Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pete_29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CaliLobo said:
Because CIVIL RIGHTS and EQUALITY are at stake. Because, as the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled recently, gay people are a minority that has been historically discriminated against. We cannot tolerate that discrimination, which “civil union” would continue to tolerate.
People have given their lives to fight for civil rights and equality, and people will continue to do so today.
Click to expand...
I have always been puzzled and bemused by this particular argument. How is not being able to marry the one you want a “civil rights” issue?

Is it my civil right to be able to marry my neighbor? He’s married and I’m married, so by law we are not permitted to marry each other.

Why is this not a civil rights issue?

Or, how is it a civil rights issue at all for anyone to fight for the right to be able to marry whomever he wants? :confused: :confused:
 
PRmerger said:
I have always been puzzled and bemused by this particular argument. How is not being able to marry the one you want a “civil rights” issue?

Is it my civil right to be able to marry my neighbor? He’s married and I’m married, so by law we are not permitted to marry each other.

Why is this not a civil rights issue?

Or, how is it a civil rights issue at all for anyone to fight for the right to be able to marry whomever he wants? :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
I agree that it is a civil right; but whether or not it is a fundamental right (requiring strict scrutiny) is a different matter. So far, courts (including the supreme court in New Mexico) don’t seem to be willing to go that far, and have applied a lower level of scrutiny.
 
PRmerger said:
Fair enough. 👍
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to hear arguments from LGBT activists as to why this civil right should only apply to two-person (non-consanguineous) relationships. Bans on zoophilia, for example, seem LESS permissible under their constitutional paradigm. Will we see LGBT activists arguing for a type of “DOMA law” or a constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to fit their agenda? Or are they going to be intellectually honest and support “equal rights” for all? Should be interesting…

🍿
 
CaliLobo said:
How can a secular government impose a Christian definition of marriage? And why should it do so, when we know that the places that have allowed for gay marriage rights have done quite nicely and have high standards of living?

The blue states, most of which allow gay marriages, have higher standards of living…
Click to expand...
How can you possibly claim that the notion of marriage involving people of the opposite sex is a ‘Christian’ definition of marriage, when every single society in every single era, throughout the entire history of mankind, has unanimously defined marriage as involving a man and a woman. Perhaps more than one woman. Maybe in rare instances more than one man. BUT ALWAYS at least one male and one female. It is simply flat out untrue to claim that this is singularly Christian.

It’s also a peculiar claim that gay marriage should now be allowed because the few places that have created it are still doing okay. First, I’m not sure everyone would agree that they are. Second, any success they have was in place long before they changed the definition of marriage. I do believe that large scale upheaval in the very definition of marriage will have negative effects on society, but I doubt anyone thinks it’s going to happen overnight. They simply have not had so-called ‘gay marriage’ for long enough for us to make any conclusions about its impact based on their experience.

Same response to your comments about blue states. Which states are you defining as blue and red, anyway? By governor? Who controls the state senate? Which way the state swung in the last election? In the majority of the last four elections? In the majority of elections over the last 50 years?

And btw, higher standards of living don’t necessarily correlate to morality or spiritual health.
 
CaliLobo - I wrote the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rau View Post
The institution which you seek for same sex partners is of a mostly different character. The society may find it appropriate to create such an institution, for the benefit & comfort of a subset of the society. If the society wishes to make that institution available to same sex couples (but apparently not to trios etc.?), in order to:
  • agree certain legal rights can be conferred;
  • to afford the participants a forum to promulgate their commitment;
  • a means to define their relationship
so be it. Presumably this will deliver all the (so claimed) civil rights that you say any pair of persons executing this contract ought to be able to access.

But why on earth would you call such an institution, which is marked by such notable differences from Marriage, by the same name?

and you answered:

Because CIVIL RIGHTS and EQUALITY are at stake. … We cannot tolerate that discrimination, which “civil union” would continue to tolerate.
People have given their lives to fight for civil rights and equality, and people will continue to do so today.

To what civil right do you refer? To what equality do you refer? Unjust discrimination is evil - but discriminating for just reason between things which are not the same is proper. Why do you think that “Civil Union” vs. Marriage is an unjust discrimination? A same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple are not the same thing. Does the union of same-sex couples serve to build the society in the way that Marriage does? The nature of the “union” each can contemplate is intrinsically different.

I understand you do not want to accept the different nature of a same-sex couple, and for that reason, wish to lay claim to the same institution as opposite sex couples. But I believe you are not being honest with yourself.
 
CaliLobo

I wrote:

*Originally Posted by Rau
Does it not seem odd that (male) homosexual sex involves the emission of a fluid whose ONLY purpose is to join with an egg in the body of a female, yet in every single instance of emission (in a same sex context), regardless of intent, despite the perfect health of all the participants, nothing can come of it? *

and you answered:

Is procreation the ONLY purpose of sex?

A heterosexual couple is not limited to having sex to produce a child. But, a heterosexual couple is able, subject to health, to create life. The complementarity of their sex organs and gametes is designed for this purpose, and subject to the operation of the natural fertility cycle, delivers that result with cooperating parents. Such complementarity **would not be required **were the purpose of a sex act to be strictly limited to the sharing of intimacy and affection. Since the latter is the limit of homosexual acts, is it not clear that the faculties used for that purpose by homosexual partners are in fact being misused?

Can you explain why it would be that procreation is NEVER the end-result of homosexual sex, despite the perfect health of the participants? On this point alone - is it not evident that there is a fundamental distinction between a same sex union and a Marriage? Is it difficult to see why they might be differently named?
 
CaliLobo said:
What is marriage? That’s the thing…
Click to expand...
If the people aren’t remotely capable of begetting any children with each other, what business is it of the state if they are sexual partners or not? Why would marriage be something for the state to encourage over a non-sexual partnership of adults? Why just two people? It is one thing to encourage biological parents to remain in the same home together, to raise their own children with each other and to stick together into old age for the sake of the extended family, but when marriage is divorced from procreation, it is hard to argue in favor of special rights or status for the participants. The original reason for organizing the adult relationships around sexual partnerships is gone. This is particularly true when the state has no stomach for forbidding co-habitation of sexual partners without the benefit of marriage.

If marriage isn’t about parents sticking around to raise their own children with each other–and especially when marriage is open to no-fault divorce!–it becomes hard to defend the practice of giving advantages to sexual partners who decide to commit to their co-habitation in a “sort of permanent until we aren’t permanent” way. If the single people started going to court and objecting to the advantages of marriage as unfair to those who *don’t *marry, the institution as it is “evolving” in the secular sphere is going to be hard to defend. The Catholic idea of marriage makes sense as being in service to the greater community, but civil marriage is starting to stray from anything that serves anyone, not even the parties involved. 🤷
 
Partaking in a union that damages the family unit, leads to more children without the right to be raised by a mother AND father, and whose sexual actions intrinsically lead to damage and more disease is not a civil right.

We do not have the intrinsic right to be destructive to society.
 
The petulant child continues to argue against the fathers ruling. The father has already made his decision, and it is NO!..Sorry…I was being polite. He actually calls it an “ABOMINATION”.
That should be good enough. So to persist with trying to put in place a law that is in direct conflict with Christian views and that of the Bible, is to allow society to spiral toward civil disobedience. It would be a pretty stupid government that would allow this to happen. Unfortunately tolerance has been confused, with acceptance of such an act.

The only way for these laws to be accepted, is for the total abandonment of the Bible and its teaching on this subject and for Christianity to cease to have any relevance.

If you check your stats…Its just not happening. The Pope even made the cover of Time Magazine.

A law that approves of an immoral act is offensive and should be defied by every Christian.

Governance that puts itself on a collision course with the beliefs of the Christian majority it seeks to govern…will govern a divided country. “In God we trust”…Not “Sometimes in God we trust.”
 
Should the need arise…in non Christians…to do what ever weird desire strikes them with their genitals…well that is between themselves and whom ever. To pass laws so that these people can feel better about these activities and so that Christians must accept such activities as being natural…is just an absurdity.

All Christians must stand firm with no explanation deemed necessary to uphold the word of God. The Bible is the word of God and…he says NO!

Suggest the non Christians take up their grievances with the actual person who has so offended them, with such outrageous statements against homosexual behavior. Why have they not attempted to ban the Bible altogether, given that they must find so much of its content so offensive.

You get God to change his mind on this one and rewrite the Bible and you might have a hope of getting what you want.

You are cowards, seeking to manipulate human law in order to get what you want. Using laws designed to protect you from persecution and manipulating them to attack the very Christians that put them in place, altering the goodwill of their very design.

The laws of man and that of God must be complimentary. It works…has always worked…whether Christian or not.

Other countries are watching and are already taking steps which are considered extreme.

These are the dangers that become reality when a peoples tolerances are provoked, beliefs threatened and Christians forced to defend the laws of God.

You are wrong…and have been judged so, by the highest authority.
 
I guess I focus on whether or not God loves sinners and less whether or not He accepts gay marriage… 🤷
 
Marie5890 said:
I guess I focus on whether or not God loves sinners and less whether or not He accepts gay marriage… 🤷
Click to expand...
I understand the positive aspect of your statement. But your phrasing does somewhat suggest that you leave open the possibility that God may accept gay marriage.
 
The Catholic Church recognizes and encourages two forms of life covenant.
The first is a heterosexual life covenant of pairs. This is called a marriage. It is intended for the long term mutual support of the covenanted parties. It is a sacrament of the Church.
The second is a homosexual life covenant of groups. These are called religious orders. They, too, are intended for the long term mutual support of the covenanted parties. They are not marriages. They are never referred to as marriages. Entering into a religious order life covenant is not a sacrament.
If we approve a third type of life covenant for homosexual pairs which is intended for the long term mutual support of the covenanted parties, there is no reason to insist either that it be called a marriage or a sacrament or that God disapproves of such a life covenant.

Reb Levi
 
drafdog said:
…
If we approve a … type of life covenant for homosexual pairs which is intended for the long term mutual support of the covenanted parties, there is no reason to insist either that it be called a marriage or a sacrament or that God disapproves of such a life covenant.

Reb Levi
Click to expand...
The covenant you are envisaging may indeed be proper. As a minimum, it would not be expressly a sexual relationship, as is a Marriage.

However, that is not what is intended (in the main) by those advocating for gay “marriage”.
 
Rau said:
I understand the positive aspect of your statement. But your phrasing does somewhat suggest that you leave open the possibility that God may accept gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Fair enough statement… 🙂

Im not trying to suggest anything other than, I focus on God’s love for sinners. 🙂
 
Marie5890 said:
Fair enough statement… 🙂

Im not trying to suggest anything other than, I focus on God’s love for sinners. 🙂
Click to expand...
Truly, God loves all sinners.

But He does not love gay marriage, nor adultery, nor pedophilia, nor divorce and re-marriage, nor theft, nor alcoholism, nor…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top