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

[Charlotte408]

well you asked me willie!! lol…arent you the guy that doesnt follow blind links and expects everyone to have/support their own arguements?? lmbo…

alrrrriiiight…i’ll wait for buffalo bill to log on…

 

[cthulhubryan]

Maybe he’s Eve’s?

Or Lillith?

 

[Charlotte408]

cthlichub- what? lol…where did that come from and what does it mean!! lol…imma have to read back …

 

[mkingdomlvr]

:compcoff:

well…not too long ago, i was at the park with my daughter…and, everywhere, there were kids playing…on the field, soccer and kites…on the swings… on the playground…you know … a park…where kids were just being…kids…and me and my daughter went for a walk down the levy ((theres a bike trail there too)) and on the way back I happened to notice a straight couple ((a man and a woman)) had laid out a blanket, out to the side, pretty much out of view…but they were laying there and cuddling…when we got back to the main part of the park…right smack dab in the middle of the field, where all the kids were playing and having to run around them even, were two dudes, one laying his head in the others lap, the other leaning forward and they were making out…straight up french kissing, tongues n all that…

first let me say, myself personally, if i had a boyfriend, husband, watever, i wouldnt find it appropriate to ‘making out’ infront of kids…

apparently some other straight people wouldnt either, because they took the care to set themselves away from the general crowd to be discrete.

I seriously had an inner battle to stop myself from walking up to these guys and saying ‘excuse me, but could you tone it down, or move it down the field a little’. part of why i didnt is because i was horrified at the possiblity that they’d stand up and shout at me ‘hatemonger’ or something crazy…

and if your wondering how the other parents took it, it was the same way. more than once another parents eye caught mine and we exchanged a glance of acknowledgment to eachothers plight…

I do not think of gay sex at the thought of gay people, but seeing stuff like this puts ti right in my face! …actually, im sure NO ONE WANTS to think of gay sex…maybe if they ((i know thats a generalization)) acted a little more…idk…conservatively with their sex lifes…

if you look at a straight parade, idk, lets say the macys parade…you get floats…dancers…singers…idk that kinda stuff…but anytime you see a ‘gay’ event, ie pride parade, or ANYTHING gay in san francsico, you are going to see naked men, strapped in chaps…sex toys…CRAZY STUFF…its the gay communitys fault that people look at them the way they do, because of how they portray themselves…why does everything have to be so sexually oriented??

((oh yah, i forgot, we already established the only way they are any different from us is their sexual lifestyle- so now for the month of june we get to celebrate this nasty ****))
WillieWonka;5583589:

Actually, I disagree. The state doesn’t say civil marriage is anything. The only requirement is $25, birth certificates, and two witnesses. That’s it.

So, civil marriage is whatever the couple says it is. Anything at all. Business, love, sex, drugs, something to do, way to win a bet, honor god, hatred, envy, greed, happiness, therapy, money, religion…/

QUOTE]

yes, and now the gay community would like to reduce ‘marriage’ to the same level. If its partner rights the gay community seeks, then by all means grant it to them under a civil union with the equality of a marriage, but the term ‘marriage’ is beyond them, beyond the government, beyond all of us. it was here before us, and will be here long after us, it is consecrated by God and we just CANT TOUCH THAT…I can see how somone outside of the church would think they could, due to lack of respect and belief, but then I wonder, if one doesnt BELIEVE in marriage, and what it is, and they think they can ALTER it, because, God doesnt exist or is irrelevant, or flat out wrong, then why do they pursue the term so???

Willie…Willie…Do you know they showed the original Willie Wonka on TV yesterday?? that movie still trips me out…

more than once you and another dude on here referred to the beating, suicide…shooting of gay people…but you fail to recognize that these acts happen on the other side as well…

"Hamburg man raped boy, 17, police say
From our news staff
Hamburg, PA - A Hamburg man gave a 17-year-old boy beer and vodka before raping him, authorities said Friday.
According to court records, John S. Shrawder, 44, of the first block of South Fourth Street, attacked the boy in Shrawder’s home about 8:25 p.m. Thursday.
Hamburg police arrested him Thursday night in his residence.
Shrawder was arraigned before Senior District Judge John W. Miller in Reading Central Court on charges of rape and corrupting minors.
He was committed to Berks County Prison in lieu of $200,000 bail.
According to court records:
The victim reported he was drinking in Shrawder’s residence while Shrawder showed him how to play piano.
Shrawder grabbed the victim, put him in a chokehold, pulled him onto a bed and raped him.
The victim grabbed Shrawder’s pants from the floor and ran to a relative’s house, where he called police.
Police found the boy’s pants and underwear in Shrawder’s residence.’

Oh- but I’m sure your not talking about these homosexual individuals…it must be the other kinda homosexual…

took me a while to read through all this…and I think I understand it…

You’re in a public park with your family and two men are kissing and you note that it’s “straight on french kissing”. You must have gotten pretty close to notice that. Frankly, when I see couple out in public kissing I usually look in another direction. I don’t engage in PDA’s and I don’t look on with interest when someone else does.

As for the gay pride parades-like many straight folks you assume that those folks represent the entire gay community. Um…not so much. Yes, we do have our more “fabulous” and “out there” folks, but straights also have some members in their union that I’m sure don’t represent their entire community. Not one of my friends has ever been a part of a gay pride parade, and I only went once to the parade in NY and that was only because I had theatre tickets that night.

And as for the Hamburg story…where does it say that the attacker was homosexual? Are you not aware that most sexual assaults on children and teens are committed by otherwise heterosexual men? Ask the FBI, or watch To Catch a Predator once in a while.

And finally-Marriage as consecrated by God will not be changed by civil marriages being granted to gay people. If you lived in MA, and you got married in Church, your marriage is no less sacred now than it was prior to gay marriage being legalized. If you lived in MA and you were Catholic you would not see gay couples being married in your parish.

 

[cthulhubryan]

cthlichub- what? lol…where did that come from and what does it mean!! lol…imma have to read back …

It goes back to the Adam, Eve and Steve portion of the thread.

 

[Charlotte408]

took me a while to read through all this…and I think I understand it…

You’re in a public park with your family and two men are kissing and you note that it’s “straight on french kissing”. You must have gotten pretty close to notice that. Frankly, when I see couple out in public kissing I usually look in another direction. I don’t engage in PDA’s and I don’t look on with interest when someone else does.

Dear, I didnt get close at all. this is not a foot ball field were talking about, its a park. you can easily see across it. and when i say ‘straight up french kissing, tongues and all’ I think you know what i mean. its very noticable when two people, ANY people, are slobbin’ eachother down…my point was, they didnt have the discretion to move on down the field because there were children around. and no one felt they were able to do/say something about it for fear of backlash like, were homophobes…thats taking it, shoving it in our faces, and forcing us to deal with it. if it were a straight couple, being that publicly initimate, i’d likewise be offended, but wouldnt be considered a ‘hatemonger’ for asking them to cool it off…

As for the gay pride parades-like many straight folks you assume that those folks represent the entire gay community. Um…not so much. Yes, we do have our more “fabulous” and “out there” folks, but straights also have some members in their union that I’m sure don’t represent their entire community. Not one of my friends has ever been a part of a gay pride parade, and I only went once to the parade in NY and that was only because I had theatre tickets that night.

I think I made it clear that it was a generalization of the gay community, I know that one individual doesnt represent them all, but, like the gay pride parade, and MOST gay events, a MAJORITY, not one or two, MOST of them partake in these highly sexualized activities…and then wonder why people view them like they do. you see a guy with whips chains and in chaps on the news, talking about equality…equality to do what?? prance around with yer bare naked booty showing pretending to perform oral sex on zucchini’s?? DUDE! really?? i mean cm’on…if a straight person was behaving in such a way it’d be equally as unacceptable…

And as for the Hamburg story…where does it say that the attacker was homosexual?

"man raped boy" man…and boy…you could almost say man and man, as the boy was 17, almost 18, if that is what determines wether a boy is a man or not…i think that pretty much sums it up. wether he was a full fledged homosexual living the lifestyle, or if he was a ‘straight’ man, with a girlfriend is irrelevant. this is a HOMOSEXUAL ACT, and therefore whoever did it has HOMOSEXUAL tendancies, and in my point of view, either or, (the supposedly straight man or the gay man) has serious mental issues…

Are you not aware that most sexual assaults on children and teens are committed by otherwise heterosexual men? Ask the FBI, or watch To Catch a Predator once in a while.

Yeah I’m aware, thats called child molestation. a man molests a young girl. a woman has sex with a young boy. its wrong. but thats not what were talking about here. were talking about HOMOSEXUALITY. wonka and others kept making the point that only straight people beat, kill, hurt homosexuals, when in fact they are JUST as predatory (if not more so) than straights…

And finally-Marriage as consecrated by God will not be changed by civil marriages being granted to gay people. If you lived in MA, and you got married in Church, your marriage is no less sacred now than it was prior to gay marriage being legalized. If you lived in MA and you were Catholic you would not see gay couples being married in your parish.

your right. the individual marriage will not be affected. if i am married to joe, and i love joe, no matter what anyone else does will affect us because we love eachother, and no one is in our relationship other than the two of us. But it will effect marriage itself, how society see’s it, its meaning…im too lazy to open another page to find the quote, but if you read back a couple comments im sure weve already established how…

 

[cthulhubryan]

And finally-Marriage as consecrated by God will not be changed by civil marriages being granted to gay people. If you lived in MA, and you got married in Church, your marriage is no less sacred now than it was prior to gay marriage being legalized. If you lived in MA and you were Catholic you would not see gay couples being married in your parish.

With you so far. Why we have to use the word ‘marriage’ is beyond me. The gay people I know tell me that they don’t care what it is called as long as they get the same governmental rights (survivorship, estate tax breaks, loop holes on the gifting laws, etc.)

Fine. I see no problem with this and calling it a civil union. HOWEVER, legality is always a slippery slope. Once you allow changes to the concept of marriage, the door is open. If it is fine for a man and woman to marry and a woman and woman to marry, why not a man a woman and a woman to marry? Now, we could always limit it to two people but once the door is open, the door is open.

Willie Wonka seems to want to rabbit on and on about natural law. Fine. but let’s remember that Natural Law proceeds forth from both nature and the nature of man.
This tells us that in Nature, heterosexuality is the norm. Obviously a species that preferred homosexuality would see it’s population decline and eventually be replaced. Some natural law philosophers believe that this is why we see a rise in the number of homosexuals today because evolution is trying to control the population by removing a certain percentage of the population from breeding.

Is this truly where we want to go as a nation?

As to the civil union vs marriage or civil marriage vs religious marriage, I see no problem with it as long as it is made public. If I am someone who believes in God and that He created the world and His natural law is working then I should be able to send my child to a school that employs only single or religiously married teachers.

If you demand a legal categorization, you invite a legal discrimination based upon said categorization.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Here’s what I mean; take it as you will: I want the Church (and the faithful) to approach this issue with consistency, logic and common sense.

To begin with, it makes no sense to invoke your view that homosexuality is a sin in your stance on same-sex marriage. In this choice, homosexuality and homosexual acts are a sunk cost: if the couples in question have the right to marriage, they’ll engage in them. If they don’t have the right to marriage, they’ll engage in them anyway. In economic terms, the “sin” of homosexuality represents a sunk cost and is therefore an invalid basis for decision-making.

Now you are hitting upon a key point in the issue. Is homosexuality a choice? I believe it is.

In this country it is perfectly legal for me to set equal discrimination for choices without penalties on the behavior. If you apply for a job I can disqualify you for employment because you chose to engage in the use of marijuana or other drugs. I am not punishing you for the act of taking them, I am eliminating you as a possible employee based upon your choices.

The same can be said about homosexuality. My actuarial tables tell me that a homosexual man is more likely to die early, more likely to have various diseases that are difficult to treat and more likely to have general health issues. Therefore, I can decline to hire ANY person who chooses to be homosexual because of the negative effect they would have on my corporate health insurance costs.

There you go, I have made NO moral judgments on homosexuality but I have legally prohibited any homosexuals from working here.

Okay, so let’s say that the person chooses not to get a ‘civil marriage’ but just to live with their ‘partner’. I run into the same things. I do not have to offer health coverage to the random single adult living with my potential employee. I am also allowed to ask all potential hires questions about their medical health. Several of those will involve potential homosexual activity. If they answer them honestly, then I decline their employment application based upon the costs associated with hiring someone who will have such a negative effect on my corporate costs. If they answer dishonestly, then they have to live the lie. If it ever comes to notice that they are homosexual, then they are gone immediately since they lied on their application.

Equality is a two edged sword.

 

[WillieWonka]

Or Lillith?

Steve is cheating on Lilth?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

With you so far. Why we have to use the word ‘marriage’ is beyond me. The gay people I know tell me that they don’t care what it is called as long as they get the same governmental rights (survivorship, estate tax breaks, loop holes on the gifting laws, etc.)

Fine. I see no problem with this and calling it a civil union. HOWEVER, legality is always a slippery slope. Once you allow changes to the concept of marriage, the door is open. If it is fine for a man and woman to marry and a woman and woman to marry, why not a man a woman and a woman to marry? Now, we could always limit it to two people but once the door is open, the door is open.

Willie Wonka seems to want to rabbit on and on about natural law. Fine. but let’s remember that Natural Law proceeds forth from both nature and the nature of man.
This tells us that in Nature, heterosexuality is the norm. Obviously a species that preferred homosexuality would see it’s population decline and eventually be replaced. Some natural law philosophers believe that this is why we see a rise in the number of homosexuals today because evolution is trying to control the population by removing a certain percentage of the population from breeding.

Is this truly where we want to go as a nation?

As to the civil union vs marriage or civil marriage vs religious marriage, I see no problem with it as long as it is made public. If I am someone who believes in God and that He created the world and His natural law is working then I should be able to send my child to a school that employs only single or religiously married teachers.

If you demand a legal categorization, you invite a legal discrimination based upon said categorization.

I was with you until you went off on the slippery slope argument. If you’re going to use that, then marriage between one man and one woman could also lead to marriage between two men and one woman or two women and one man. Marriage itself is the gateway that leads to everything else.

I also have trouble with the idea that gay marriage would lead to the dissolution of the species and that the population would suffer because more people would be gay. Honestly, I think the percentage of gay vs straight is going to stay fairly constant. I don’t think we’re going to see a rush of folks “turning gay” because gay marriage is legalized.

 

[WillieWonka]

Willie Wonka seems to want to rabbit on and on about natural law. Fine. but let’s remember that Natural Law proceeds forth from both nature and the nature of man.
This tells us that in Nature, heterosexuality is the norm. Obviously a species that preferred homosexuality would see it’s population decline and eventually be replaced. Some natural law philosophers believe that this is why we see a rise in the number of homosexuals today because evolution is trying to control the population by removing a certain percentage of the population from breeding.

.

Well, I’m asking what Natural law has to do with beating gays. Buffalo made the connection. Perhaps you can tell us? Does Naturral Law lead people to beat gays? Or Catholics? Is it written on our hearts to beat gays? Rabbits?

 

[WillieWonka]

Same sex marriage would allow two guys to be married. It would not allow two guys and one woman to mary.

However, we should acknowledge the state legislature and governor could allow married threesomes. And they could name it marriage. It’s easy… Three birth certificates, $25, and two witnesses. That’s all it would take. No religion. No history. No tradition. Just a law.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Now you are hitting upon a key point in the issue. Is homosexuality a choice? I believe it is.

In this country it is perfectly legal for me to set equal discrimination for choices without penalties on the behavior. If you apply for a job I can disqualify you for employment because you chose to engage in the use of marijuana or other drugs. I am not punishing you for the act of taking them, I am eliminating you as a possible employee based upon your choices.

The same can be said about homosexuality. My actuarial tables tell me that a homosexual man is more likely to die early, more likely to have various diseases that are difficult to treat and more likely to have general health issues. Therefore, I can decline to hire ANY person who chooses to be homosexual because of the negative effect they would have on my corporate health insurance costs.

There you go, I have made NO moral judgments on homosexuality but I have legally prohibited any homosexuals from working here.

Okay, so let’s say that the person chooses not to get a ‘civil marriage’ but just to live with their ‘partner’. I run into the same things. I do not have to offer health coverage to the random single adult living with my potential employee. I am also allowed to ask all potential hires questions about their medical health. Several of those will involve potential homosexual activity. If they answer them honestly, then I decline their employment application based upon the costs associated with hiring someone who will have such a negative effect on my corporate costs. If they answer dishonestly, then they have to live the lie. If it ever comes to notice that they are homosexual, then they are gone immediately since they lied on their application.

Equality is a two edged sword.

I’m assuming that you are heterosexual, can you tell me when you chose to orient yourself that way? I’m really interested in this idea of choosing what orientation a person will be.

I’ve been gay since I can remember. I didn’t know what it meant when I was in grammar school, but I knew that I was not like the other girls. As I got older, I started to understand what was going on, but I don’t recall making a choice.

 

[gearhead]

if you look at a straight parade, idk, lets say the macys parade…you get floats…dancers…singers…idk that kinda stuff…but anytime you see a ‘gay’ event, ie pride parade, or ANYTHING gay in san francsico, you are going to see naked men, strapped in chaps…sex toys…CRAZY STUFF…its the gay communitys fault that people look at them the way they do, because of how they portray themselves…why does everything have to be so sexually oriented??

The Macy’s Parade isn’t a “straight event”. It’s an event where everyone is involved and invited.

If you want something closer to a “straight” parallel for a Pride Parade, it’d be New Orleans during Mardi Gras or Miami Beach during Spring Break. Do you think that young women flashing men for beads (or the young men who hand out beads in hopes of being flashed) represent the views of all heterosexuals? If not, why do you assume that naked men in chaps represent the views of all homosexuals?

It goes back to the Adam, Eve and Steve portion of the thread.

Bringing up Adam and Eve in the context of homosexuality never made much sense to me, since the Garden of Eden story could play out exactly the same if both Adam and Eve were bisexual.

With you so far. Why we have to use the word ‘marriage’ is beyond me. The gay people I know tell me that they don’t care what it is called as long as they get the same governmental rights (survivorship, estate tax breaks, loop holes on the gifting laws, etc.)

Well, for one thing, history has taught us that “separate but equal” isn’t actually equal.

Also, just because you get the same governmental rights where you live doesn’t mean that a civil union and a marriage are equivalent in other settings. For example, some countries (e.g. Israel) recognize foreign same-sex marriages; but will they recognize same-sex civil unions? Ideally, there should be no question that a person will be able to, say, consent to treatment for their incapacitated spouse in a foreign hospital.

Fine. I see no problem with this and calling it a civil union. HOWEVER, legality is always a slippery slope. Once you allow changes to the concept of marriage, the door is open. If it is fine for a man and woman to marry and a woman and woman to marry, why not a man a woman and a woman to marry? Now, we could always limit it to two people but once the door is open, the door is open.

I totally agree! And not just when it comes to marriage!

Look at the slippery slope of religion! If we allow freedom of religion for mainstream faiths, it’s inevitable that we’ll end up legalizing suicide cults and human sacrifice!

Is that slippery slope valid? If not, why is yours?

Seriously, though, polygamy is different from same-sex marriage in one important regard: a same-sex marriage is between two consenting adults. In a polygamous marriage, spouse 'A’s decision to marry new spouse ‘B’ will affect the legal rights and responsibilities of spouse 'A’s existing spouse ‘C’.

Polygamy would take a major re-tooling of the law. Same-sex marriage wouldn’t.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Thanks for a perfect opening sailor.

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

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.

Amen to Bishop Sheen and to you.

There are some very twisted definitions of ‘love’ out there. Parents who try to be their childrens’ ‘best pal’ comes to mind. People who want to do whatever they feel like also come to mind.

We can not fall for that. This isn’t love. It’s indulgence.

 

[gearhead]

I’m assuming that you are heterosexual, can you tell me when you chose to orient yourself that way? I’m really interested in this idea of choosing what orientation a person will be.

I’ve been gay since I can remember. I didn’t know what it meant when I was in grammar school, but I knew that I was not like the other girls. As I got older, I started to understand what was going on, but I don’t recall making a choice.

Funny - whenever someone says “homosexuality is a choice”, I hear “it takes a conscious act of will on my part to stay straight.”

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Funny - whenever someone says “homosexuality is a choice”, I hear “it takes a conscious act of will on my part to stay straight.”

Which is probably why they’re so afraid of tolerance for gays. If gay people are treated with any kind of dignity then they won’t be able to “stay straight” anymore. The only way they can keep control is if gay people are looked upon as evil, horrible things.

 

[StillWondering]

Which is probably why they’re so afraid of tolerance for gays. If gay people are treated with any kind of dignity then they won’t be able to “stay straight” anymore. The only way they can keep control is if gay people are looked upon as evil, horrible things.

If you mean they as in Catholics, I don’t think you were taught correctly what it means to have Catholic love. Catholics cannot by themselves hate any one and be obedient to the Faith. They can hate the sin, but must love the sinner. They can defend themselves against the sinner and chastised the sinner, but only with love in their hearts. Anything less is faulty and weak. Anything less then having love in all works is not true to Catholic teaching.

If by they you mean hate disseminators and segregationists, then sure they may think that out of fear. They are not living by Catholic teachings however, whether they are Catholic in name or not.

For me, Christ words rang true: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”

 

[mkingdomlvr]

If you mean they as in Catholics, I don’t think you were taught correctly what it means to have Catholic love. Catholics cannot by themselves hate any one and be obedient to the Faith. They can hate the sin, but must love the sinner. They can defend themselves against the sinner and chastised the sinner, but only with love in their hearts. Anything less is faulty and weak. Anything less then having love in all works is not true to Catholic teaching.

If by they you mean hate disseminators and segregationists, then sure they may think that out of fear. They are not living by Catholic teachings however, whether they are Catholic in name or not.

For me, Christ words rang true: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”

I was agreeing with gearhead about people who make such an issue about homosexuality being a choice. I didn’t specify religious leaning because I don’t think that has anything to do with it.

And I know a lot of Catholics who talk a very good game, but also lump me and the entire gay community into the same group with pedophiles and people who want to sleep with their dogs. That’s denigrating, and it is NOT hating the sin and loving the sinner.

 

[WillieWonka]

If you mean they as in Catholics, I don’t think you were taught correctly what it means to have Catholic love. Catholics cannot by themselves hate any one and be obedient to the Faith. They can hate the sin, but must love the sinner. They can defend themselves against the sinner and chastised the sinner, but only with love in their hearts. Anything less is faulty and weak. Anything less then having love in all works is not true to Catholic teaching.

If by they you mean hate disseminators and segregationists, then sure they may think that out of fear. They are not living by Catholic teachings however, whether they are Catholic in name or not.

For me, Christ words rang true: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”

Now that takes real skill in hating. One has to be able to hate what someone does, while cleverly keeping that hatred from seeping over to target the person.

Why would anyone choose to hate anything? What is accomplished by this internal mental state? Is it enjoyable? Fun to hate? Does he Church train people on how to keep a Chnese wall between their hatred for what a specific person does and the person themselves?

I’d suggest history shows very few have this finely tuned sense of hate where they can discriminate at will between the sin and the sinner. How do they learn it? Trial and error?