K
K9Buck
Guest
For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage? If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?
Last edited:
is that the right way of looking at it? when we change a definition of something to make it include something it was never meant to include, we are not opposing anything. the others are imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. why is it so important for these unions to be called a marriage?For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage? If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?
Yes.For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage?
No.If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?
Forcing people into a morality isn’t genuine so I wouldn’t support that.For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage? If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?
Yes, I oppose “same-sex marriage.”For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage?
No. Banning premarital sex under penalty of law would only make things worse.If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?
The passing of any law that does not have 100% support is an imposition on the non-supporters.How do you define “imposing your belief system on non-believers” ?
Please offer examples.
Aquinas answers to the question… “Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices?”… in the Summa Theologica.For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage? If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?
No, that would be pointless and foolish. And excessively punitive.For example, do you oppose same-sex marriage? If so, would you also support banning premarital sex under penalty of law?
Not a single person was forced to enter a gay marriage without their consent. Conversely gay people wanting to enter a government recognized union were forced to observe Christian definitions.Gay marriage was essentially imposed by the courts on large groups of people who didn’t support it.
This is a prudential judgement. You are entitled to this view.I don’t speak for most Catholics and get in trouble when I say things like . . .
No, I don’t support the law stepping in to stop sexual behavior between two consenting adults, even if said behavior goes against my faith.
Gay people wanting to be…like a man and woman…are not forced to to observe Christian definitions.Tis_Bearself:
Not a single person was forced to enter a gay marriage without their consent. Conversely gay people wanting to enter a government recognized union were forced to observe Christian definitions.Gay marriage was essentially imposed by the courts on large groups of people who didn’t support it.
This was the mistake in my opinion, getting the government involved in marriage, government has principles such as equal treatment under the law that are going to conflict with religious teachings on marriage.