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

[mkingdomlvr]

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’…

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…

still lumping gay people in with pedophiles, I see.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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.

The difficulty is that legislating morality or making a moral position into a law does not make people more moral. You cannot use the secular state apparatus to legislate moral people into being, nor can you use that apparatus to socially engineer morality. The principle reason is that it assumes that one can be a good person through coercion (law and the apparatus of state power) instead of by grace. That is, by legislating morality, one succumbs to the belief that the state can make us better people. And one legislates grace out of the picture entirely. And in legislating grace out of the picture, one is committing what amounts to an act of despair by saying, in effect, that grace is insufficient to goodness.

The family, the home, the church, the synagogue, the temple are the places to teach morality because they are the places to teach open-ness to grace. Morality without grace is empty. Learning goodness by rote or by force does not form conscience but warps and stunts it. Goodness, morality, is something that is lived by grace. Taste and see that the Lord is good! Experience the goodness of God by his grace! The alternative–follow directions or you’ll be sorry–is no foundation for a real (that is a living) morality.

Just my two cents.

Under the Mercy!
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[gearhead]

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’…

Within the lifetime of my grandparents, the Orange Lodge held such a political influence in my province that it was effectively impossible for a Catholic to be elected, and the state-funded Protestantism-based public schools were filled with anti-Catholic rhetoric. I wonder if you would be singing the same tune in that situation.

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.

I’m trying very hard to believe that you know that the principle of consent in our legal system includes an age of consent and that you’re raising this argument honestly, but it’s very difficult for me.

the family unit is the fundamental cell of a society…it deserves a fight…

I totally agree. Hence why I think it’s important to fight for all families.

 

[StillWondering]

To be honest, the most acceptance I’ve found from Catholics has been from clergy and religious folks. It’s the lay people who have been the most cruel.

If you understand that acceptance of the person *includes *to the resistance of the sinful act, in this case if I saw you I can hug you and wish you the best. But if you said “bye, I’m going home to frolic with my boyfriend (if you are a boy)” then I would have to say, "MK, do you know that the Scriptures teaches against such sexual acts? I am sinful myself and do stuff I am told by others to not do, but still I try and try not to commit these sins. I am here to encourage you to try as well. Don’t frolic tonight and offer up this chastity to God as a sign of your trust in him. Pray that you can choose a different life-style, even if it means to live only as siblings or to live alone. "

I have no right to claim I am any less sinful then another. I know this in my personal life. I do have a responsibility to help others not only avoid sin but to thrive, just as I hope others do for me. And so, if you see me sinning, let me know! I will hate knowing but, unfortunately, what I want may not be what God wants. And if you see me being friends with you for several years but never making sure you have heard, at least once, that you may be in mortal sin, then slap me across the face.

---

There is a story my mother told me while I was young. She spoke about a young man who after coming to America (I’m not born here myself), and started having all sorts of new friends that are different then the friends he has at church. He has always been a good boy so the parents did not think much of the situation. Then when he stop going to church and coming home with scars, they were concern, but did not put a stop to it.

They talked to him asking him what is going on. He tells them, that if they love him, they do not worry and continue to care for him. He has a lot of studies to prepare for and left. They were hurt that he does not trust them to talk, and tried again. He warned them that if they even bring this up again, he will run away from home. They became conflicted. They love their child, and want to be there for him. But he tells them if they love him they need to effectively shut up and let him be.

Well he ran away from home even though they complied. For weeks and weeks, they would search, they also post up fliers and reported to the police. But no one saw any traces of him. After three weeks, they heard about a decomposing body in the nearby sewers. They were shocked and went to the morgue. It was not their child, but one of the boys he often befriend.

After many more months, they stop searching and entered a state of morning. Not knowing what else they can do, they kept a picture of him next to their mantle and continued with their lives. A number of years later, in the middle of the night, a window in the house was broken. The father ran down to look at what it is and the mother was at the phone ready to call the police if there is an intruder. There was one, but he told them to not call any cops. It was there son, but he was different. The dad called the mom down to see. In the darkness of their living room, the son faced his parents. His mom cried from joy and wanted to hug him. But as she approached, he pulled a gun on her.

She froze in shock. The dad wanted to move, but could not in fear of hurting his son or losing his wife. He could only stammered, “Son?” Well, guess what happened?

The son, told the dad to come to him. Once the dad got within arm’s reach, he slapped the dad with the gun. The dad, who was in his fifties, fell over in pain. The mom began to move but he turned the gun back on her. She cried, “Why, why Steven? My sweet Steven, what are you doing?” He told her, you two do not deserve to by my parents, you failed me. This is my letter to you. He threw the envelop onto his dad who is slowly getting up. Then he took the gun, put it in his mouth and blew his brains out.

The envelop showed pictures of a happy little boy with his old friends, and a happy big boy with his new friends. On the back if the first picture it said “Thank you”. On the back of the second picture, it said “Why did you not stop me?”. They were the pictures from the fliers the parents put up after he ran away.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Grace & Peace!

The difficulty is that legislating morality or making a moral position into a law does not make people more moral. You cannot use the secular state apparatus to legislate moral people into being, nor can you use that apparatus to socially engineer morality. The principle reason is that it assumes that one can be a good person through coercion (law and the apparatus of state power) instead of by grace. That is, by legislating morality, one succumbs to the belief that the state can make us better people. And one legislates grace out of the picture entirely. And in legislating grace out of the picture, one is committing what amounts to an act of despair by saying, in effect, that grace is insufficient to goodness.

The family, the home, the church, the synagogue, the temple are the places to teach morality because they are the places to teach open-ness to grace. Morality without grace is empty. Learning goodness by rote or by force does not form conscience but warps and stunts it. Goodness, morality, is something that is lived by grace. Taste and see that the Lord is good! Experience the goodness of God by his grace! The alternative–follow directions or you’ll be sorry–is no foundation for a real (that is a living) morality.

Just my two cents.

Under the Mercy!
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

Thank you for saying that with such grace.

 

[Charlotte408]

still lumping gay people in with pedophiles, I see.

EXCUSE ME, but i fail to understand why they are not considered homosexuals???

a PEDOPHILE is an ADULT who molests/has sex with a minor, a MAN having sex with a minor FEMALE is a PEDOPHILE, a MAN having sex with a minor MALE is, yes, a PEDOPHILE, but also a HOMOSEXUAL…

the point wasnt in that tho, you clearly dodge issues that you dont care to address…

if we tried to make everybody HAPPY, with NO REGARD to what is good for the COMMON good for society, than that would entail allowing PERVS like the above to do as they wish as well. After all, they’re not catholics, they dont have the same beliefs, and theyre entitled to ‘live their life as they wish’

 

[gearhead]

You cannot say Catholics are hypocrite to oppose same-sex marriage even asking laws enabling this to be reverse.

No, I think anyone who hates and calls it “love” is hypocritical. I’ve seen some Catholics who do this, but some who don’t.

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.

Actually, I ask what “love” is there to the individual when that individual is being deliberately harmed.

This life on earth will pass away and then there is eternity in Heaven or in Hell. Choose Heaven.

Wait… how is that the choice? Here are your real choices:

• homosexual people, mostly non-Catholics, living as couples in the confines of same-sex marriage.
• homosexual people, mostly non-Catholics, living as couples, but unmarried.

Is one of those groups Heaven-bound? How does making same-sex marriage illegal affect the eternal destiny of anyone at all?

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.

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.

Those are all options, but you do not have the power to make a gay man or a lesbian woman choose any of them.

Regardless of your position on same-sex marriage, gay people will still exist. It’s not a choice between married gay people and no gay people at all, it’s a choice between married gay people and unmarried, cohabitating gay people.

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.

So why can’t you turn this around on yourself? You suggest a course of action for gay people; why can’t others suggest a course of action for you?

How about this: even though you find it unpleasant, you leave gay people to live their lives and even get married if they want to. You have the choice how you want to respond to this issue. Think of it as a cross to bear.

 

[gearhead]

EXCUSE ME, but i fail to understand why they are not considered homosexuals???

a PEDOPHILE is an ADULT who molests/has sex with a minor, a MAN having sex with a minor FEMALE is a PEDOPHILE, a MAN having sex with a minor MALE is, yes, a PEDOPHILE, but also a HOMOSEXUAL…

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are labels based on attraction. Most sexual predation on children is driven by power, not attraction.

In the small proportion of cases where pedophilia is based on attraction, these individuals’ sexual orientation is based on age, not gender. They’re equally attracted to both boys and girls and aren’t attracted to adults of either gender.

Basically, pedophilia is as irrelevant to same-sex marriage as it is to opposite-sex marriage.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are labels based on attraction. Most sexual predation on children is driven by power, not attraction.

In the small proportion of cases where pedophilia is based on attraction, these individuals’ sexual orientation is based on age, not gender. They’re equally attracted to both boys and girls and aren’t attracted to adults of either gender.

Basically, pedophilia is as irrelevant to same-sex marriage as it is to opposite-sex marriage.

Thank you for saving me the keystrokes.

 

[StillWondering]

No, I think anyone who hates and calls it “love” is hypocritical. I’ve seen some Catholics who do this, but some who don’t.

I do not disagree with you that some Catholics do not know what love is. Maybe including yourself.

Actually, I ask what “love” is there to the individual when that individual is being deliberately harmed.

The individual is not harmed by not living in a sexual relationship with another. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong about being chaste. In fact, St. Paul promotes it as way to get even more connected with God by having more time for him.

Wait… how is that the choice? Here are your real choices:

• homosexual people, mostly non-Catholics, living as couples in the confines of same-sex marriage.
• homosexual people, mostly non-Catholics, living as couples, but unmarried.

Is one of those groups Heaven-bound? How does making same-sex marriage illegal affect the eternal destiny of anyone at all?

That is only true if people still choose to have homosexual acts. Whether they do or not they are risking their salvation. That is a choice that may lead to Hell. It may not, but it may. I cannot judge like God judges, but I can read and then share what I have read from authoritative sources. You are arguing that in the situation of people who are already going to have homosexual relationships that they have legal protection from the law.

I’m arguing that the law may be secular, but obedient Catholics need to be witness against the sexual act by voting against it, by standing up and saying homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong even if people participate or the law protects it. Having a law that legalized this, gives the wrong idea that there is no fault in this action. Catholics needs to be witnesses against those that say it is perfectly alright. Whether the individual homosexual feels it is alright or not, there are many groups fighting for legalized gay marriages that are saying that is both not harmful and better for these individuals.

What is best for these individuals under Catholic teachings is not living this life at all. These individuals are taking up actions that leads to greater chances for disease, higher probabilities of emotional distress, and an unwillingness to listen to Scriptures–putting their own ideas as greater than God’s idea.

Heterosexual marriages have problems as well, and it is for the same underlining causes. Not obey’s Christ teachings. There are many wonderful Catholic couples out there that find following the Church’s guidelines and Christ’s commandments strength not deminishes their love.

Those are all options, but you do not have the power to make a gay man or a lesbian woman choose any of them.

I have power over myself to be a witness and to be a loving brother.

Regardless of your position on same-sex marriage, gay people will still exist. It’s not a choice between married gay people and no gay people at all, it’s a choice between married gay people and unmarried, cohabitating gay people.

I used to think this way in regards to aids in Africa. Husbands are continually being promiscuous and bringing home Aids to their devoted wives. Some few that the husbands will do so anyways, so we need to give these wives protection with condoms. Well, that is only logical if condoms are not intrinsically wrong or there is no Heaven. The Popes. past and present, clearly teachings condoms are against God’s will. Thus while some physical pain are alleviated, these individuals who are supplying the condoms are risking their salvation or at least extending their stay in purgatory. That second one, I as an individual will not worry about, but the first one – salvation – is a serious issue. The real solution is that the husband and young boys are taught this is wrong. If they still continue to do so, then we are not at fault for their own risking of their own salvation. The women who continue to live chaste lives and fulfill their duties as a wife are doing great works of love. They should be happy to be living the morally correct path even though it is a tragic path. They are protecting their salvation, that is truly the best gift for any earth dwelling individual. If you truly love these women you will spend your time with the husbands not the condom inventory.

The same applies to homosexuals who continue to live their lives. If you truly love them, you will spend time converting their hearts. There are many chaste gay Catholics out there. If marriage is permitted and the Church does not continue to promote the truth even if it is against the tide, then the salvation of these individuals may be lost.

So why can’t you turn this around on yourself? You suggest a course of action for gay people; why can’t others suggest a course of action for you?

How about this: even though you find it unpleasant, you leave gay people to live their lives and even get married if they want to. You have the choice how you want to respond to this issue. Think of it as a cross to bear.

I do not barge into people’s homes to stop them. I fine it unpleasant that my uncle is conflicted about his faith. But I do nto barge in. I talk to him and provide witness each time I can. I fine it unpleasant that you think I should not love my brothers in this particular way, but I still need to put myself out there for assault because I love. I find it unpleasant to take away my lunch hour to type and witness, but I am called to do so and must comply. So yes, I definitely turn this around on me. I live with my own disabilities and difficulties too. It is because I have suffered that I wish others to not suffer.

 

[gearhead]

The individual is not harmed by not living in a sexual relationship with another. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong about being chaste. In fact, St. Paul promotes it as way to get even more connected with God by having more time for him.

You’re avoiding the issue. The individual is harmed when he or she is evicted for having a “roommate”. The individual is harmed when he’s barred from the bedside of his partner by hospital staff who disapprove of him. Individuals are harmed when the deceased’s children are sent to live with some relative they’ve only met in passing instead of the person who raised them from infancy and who they look on as a parent. There are a thousand ways in which prohibiting same-sex marriage harms people.

That is only true if people still choose to have homosexual acts. Whether they do or not they are risking their salvation. That is a choice that may lead to Hell. It may not, but it may. I cannot judge like God judges, but I can read and then share what I have read from authoritative sources. You are arguing that in the situation of people who are already going to have homosexual relationships that they have legal protection from the law.

Yes, I am.

But I notice that your argument doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Gay people are free to live as they see fit regardless of the state of the law, so why does same-sex marriage have any bearing here?

If same-sex marriage is legal, gay people will be free to live as couples; they’ll also be free to be celibate. If same-sex marriage is illegal, they’re also free to live as couples or to be celibate.

Exactly what is the difference as you see it?

I’m arguing that the law may be secular, but obedient Catholics need to be witness against the sexual act by voting against it, by standing up and saying homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong even if people participate or the law protects it. Having a law that legalized this, gives the wrong idea that there is no fault in this action. Catholics needs to be witnesses against those that say it is perfectly alright. Whether the individual homosexual feels it is alright or not, there are many groups fighting for legalized gay marriages that are saying that is both not harmful and better for these individuals.

Okay, then: when it comes to same-sex couples who are non-Catholics and unabashedly, unrepentently gay, how is there any marginal harm whatsoever associated with same-sex marriage? What, are they going to go to Hell twice?

BTW, I can’t help but notice the inconsistency in the Church’s approach to this issue when compared to others. I was just over in another thread and read a number of very strong opinions about denial of the Trinity that sound very similar to what you’re saying about homosexuality. However, I have yet to hear a single representative of the Church or even a lay member call for the legal prohibition of Judaism, Islam, the LDS Church or any of the other groups who don’t adhere to the Catholic view on the Trinity. Why do you think this is? I’ve never been able to get a straight answer when I’ve asked anyone why the emphasis on gay people; usually, the question just gets ignored.

What is best for these individuals under Catholic teachings is not living this life at all. These individuals are taking up actions that leads to greater chances for disease, higher probabilities of emotional distress, and an unwillingness to listen to Scriptures–putting their own ideas as greater than God’s idea.

But forcing them not to live that life is not within your power. And counselling them to not live it is just as possible with same-sex marriage as it is without.

I have power over myself to be a witness and to be a loving brother.

And you’d still have that power if same-sex marriage were legalized. Its prohibition doesn’t give you any greater power in this regard.

The same applies to homosexuals who continue to live their lives. If you truly love them, you will spend time converting their hearts. There are many chaste gay Catholics out there. If marriage is permitted and the Church does not continue to promote the truth even if it is against the tide, then the salvation of these individuals may be lost.

Perhaps. But there’s a difference between promoting what you see as the truth and forcing others who don’t share your view to follow the truth.

And in the meantime, there are effects you may not have considered. I know that my opinion of the Church has diminished because of this issue. When I first got married, while I didn’t agree with everything the Church taught, I thought of it as at worst benign and at best a potentially positive influence. Now, though, I find myself looking to minimize its role in the life of the family that my wife and I are trying to build.

I do not barge into people’s homes to stop them.

Maybe not, but do you vote against their rights? Do you give material support to the Church in its efforts on this issue?

I fine it unpleasant that my uncle is conflicted about his faith. But I do nto barge in. I talk to him and provide witness each time I can. I fine it unpleasant that you think I should not love my brothers in this particular way, but I still need to put myself out there for assault because I love. I find it unpleasant to take away my lunch hour to type and witness, but I am called to do so and must comply. So yes, I definitely turn this around on me. I live with my own disabilities and difficulties too. It is because I have suffered that I wish others to not suffer.

Hmm. I think you missed my point here.

 

[StillWondering]

You’re avoiding the issue. The individual is harmed when he or she is evicted for having a “roommate”. The individual is harmed when he’s barred from the bedside of his partner by hospital staff who disapprove of him. Individuals are harmed when the deceased’s children are sent to live with some relative they’ve only met in passing instead of the person who raised them from infancy and who they look on as a parent. There are a thousand ways in which prohibiting same-sex marriage harms people.

But I notice that your argument doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Gay people are free to live as they see fit regardless of the state of the law, so why does same-sex marriage have any bearing here?

If same-sex marriage is legal, gay people will be free to live as couples; they’ll also be free to be celibate. If same-sex marriage is illegal, they’re also free to live as couples or to be celibate.

Exactly what is the difference as you see it?

I do not understand. Can I not have written documents stating that someone I trust is my medical advocate. That way this person can be at my bedside? What law prevents this, whether it is someone I’m married to or not if I have legal consent?

We all have free will and we can ask as we wish and receive the consequences. If I were to assault your family, the consequence may even by my death at your hands in self defense.

I guess you are asking me why should legalization be an issue for me as an individual? All individuals deserve certain rights and protections. I support that. I support legal status and protection to individuals. Marriage is an institution and I support legal and anienable rights for this institution. Both I support.

I guess then my question back at you and others is why do homosexuals need to be married. Is not custody and medical advocate legal rights all share? How is being openly homosexual automatically a lost of these rights that marriage rights are needed?

---

As for the Trinity, I try to explain and convert those whom I see deny this Truth. You are asking me, as an individual, why I do not legislate against non believers. Well, from what I understand this is a concept of freedom of religion. Is not a marriage a contracted event? I’m not sure how this is the same to you. Maybe you need me to look up resources for you to read.

catholic.com/library/ChurchDoc1.asp
This is an article I found after less than a minute of searching on this site. Maybe that would answer some of your questions or maybe you can teach me how I am wrong after reading it. I am a listener.

---

I do not think it is fair for you to use my own understandings as definitive authoritative statements of the Church. I never claim such, in fact I often speak about what I understand. Whether my statements are correct or not, I am not worthy to represent the Church beyond any capacity other than as a loving brother and individual. There are plenty of definitive Church documents available. Also, I would think this applies to individuals who may have been acting without Christian love. Do not take their actions as definitive statements from the Church.

 

[buffalo]

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.

BTW - how exactly does it “protect and nourish society” to deny normal familial protections and benefits to the children of same-sex-parented families?

A child needs a father and a mother.

 

[buffalo]

still lumping gay people in with pedophiles, I see.

What is to stop a case based on gay precedent from being decided in favor of polygamy, bestial marriage, pedophilia? How about if the judge him/herself is an advocate?

One has to be a fool to think this will not follow. Now will these things be good or bad for society? And on what basis?

And a male insertion into another male whether adult to adult or adult to child is intrinsically evil.

 

[buffalo]

No, I think anyone who hates and calls it “love” is hypocritical. I’ve seen some Catholics who do this, but some who don’t.

Actually, I ask what “love” is there to the individual when that individual is being deliberately harmed.

Wait… how is that the choice? Here are your real choices:

• homosexual people, mostly non-Catholics, living as couples in the confines of same-sex marriage.
• homosexual people, mostly non-Catholics, living as couples, but unmarried.

Is one of those groups Heaven-bound? How does making same-sex marriage illegal affect the eternal destiny of anyone at all?

Those are all options, but you do not have the power to make a gay man or a lesbian woman choose any of them.

Regardless of your position on same-sex marriage, gay people will still exist. It’s not a choice between married gay people and no gay people at all, it’s a choice between married gay people and unmarried, cohabitating gay people.

So why can’t you turn this around on yourself? You suggest a course of action for gay people; why can’t others suggest a course of action for you?

How about this: even though you find it unpleasant, you leave gay people to live their lives and even get married if they want to. You have the choice how you want to respond to this issue. Think of it as a cross to bear.

Your position is it is hypocritical to love the sinner and hate the sin?

 

[gearhead]

I do not understand. Can I not have written documents stating that someone I trust is my medical advocate. That way this person can be at my bedside? What law prevents this, whether it is someone I’m married to or not if I have legal consent?

That’s just one of the rights that goes along with marriage; there are many, many more.

But just so we’re clear: are you saying that you don’t oppose same-sex couples receiving the rights of marriage piecemeal? If so, what reason do you have to oppose them getting the same rights all at once?

We all have free will and we can ask as we wish and receive the consequences. If I were to assault your family, the consequence may even by my death at your hands in self defense.

Ooookayyy… but how is this relevant?

I guess you are asking me why should legalization be an issue for me as an individual? All individuals deserve certain rights and protections. I support that. I support legal status and protection to individuals.

Including equal legal rights and protections for individuals?

Marriage is an institution and I support legal and anienable rights for this institution. Both I support.

I guess then my question back at you and others is why do homosexuals need to be married. Is not custody and medical advocate legal rights all share?

Many can be acheived through legal means; some can’t be acheived at any price without the status of marriage.

For example, a lesbian friend of mine is currently living apart from her wife because can’t sponsor her for immigration in the normal way that spouses can sponsor each other.

And for the rights that can be bought, I really don’t see why you would object to them being easily given to same-sex couples. We’ve established that you’re apparently agreable to them having them - we touched on the fact that they can go to a lawyer and draw up a living will that names their partner. Effectively, the situation is a de facto “head tax” for same-sex couples, only instead of having that tax go to the government, it goes to lawyers.

How is being openly homosexual automatically a lost of these rights that marriage rights are needed?

I don’t think I understand the question. Either you’re missing my point or I’m missing yours.

As for the Trinity, I try to explain and convert those whom I see deny this Truth. You are asking me, as an individual, why I do not legislate against non believers. Well, from what I understand this is a concept of freedom of religion. Is not a marriage a contracted event? I’m not sure how this is the same to you.

Saying “freedom of religion” only gives the discrepancy a name; it doesn’t explain it.

However, if you want something that’s more directly parallel, how about divorce? The Church is opposed to it, yet it doesn’t seek to legally prohibit civil divorce in any country that I know of. On that matter, the Church is apparently content to police only its members while limiting its actions directed at the larger world to advice and counsel.

I do not think it is fair for you to use my own understandings as definitive authoritative statements of the Church. I never claim such, in fact I often speak about what I understand.

I don’t recall ever saying that I was using your statements that way.

A child needs a father and a mother.

Prohibiting same-sex marriage doesn’t magically change the gender of one of the child’s parents; it only prevents those parents and that child from getting normal protections extended to families.

BTW - every study I’ve seen of children of same-sex couples has indicated that the children do as well or better than those of opposite-sex couples on every indicator they measure… which actually makes sense, since virtually no children of same-sex couples are “accidents”. With same-sex couples, every child is a wanted child.

Personally, I think that sounds quite positive; don’t you?

 

[gearhead]

Your position is it is hypocritical to love the sinner and hate the sin?

In most ways that it’s put into practice, yes, it tends to be.

 

[buffalo]

That’s just one of the rights that goes along with marriage; there are many, many more.

But just so we’re clear: are you saying that you don’t oppose same-sex couples receiving the rights of marriage piecemeal? If so, what reason do you have to oppose them getting the same rights all at once?

Ooookayyy… but how is this relevant?

Including equal legal rights and protections for individuals?

Many can be acheived through legal means; some can’t be acheived at any price without the status of marriage.

For example, a lesbian friend of mine is currently living apart from her wife because can’t sponsor her for immigration in the normal way that spouses can sponsor each other.

And for the rights that can be bought, I really don’t see why you would object to them being easily given to same-sex couples. We’ve established that you’re apparently agreable to them having them - we touched on the fact that they can go to a lawyer and draw up a living will that names their partner. Effectively, the situation is a de facto “head tax” for same-sex couples, only instead of having that tax go to the government, it goes to lawyers.

I don’t think I understand the question. Either you’re missing my point or I’m missing yours.

Saying “freedom of religion” only gives the discrepancy a name; it doesn’t explain it.

However, if you want something that’s more directly parallel, how about divorce? The Church is opposed to it, yet it doesn’t seek to legally prohibit civil divorce in any country that I know of. On that matter, the Church is apparently content to police only its members while limiting its actions directed at the larger world to advice and counsel.

I don’t recall ever saying that I was using your statements that way.

Prohibiting same-sex marriage doesn’t magically change the gender of one of the child’s parents; it only prevents those parents and that child from getting normal protections extended to families.

BTW - every study I’ve seen of children of same-sex couples has indicated that the children do as well or better than those of opposite-sex couples on every indicator they measure… which actually makes sense, since virtually no children of same-sex couples are “accidents”. With same-sex couples, every child is a wanted child.

Personally, I think that sounds quite positive; don’t you?

That is such slick rhetoric - every child is a wanted child. Being wanted does not mean the child will be fulfilled.


Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality
Research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly
homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by
others. Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately
identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general
population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of
homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference
than other children.

more…

So now the real question - do you want your children to grow up homosexual?

 

[buffalo]

In most ways that it’s put into practice, yes, it tends to be.

But you admit the ideal is not hypocritical.

 

[gearhead]

That is such slick rhetoric - every child is a wanted child. Being wanted does not mean the child will be fulfilled.

No… having loving parents does that, which same-sex couples take care of just fine, just like opposite-sex couples.

Of course, having normal familial protections certainly makes it easier to do this.

So now the real question - do you want your children to grow up homosexual?

I wouldn’t have a problem with it, no.

BTW - your press release looks a bit wonky to me. Besides wondering about how they came up with their “8% to 21%” number, their figure of 2% of the population being gay is lower than any estimate I’ve ever seen. Most estimates that I’m familiar with are in the range of 4% to 8%, though even that may be low, since some people are reluctant to admit to being homosexual, even in surveys.

But you admit the ideal is not hypocritical.

Once I see the ideal, I’ll let you know.