M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
I didn’t ask a question, I made an observation. “Pushing” is in the eye of the beholder, and that eye turns blind when it’s a position said beholder favors.
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
Then your claim is absolute truth does not exist?Hmm. If there’s any slippery slope argument in this whole debate, I think it’s here. I’m loathe to give an inch to people who think they have the God-given duty to make the world conform to their views.
B
buffalo
Guest
My answer was broader. When one seeks answers to questions, problems and issues everyone wants a truthful answer.I didn’t ask a question, I made an observation. “Pushing” is in the eye of the beholder, and that eye turns blind when it’s a position said beholder favors.
And you are right - the truth is often hard to accept, but is surely sets one free.
G
gearhead
Guest
I don’t see how you got that out of what I said.Then your claim is absolute truth does not exist?
I’m saying that I don’t want you imposing your will on me or on anyone else who doesn’t want it. If this is your goal, then I’d like to minimize your power to do it.
Is that your goal?
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
Your truth has set you free. The Baptist around the corner says that his truth has set him free. The Atheist down the block says her truth has set her free. The Hindu across the highway says his truth set him free…and so on.My answer was broader. When one seeks answers to questions, problems and issues everyone wants a truthful answer.
And you are right - the truth is often hard to accept, but is surely sets one free.
In the US, we have the freedom to choose which religious truth sets us free. What we are NOT free to do is legislate the specific regulations of that religion onto those who do not choose to practice that religion. Not every religion feels that gay people are disordered or that what they do is sinful. Not every citizen of the US is Catholic.
Catholics have the freedom to express their feelings about gay people and what gay people do, but to get involved with political action to create law is a slippery slope indeed.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sharing the truth is not imposing my will, but it is my will to share the truth with everyone I can.I don’t see how you got that out of what I said.
I’m saying that I don’t want you imposing your will on me or on anyone else who doesn’t want it. If this is your goal, then I’d like to minimize your power to do it.
Is that your goal?
Good legislation as a result of many people knowing the truth does. Bad legislation as a result of lies does too.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sorry - no go. All religions have a kernel of truth. It is upon these truths we get closer to the “fullness” of truth, fullness of truth that the Catholic Church alone possesses.Your truth has set you free. The Baptist around the corner says that his truth has set him free. The Atheist down the block says her truth has set her free. The Hindu across the highway says his truth set him free…and so on.
In the US, we have the freedom to choose which religious truth sets us free. What we are NOT free to do is legislate the specific regulations of that religion onto those who do not choose to practice that religion. Not every religion feels that gay people are disordered or that what they do is sinful. Not every citizen of the US is Catholic.
Catholics have the freedom to express their feelings about gay people and what gay people do, but to get involved with political action to create law is a slippery slope indeed.
It is not in a human beings or societies best interests to settle on partial truths.
It is my desire to create laws that reflect the true and just laws of God.
G
gearhead
Guest
Sharing of ideas is fine, but we were talking about lobbying for legislative change. Putting legal restrictions on people is very much an imposition of will.Sharing the truth is not imposing my will, but it is my will to share the truth with everyone I can.
Does what?Good legislation as a result of many people knowing the truth does. Bad legislation as a result of lies does too.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
You believe this, and that’s wonderful for you. Other American citizens do not, and are just committed to the “absolute-ness” of their truth as you are to yours.Sorry - no go. All religions have a kernel of truth. **It is upon these truths we get closer to the “fullness” of truth, fullness of truth that the Catholic Church alone possesses.
**
It is not in a human beings or societies best interests to settle on partial truths.
It is my desire to create laws that reflect the true and just laws of God.
If you want to live in a Catholic theocracy, which is kind of what it sounds like-the US is not the place for you.
1
1catholic
Guest
What about the fiscal problems with it? tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.htmlYou believe this, and that’s wonderful for you. Other American citizens do not, and are just committed to the “absolute-ness” of their truth as you are to yours.
If you want to live in a Catholic theocracy, which is kind of what it sounds like-the US is not the place for you.
G
gearhead
Guest
Your linked article didn’t say anything about fiscal problems at all.What about the fiscal problems with it? tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
and it’s really just another opinion, like what we’re all doing here.Your linked article didn’t say anything about fiscal problems at all.
We live in a society where ALL citizens are free to worship (or not) as they choose. Even though we might feel that our truth is the only truth, the same freedom that allows us to say that and live accordingly allows others to choose to believe in a different truth.
Whether gay people have the right to marry or not, Catholics will still be free to choose to view them as disordered, and view their actions as sinful.
B
buffalo
Guest
Freedom and license are two very different things. Check it out.You believe this, and that’s wonderful for you. Other American citizens do not, and are just committed to the “absolute-ness” of their truth as you are to yours.
If you want to live in a Catholic theocracy, which is kind of what it sounds like-the US is not the place for you.
One has to to with what we “ought” to do.
I have no intention of leaving the US. I will fight for moral laws and I vote and am active.
Perhaps it is you who wants license that are bad for society to move.
B
buffalo
Guest
In America we do not have a law that makes a state religion. However, religion should be influence the public square not held out. Otherwise we have secularism which makes you happy, but me not.I don’t see how you got that out of what I said.
I’m saying that I don’t want you imposing your will on me or on anyone else who doesn’t want it. If this is your goal, then I’d like to minimize your power to do it.
Is that your goal?
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
Who is going to hold a gun to your head and make you marry someone who is gay??Freedom and license are two very different things. Check it out.
One has to to with what we “ought” to do.
I have no intention of leaving the US. I will fight for moral laws and I vote and am active.
Perhaps it is you who wants license that are bad for society to move.
I know exactly what I “ought” to do, and I don’t need civil law to tell me.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
but we are free to NOT live secular lives here. We can be as religious as we wish, and we can encourage others to join us.In America we do not have a law that makes a state religion. However, religion should be influence the public square not held out. Otherwise we have secularism which makes you happy, but me not.
Honestly, if the only way we can get people to agree with us is to put a criminal penalty on disagreement, we’re not setting a very good example for why someone would want to be like us.
B
buffalo
Guest
This is a reductionist argument.but we are free to NOT live secular lives here. We can be as religious as we wish, and we can encourage others to join us.
Honestly, if the only way we can get people to agree with us is to put a criminal penalty on disagreement, we’re not setting a very good example for why someone would want to be like us.
There are all kinds of laws that have been legislated for the common good. Some people do not agree with some of them.
There are those that refuse to see the truth. Those that do are obligated to make it known and pass laws that protect and nourish society.
C
Charlotte408
Guest
yes, buffalo billy yer absolutely right…everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but when it comes to SOCIETY, certain rules are put in place to protect/nourish it…sorry if offends some people, but theres more at stake than a single person or groups ‘feelings’…This is a reductionist argument.
**There are all kinds of laws that have been legislated for the common good. Some people do not agree with some of them. **
There are those that refuse to see the truth. Those that do are obligated to make it known and pass laws that protect and nourish society.
i wonder if we took EVERYONES side, what atrocities would be committed…take for instance…NAMBLA…
"The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the **liberalization of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males **- resolving to “end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships”.
I’m sure, one of these men could argue till their blue in the face about how they were BORN wanting to have sex with young boys, so … its natural…who are we to judge?? and if they are consenting, then who cares if their minors?? but their opinion, their ‘feelings’, their arguements, dont make it any more right.
the family unit is the fundamental cell of a society…it deserves a fight…
G
gearhead
Guest
And there are those who think that what you see as “truth” is not so. Legal protections of freedom for the individual are based around the presumption that you don’t know better than someone else how they should live their life.This is a reductionist argument.
There are all kinds of laws that have been legislated for the common good. Some people do not agree with some of them.
There are those that refuse to see the truth. Those that do are obligated to make it known and pass laws that protect and nourish society.
BTW - how exactly does it “protect and nourish society” to deny normal familial protections and benefits to the children of same-sex-parented families?
S
StillWondering
Guest
You cannot say Catholics are hypocrite to oppose same-sex marriage even asking laws enabling this to be reverse. This is exactly our stance. In our understanding, living this lifestyle instead of other choices are unhealthy for homosexuals. The Catholic stance supports the individuals to have opportunities to thrive in society, to be free, but not to have sexual unions with their own sex. You might ask, what “love” is there to the individual if they cannot choose their own path. If you do ask such, you do not understand Catholic teachings. This life on earth will pass away and then there is eternity in Heaven or in Hell. Choose Heaven. Secondly, there are alternative lifestyles then being in sexual unions. You can still have brotherly love, you can still love your parents and siblings. You can be a chaste person. You can live in a society in a chaste way.Hmm… I think that most actual implementations of “hating the sin and loving the sinner” amount to hypocrisy; at least the ones I’ve seen personally, anyhow. I saw very little love from representatives of the Church in the lead-up to the approval of same-sex marriage here in Canada. The local archbishop even published an “open letter” in the country’s newspapers encouraging our lawmakers to invoke the notwithstanding clause.*
These are options you can choose to commit to instead of giving into your lusts just like a straight guy can choose to do these things instead of having sex with women. The difference is that a straight person can have a single spouse, while a person that cannot enjoy heterosexual relationships cannot.
Think of it as a cross to bear, just like how a wealthy person is called to be generous, a gifted person is called to serve others with his gift. If you claim it is not the same, then think of a mentally crippled person choosing to love themselves and be a source of happiness. This is a choose. I do not know if you can choose to love women, but you can choose not to have multiple partners for sure, you can choose even to be chaste, or you can choose to live in a way you want because only your own wishes matter to you and not anyone else even if it’s God.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.