, they are trying to help (you can debate if their help is good).

On legal grounds, gay marriage wouldn’t work b/c it contradicts the premise of our nation. We have a government NOT run by personal creeds (true or not), theoretically, that is. The government cannot then grant financial help to those who do not help the state. Homosexuals can logically get social “benefits” like being able to visit their partner in the hospital, etc, but to grant them all the financial and legal benefits of marriage which is procreative is to have our government throw their money to a set ideology who can only claim to beneficial without any tangible additions to society. I’m not phrasing this well but if you take the time this article does a good job: tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Hope this helps
ha ha i got this backward 🙂 woops. I thought that post was new, but its old…oh well! now u’v got the same link twice on the same page :cool:
Click to expand...
What are the financial benefits of marriage?
 
I don’t think the state should marry anyone - the state can perform a civil union between any two adults -

It is up to a Church to marry people because marriage is more than a civil union -
Our Catholic Church will decide that it is not in keeping with our faith and teaching to marry two men - so we won’t.

Some other faith community may not have a problem with that - so they can go ahead and marry them - it isn’t like homosexuality is anything new - or is going to stop just because we say that they ‘can’t get married’ - in fact they may live healthier lives if they are encouraged to live monogamously…I really don’t think anyone is out to ‘convert’ anyone to homosexuality… so if you are not attracted to the same sex you’ve got nothing to worry about right?
 
WillieWonka said:
Those are valid tax breaks. I’d suggest we eleiminate them for married folks. Why give them a break and make singles pay more?
Click to expand...
To encourage and protect families as they are the foundation of a healthy society.
 
WillieWonka said:
Those are valid tax breaks. I’d suggest we eliminate them for married folks. Why give them a break and make singles pay more? If we eliminated them for everyone, would gay marriage be OK? Is gay marriage OK with one set of tax laws, and not OK with another?
Click to expand...
B/c it benefits the state to give money to people who are adding to the state…did you read the article?
 
MargaretMary39 said:
I don’t think the state should marry anyone - the state can perform a civil union between any two adults -

It is up to a Church to marry people because marriage is more than a civil union -
Our Catholic Church will decide that it is not in keeping with our faith and teaching to marry two men - so we won’t.

Some other faith community may not have a problem with that - so they can go ahead and marry them - it isn’t like homosexuality is anything new - or is going to stop just because we say that they ‘can’t get married’ - in fact they may live healthier lives if they are encouraged to live monogamously…I really don’t think anyone is out to ‘convert’ anyone to homosexuality… so if you are not attracted to the same sex you’ve got nothing to worry about right?
Click to expand...
Well, the state offers a service for consenting opposite gender adults with $25 and two witnesses. We could call it civil union, state bond, life partnership, marriage, or Blly Goat. The name doesn’t change it. A lot of this is just a fight for naming rights.

Different faith communities could offer very different agreements and they would all call them marriage. So, is it OK for religions to use the same name for different products, but the state can’t use that name, too?

I suppose Catholics could yell at Buddhists that Buddhists don’t have marriage. And Shintos could yell at Hindus and say Hindus really don’t have marriage.
 
buffalo said:
To encourage and protect families as they are the foundation of a healthy society.
Click to expand...
That would make sense if the tax breaks were offered to couples with children. From an economic standpoint it would provide an economic incentive to childless couples to form families with kids.
 
WillieWonka said:
How are they adding to the state?
Click to expand...
making babies 🙂 and then raising them, paying for their schooling, providing workers, providing a need for labor, creating industry, providing a vessel for future innovations…the list goes on

now tell me how a gay couple adds to the state…
 
1catholic said:
making babies 🙂 and then raising them, paying for their schooling, providing workers, providing a need for labor, creating industry, providing a vessel for future innovations…the list goes on

now tell me how a gay couple adds to the state…
Click to expand...
Neither a gay couple nor a childless couple make babies or raise them.

However, many straight and gay childless folks pay for kids’ education through their taxes. They provide a need for labor by purchasing the products of labor. They create industry by founding businesses. They provide vessels for the future by establshing commercial enterprises that are a source of support for many folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top