B
buffalo
Guest
One has to ultimately ask where these rights came from?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sorry - I wasn’t careful to see who posted this.You aren’t punishing me; you’re punishing same-sex couples and their children.
C
Charlotte408
Guest
dude…what twisted…mentality…i dont even know HOW you could come up with this from WHAT he said…So, really, the bit about “wanting them to spend eternity with God” isn’t actually relevant to the same-sex marriage debate, is it?
More and more, I find myself feeling like the motivation behind the anti-same-sex marriage movement isn’t “we are trying to encourage you to live what we think is a good life”, but that it’s actually “we disapprove of the way you live your life, so we’re going to punish you for it.”
Anyone in a comitted relationship involving homosexual acts, is in a state of MORTAL SIN. If same-sex marriage was allowed, it would be condoning that-letting you live a LIE, the ILLUSION that you are in a MARRIAGE, which you ARENT, being that MARRIAGE is between a MAN and a WOMAN, even if the LAW changes it.
B
buffalo
Guest
By resisting their efforts to redefine marriage as something other than between one man and one woman?You aren’t punishing me; you’re punishing same-sex couples and their children.
G
gearhead
Guest
In terms of civil law, it came from the principles that were codified in our supreme documents, such as your Constitution or our Charter.One has to ultimately ask where these rights came from?
In terms of morality, I mainly base my ideas of rights on the principle of empathy, especially as it’s given in the Golden Rule: “do to others what you would have them do to you.”
Funny how an atheist has to remind a Christian of the Golden Rule, don’t you think?
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
That’s really how I feel too. It’s not about gay marriage, it’s about how evil gay people are and how they should suffer for their evilness. I’ve been hearing the “hate the sin, love the sinner” spiel for years and for the most part I’ve discovered that it’s really empty sentiment.So, really, the bit about “wanting them to spend eternity with God” isn’t actually relevant to the same-sex marriage debate, is it?
More and more, I find myself feeling like the motivation behind the anti-same-sex marriage movement isn’t “we are trying to encourage you to live what we think is a good life”, but that it’s actually “we disapprove of the way you live your life, so we’re going to punish you for it.”
Thank you for this reminder and your comments on this thread. It means so much to know that there are straight folks out there who aren’t trying to “cure” us or condemn us.Please don’t lump all straight people in with them. I’m straight and happily married; I just recognize that if I’m going to enjoy a right myself, then I have a moral duty to defend that right for others.
C
Charlotte408
Guest
Ultimately, to say that homosexuals want to participate in traditional marriage, when traditional marriage is between a man and a woman (when homosexuals do not want to marry people of the opposite gender) is a contradiction.
C
Charlotte408
Guest
Partner rights the state can give you, religious acceptance they can not. ‘rights’, what right exactly? I read the bill of rights. Asked people to tell me which one exactly they’ve been robbed of. Marriage as an institution is meant to constrain human behavior, not liberate or grant rights. Put differently, where individuals have both rights and responsibilities, marriage falls more in the latter category; it is a responsibility, not a right. If its partner rights, as in when their spouse is sick, or dying…then I encourage them to seek equal treatment of course, but ‘marriage’ itself is not a right.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes sometimes atheists can help.In terms of civil law, it came from the principles that were codified in our supreme documents, such as your Constitution or our Charter.
In terms of morality, I mainly base my ideas of rights on the principle of empathy, especially as it’s given in the Golden Rule: “do to others what you would have them do to you.”
Funny how an atheist has to remind a Christian of the Golden Rule, don’t you think?
We need to think of the children. Children are the primary reason for marriage. Their health and welfare cannot be ignored because of the “I” factor.
B
buffalo
Guest
OK - so what is necessary for you not to feel it is really empty sentiment?That’s really how I feel too. It’s not about gay marriage, it’s about how evil gay people are and how they should suffer for their evilness. I’ve been hearing the “hate the sin, love the sinner” spiel for years and for the most part I’ve discovered that it’s really empty sentiment.
Thank you for this reminder and your comments on this thread. It means so much to know that there are straight folks out there who aren’t trying to “cure” us or condemn us.
G
gearhead
Guest
Simple logic:dude…what twisted…mentality…i dont even know HOW you could come up with this from WHAT he said…
- same sex marriage is legal: gay people go to Hell.
- same-sex marriage is illegal: gay people go to Hell.
If you say so, but that’s the case whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, right?Anyone in a comitted relationship involving homosexual acts, is in a state of MORTAL SIN.
No, it wouldn’t. If the Church put out an ad in the paper saying “we changed our mind - homosexuality’s not a sin after all!” That would be condoning the act. If the Church were publicly announce over and over again, “homosexuality is a sin and we strongly disagree with same-sex marriage!” while still leaving civil law to do its own thing, that would still be opposition to same-sex marriage.If same-sex marriage was allowed, it would be condoning that-letting you live a LIE, the ILLUSION that you are in a MARRIAGE, which you ARENT, being that MARRIAGE is between a MAN and a WOMAN, even if the LAW changes it.
I’m not saying that the Church needs to stay silent on the issue; shout “gay people are evil!” from the rooftops if you want; ban same-sex marriages in Catholic churches, too, if it makes you happy. But when you start imposing your views on people who don’t share them, then I object.
The fact of the matter is that there is no rational basis in a free society to ban same-sex marriage. And even if we were to go with the idea that maybe we should give you free reign to impose your will on others on this issue, when we look at the justification for banning same-sex marriage, we realize that it just doesn’t make sense - there’s a disconnect between the actions and the reasons given for them.
Yes.By resisting their efforts to redefine marriage as something other than between one man and one woman?
G
gearhead
Guest
Indeed. However, I see the main “I” factor in this debate to be the anti-same-sex marriage activists saying “I disagree with homosexuality, therefore the protections and rights for this family, including its children, should be denied.”We need to think of the children. Children are the primary reason for marriage. Their health and welfare cannot be ignored because of the “I” factor.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No. That is your fallacy, not a fallacy anyone else has to subscribe to. Child protection laws in municipalities, for example, are based on what is demonstrable but not “measurable.” Hundreds of laws in our country are qualitatively measured, not quantitatively. I’m not going to do homework for anyone who is so intellectually lazy that they do not already know this key fact about civil law.If something is demonstrable, then it is measurable in some way. Please clarify your apparent contradiction.
C
Charlotte408
Guest
Simple logic:
**NO, your wrong, you only see what you want to see…
- same sex marriage is legal: gay people go to Hell.
- same-sex marriage is illegal: gay people go to Hell.
-same sex marriage is legal: gay people who commit homosexual acts go to Hell.
-same sex marriage is illegal: gay people who commit homosexual acts go to Hell.
BTW there is a guy on here, I came across in another thread who is chaste, a GAY person, who is NOT going to hell…we dont hate gay people, and just because your gay doesnt reserve a ticket to hell for you…**
Gay people going to Hell is common to all options, therefore it’s not rational to use it as the basis of choosing one option over the other.
No, its not…
If you say so, but that’s the case whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, right?
Wether same sex marriage is legal or not doesnt change the fact that homosexual acts are a mortal sin. however, if it is legal, it would be an illusion, that two people are married, in which they can commit that sin, but they CANT. its still a mortal sin, are you saying that if they get married theyre going to be chaste??
No, it wouldn’t. If the Church put out an ad in the paper saying “we changed our mind - homosexuality’s not a sin after all!” That would be condoning the act. If the Church were publicly announce over and over again, “homosexuality is a sin and we strongly disagree with same-sex marriage!” while still leaving civil law to do its own thing, that would still be opposition to same-sex marriage.
I’m not saying that the Church needs to stay silent on the issue; shout “gay people are evil!” from the rooftops if you want; ban same-sex marriages in Catholic churches, too, if it makes you happy.
I think your confusing the church with GOD. regardless of the churches stance, the states stance, my stance, your stance, the BOTTOM line is that marriage was created for the purpose of a man and woman, to create a family…it is a MORTAL SIN, and no matter what the law says, God’s law is eternal…
But when you start imposing your views on people who don’t share them, then I object.
**
Wait a minute, those that dont share them?? you mean homosexuals that want to get married right?? well that brings us back to: ‘marriage’. And what that word means to people. And unfortunately for gays, it was defined by ‘God’ and the church as a union between a man and a woman. And there are people that really and truly believe that. In God, in marriage, in their religion. And they’ve been believing that for a long time. I think that to come and have the government of all things tell them that they are going to redefine something as sacred as marriage is an infringement on their religious freedoms. That is why there is separation of state and church. They provide Civil unions for those who don’t believe or do not follow the churches teachings**. Gay or Straight, a government license recognizes is a CIVIL union, no matter what the noun at the top of the license is. CHURCHES, TEMPLES, SYNAGOGUES, MOSQUES, etc. perform ceremonies for RELIGIOUS unions. I wish the best for homosexual couples and hope they enjoy the same rights and privileges that marriage does, but **‘marriage’ is a religious ceremony and therefore should be left to the church. **
B
buffalo
Guest
Which is our right to vote lawmakers who agree with us. So no we do not want to encourage this type of family.Indeed. However, I see the main “I” factor in this debate to be the anti-same-sex marriage activists saying “I disagree with homosexuality, therefore the protections and rights for this family, including its children, should be denied.”
This is not a biological normal family.
G
gearhead
Guest
How are the effects of child protection laws not measurable? If you want, I could come up with a list of many ways that they are.No. That is your fallacy, not a fallacy anyone else has to subscribe to. Child protection laws in municipalities, for example, are based on what is demonstrable but not “measurable.”
Qualitative measurement is a form of measurement.Hundreds of laws in our country are qualitatively measured, not quantitatively.
B
buffalo
Guest
One has to also consider the long term prognosis for family and society.How are the effects of child protection laws not measurable? If you want, I could come up with a list of many ways that they are.
Qualitative measurement is a form of measurement.
Here are some resources that help us right now:
Out From Under
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
Sorry this took so long, but I really wanted to put some thought into it.OK - so what is necessary for you not to feel it is really empty sentiment?
I feel that it’s really about the language used when the topic comes up. More straight people are convicted of pedophilia and rape then gay people. Shouldn’t you all be suspect because of that? Straight people are alcoholics and drug users, shouldn’t all straight people be suspect because of those them? Straight teachers have been caught molesting their students, down here in FL we’ve had quite a rash of them, shouldn’t we worry about all straight people teaching our children because of the ones who have done that? Straight people get sexually transmitted diseases all the time, so shouldn’t all straight people be considered evil because of that?
Of course not-we don’t lump all straight people into a category because some have done sinful things-but we don’t think anything of it when it happens to gay people.
Look at the reaction to the PDA in the park! Would that same level of disgust be applied to a straight couple? C’mon, be honest. You’d look once, make a comment of how inappropriate it is and go on with your life. If it’s a gay couple, it’s fodder for discussion of how evil it is for ages afterwards.
I’d love to see more Catholics speak out against acts of violence against gays, about treating gay people as human beings with EQUAL worth and dignity. I’d love to see less discussion about how miserable gay people’s lives are, because frankly, they’re not any more miserable than the lives of straight people. I’ve been gay my whole life, have lots of gay friends and we’re all pretty happy.
I’m not asking for the church to change it’s views on gay sex, that’s not going to happen. What I’d like to see is less emphasis on the sex act and more emphasis on humanity.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
In the Catholic church children are the primary reason for marriage. It’s already been pretty well covered here that civil law provides no such requirement.Yes sometimes atheists can help.
We need to think of the children. Children are the primary reason for marriage. Their health and welfare cannot be ignored because of the “I” factor.
G
gearhead
Guest
Fine - hair-splitting aside, the point remains: the same end result is common to all options… whatever terms you use. It’s still not a rational basis for choosing one option over the other.NO, your wrong, you only see what you want to see…
-same sex marriage is legal: gay people who commit homosexual acts go to Hell.
-same sex marriage is illegal: gay people who commit homosexual acts go to Hell.
BTW there is a guy on here, I came across in another thread who is chaste, a GAY person, who is NOT going to hell…we dont hate gay people, and just because your gay doesnt reserve a ticket to hell for you…
Do you mean “no, it’s not rational” or “no, it’s not common”?No, its not…
I don’t know what you mean.I think your confusing the church with GOD.
Just as “God’s law” on, say, divorce is eternal, but the Church now chooses not to lobby to prohibit it under civil law?regardless of the churches stance, the states stance, my stance, your stance, the BOTTOM line is that marriage was created for the purpose of a man and woman, to create a family…it is a MORTAL SIN, and no matter what the law says, God’s law is eternal…
As I said, you’re free to think that same-sex marriage is as evil, sinful or icky as you want, as long as you don’t try to force this view on people who disagree.
And it’s a definition where on other issues, the Church is apparently content to have one definition while secular law has another. Is a marriage before a justice of the peace a marriage in the eyes of God? What about a marriage by someone who’s divorced? I see no general campaign to align the secular, legal definition of marriage with the views of the Church in any other way; why the push to do it on this issue, but apparently only this one?Wait a minute, those that dont share them?? you mean homosexuals that want to get married right?? well that brings us back to: ‘marriage’. And what that word means to people. And unfortunately for gays, it was defined by ‘God’ and the church as a union between a man and a woman.
No, it’s not. First off, you have no right to not be offended. Second, the word “love” has had certain meanings for a long time, too; what redress do I get against those who have taken hate and called it “love”?And there are people that really and truly believe that. In God, in marriage, in their religion. And they’ve been believing that for a long time. I think that to come and have the government of all things tell them that they are going to redefine something as sacred as marriage is an infringement on their religious freedoms.
No, they provide marriages. Ask any atheist, Muslim, Buddhist or remarried lapsed Catholic; you’ll find that what they got from the government is a certificate of marriage, not a certificate of “civil union”.That is why there is separation of state and church. They provide Civil unions for those who don’t believe or do not follow the churches teachings.
Wait a minute: so your objection isn’t to same-sex marriage at all; it’s to civil marriage?Gay or Straight, a government license recognizes is a CIVIL union, no matter what the noun at the top of the license is. CHURCHES, TEMPLES, SYNAGOGUES, MOSQUES, etc. perform ceremonies for RELIGIOUS unions. I wish the best for homosexual couples and hope they enjoy the same rights and privileges that marriage does, but ‘marriage’ is a religious ceremony and therefore should be left to the church.
BTW - how do the churches, temples, synagogues, etc. who perform same-sex marriages fit into your dichotomy? Is a religious union between two men or two women performed by, say, the Metropolitan Community Church not a marriage? You did just say that religious unions are marriages, right?
Fine - don’t encourage it. But there are more ways of not encouraging something than active opposition.Which is our right to vote lawmakers who agree with us. So no we do not want to encourage this type of family.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.