Defending Heterosexual Marriage: Did you hear Melissa Ethridge's comments?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phil8888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

phil8888

Guest
I saw on the View that Melissa Ethridge went off topic to discuss same-sex “marriage”. She said two things that I was wondering how you would address:
  1. One group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group.
  2. According to Thomas Jefferson, the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority.
What are your thoughts?
 
Civil marriage is not a right. It is a legal entitlement set up by the will of the people. This is why different states have different marriage laws. Entitlements and rights have been confused by many people. Several activists use the word “rights” for their cause when arguably they are speaking about entitlements.
 
Neither of these arguments has anything to do with marriage. Marriage is a “privilege” not a “right”.
 
phil8888 said:
I saw on the View that Melissa Ethridge went off topic to discuss same-sex “marriage”. She said two things that I was wondering how you would address:
  1. One group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group.
  2. According to Thomas Jefferson, the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority.
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
She is correct
davidv said:
Neither of these arguments has anything to do with marriage. Marriage is a “privilege” not a “right”.
Click to expand...
David is correct

No right is being “take[n] way” same-sex people can pair if they desire under no legal threat. Tax issues are not “rights” so again these statemnets do not address gay marriage at all.
 
phil8888 said:
I saw on the View that Melissa Ethridge went off topic to discuss same-sex “marriage”. She said two things that I was wondering how you would address:
  1. One group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group.
  2. According to Thomas Jefferson, the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority.
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Both are true statements. Civil marriage is a privilege of civil government, and the grounds for denying it should be thoroughly contemplated.

The grounds for denying homosexual marriage take their legitimacy from denying that “homosexual” is a real minority group with clearly identifiable and unchangeable social characteristics.
 
phil8888 said:
I saw on the View that Melissa Ethridge went off topic to discuss same-sex “marriage”. She said two things that I was wondering how you would address:
  1. One group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group.
  2. According to Thomas Jefferson, the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority.
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
If Melissa Etheridge **actually **believed that one group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group and that the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority, then she would not have participated in the so-called “March for Women’s Lives” which advocates taking away the right to life of every unborn baby.

But, of course, she **doesn’t **actually believe this.
 
1ke said:
If Melissa Etheridge **actually **believed that one group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group and that the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority, then she would not have participated in the so-called “March for Women’s Lives” which advocates taking away the right to life of every unborn baby.

But, of course, she **doesn’t **actually believe this.
Click to expand...
Now there you go making sense. . . . .
 
My thoughts, no offense intended to anyone, is Melissa Etheridge should be ignored.
 
phil8888 said:
I saw on the View that Melissa Ethridge went off topic to discuss same-sex “marriage”. She said two things that I was wondering how you would address:
  1. One group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group.
  2. According to Thomas Jefferson, the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority.
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
No one is taking rights away from sinners. God has given us a free choice. Homosexuals have made their choice and I hope they are aware of the consequences.
A list of other sins can be found in 1Cor.6:9-11
What gays want is to change the existing laws prohibiting gay marriage. This is still a God- fearing nation but the End Times are around the corner. Twenty years ago homosexuals were ashamed to confess their sin publicly.
God decides the fate of all. I think what you mean is judging. Or just telling gays the warniing found in scriptures. Have you read them?

God bless,
jean8
 
MarcoPolo said:
My thoughts, no offense intended to anyone, is Melissa Etheridge should be ignored.
Click to expand...
But…but…“we’re actors. Without us, how would people know who to vote for?”
(30 Rock)

Ok she’s not an actress but I thought it was funny.
 
Marriage, properly defined, is a right.
However, same-sex unions are in no sense marriages.

The Church does not have the authority to forbid a man or woman to marry, because it is a natural right based on natural law. That is why priestly celibacy is always described such that the Church (in the Latin Rite) only chooses men who have freely chosen not to marry to become priests, rather than that the Church forbids certain persons to marry.

However, same-sex unions are contrary to natural law, and so are not rights and are not marriages.

There are certain impediments to marriage which take precedence over the right, for the right is not absolute. There is a right to life, but if one commits a very serious crime, the death penalty is sometimes a moral punishment. The impediments to natural marriage are either inherent or juridicial. A government can reasonably set limits on natural marriage such as age limits, blood tests for diseases, marriage licenses, etc. – all of which would be juridicial and to some extent dispensable. Inherent impediments to a natural marriage would include when both persons are of the same gender. The government does not have the ability to dispense from a natural impediment, since marriage is by its very nature the union of one man and one woman.

There are also impediments to marriage as a Sacrament, both inherent, which even the Church cannot dispense from, and juridicial, which are governed by Church Law. It is likewise inherent to marriage as a Sacrament that the union be only of one man and one woman. The Church does not have the ability or authority to dispense from this requirement.
 
phil8888 said:
I saw on the View that Melissa Ethridge went off topic to discuss same-sex “marriage”. She said two things that I was wondering how you would address:
  1. One group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group.
  2. According to Thomas Jefferson, the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority.
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
She first should understand what a right really is.
 
The homosexual political agenda involves a minority attempting to impose its will upon a majority, even in California. No one–well, almost no one–is trying to change their behavior or disrespect their choices. But the voters clearly want to be able to have their own opinions and innate aversion to homosexuality. But the 60’s agenda will continue to argue ferociously and stack the cards in their favor. Melissa Ethridge will get her way. Meanwhile, we Christians never seem to stand up for ourselves.

I’m beginning to wonder if we, as Christians, are being too nice. We can beat them at their own game. But we don’t.
 
phil8888 said:
I saw on the View that Melissa Ethridge went off topic to discuss same-sex “marriage”. She said two things that I was wondering how you would address:
  1. One group of people shouldn’t try to take away the rights of another group.
  2. According to Thomas Jefferson, the majority should not be allowed to decide the fate or rights of a minority.
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Does she take this stand with respect to unborn children?
 
Etheridge on the show even attacked Elizabeth Hassleback because she gave a concrete example of what happens when you call gay unions marriage. She gave the example of a European country where a priest was tried in court for saying something defending heterosexual marriage. Etheridge blasted Elizabeth for using this example.

It seems similar to the pro-life debate, where these pro-gay-marriage people don’t really have any arguments about why gay marriage is actually good, they just keep saying “rights rights rights”, that’s it. And then people watching don’t bother to think about it much.

It’s really annoying.

I was watching larry king live, but joy behar was there instead of larry king. anyway, they had on alec baldwin, and they were talking about divorce, and alec said the courts favour women in these cases, and it’s bad for children, because they need a father and girls without fathers are more likely to do risky sexual stuff and drugs and other bad things.

Then Joy was like, “wait a second, but you’re not talking about gay marriage right?? right?? I mean, you can’t say gay marriage is bad.” She offered no reason why it would be different.

Of course Alec was like, “oh no, of course not, I’m not saying that’s bad. I mean no, of course not. that’s a different issue all together”

They just want to sweep all of this under the rug!
 
I agree with Ron Conte. Marriage is a natural right. But same sex unions are not marriages.

Marriages are a permanent union of one man and one woman with the potential of procreating new life: children who have a natural right to a mother and a father.

This is how the next generation is procreated and educated. Societies which pervert the form of marriage soon decline.

It was no-fault divorce which started the perversion of marriage. Homosexual unions continue the trend.

Children are the losers.
 
Sometimes i wonder if we are to afraid of hurting others or i cant quite decide what is happen to us.

or even afraid to be persecuted. we may have become cowards. whatever it is, sins of man is taking over and we are not speaking out.

let’s all remember John the Baptist who lost his head for speaking against adultery.

we no longer tell people to repent of their sins. although i believe people will do what they will.

but the CC must be more forward about sins commited in the world.

Peace

:bowdown: :knight2:
 
JimG said:
Marriage is a natural right. But same sex unions are not marriages.

Marriages are a permanent union of one man and one woman with the potential of procreating new life: children who have a natural right to a mother and a father.

This is how the next generation is procreated and educated. Societies which pervert the form of marriage soon decline.
Click to expand...
But how is a same sex union not a natural right? The definition of natural is occurring in nature…and there are many species of animals that exhibit homosexual relationships. Penguins, sheep, flamingos, apes, I can go on. So how can you say that it’s not a natural right, but the union of one man and one woman is?
Animals in nature also exhibit the same types of surrogate mothering, before gay male couples raise the child together, so how is this not natural?

I just don’t understand how being with the person you love is perverse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top