Ellen's wedding

[Isa_Almisry]

There’s a difference, though.

I find it very strange that you’re trying to twist this around and say that I’m somehow hateful because I don’t want you to dissolve my family. In fact, gay marriage would pretty much have no impact on you. I’m not going in the voting booth and demanding Catholic marriages be dissolved. But people in California are going to go to the voting booth and decide of gay marriages are going to be dissolved.

Wrong again, Exult.

The way law works in this coutry is on precedent. It’s not going to take long for some fool to sue the Catholic Church for a wedding because of equal protection, and soon the Catholic Chruch will be barred from performing ones recognized by the state.

A marriage is a public act that involves the public, one of the distinguishing marks between it and fornication or adultery.

And you can’t dissolve something that didn’t exist in the first place

 

[Roamin_Xian]

No secular authority is forcing churches or temples to accept same-sex marriages. Obviously, some Episcopal/Anglican churches do, as well as other Mainline Protestants, and that is causing major controversies and splits. But, those changes came within.

I indeed hold to the “Harm Principle” of John Stuart Mill.

 

[whatevergirl]

To Exalt…regarding your reply to my post a page over…thank you. I might have misread what you were intending.

Sorry.:tiphat:

 

[mlchance]

I love how people throw around the word “abomination” and they have no idea what it really means, biblically.

Then you must love your own post, since you too have no idea “what it really means biblically.”

The Hebrew word is to’ebah and it simply means “ritually unclean”. It has nothing to do with morality.

False. “The words in the original biblical Hebrew, although loosely translated by some as “abomination,” are completely different and linguistically unrelated: toeivah for homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22) and sheketz for shrimp/shellfish and kosher food (Leviticus 11:10).”

orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/SilverShrimp.shtml

I also find it interesting that folks so vocal in their condemnation of abortion as an expression of faithful Catholicism can so readily dismiss the Church’s very clear teaching that homosexual “marriage” cannot be tolerated.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[maggiemay2u]

No secular authority is forcing churches or temples to accept same-sex marriages. Obviously, some Episcopal/Anglican churches do, as well as other Mainline Protestants, and that is causing major controversies and splits. But, those changes came within.

I indeed hold to the “Harm Principle” of John Stuart Mill.

Yet.

We were assured we were being hysterical when we raised concerns regarding churches providing social services or practitioners refusing elective procedures, for religious reasons, would be mandated if civil unions and same sex couples were mainstreamed.

We were told homosexuals only wanted to be free from harassment in schools. The next thing we knew our 7 year olds were being hit with homosexuality as an acceptable alternative, complete with descriptions and diagrams.

Sorry if I seem less than believing that anything shy of the indoctrination and immersion of every living being, in into the homosexual agenda, the marker will continue to be moved.

 

[RyanML]

False. “The words in the original biblical Hebrew, although loosely translated by some as “abomination,” are completely different and linguistically unrelated: toeivah for homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22) and sheketz for shrimp/shellfish and kosher food (Leviticus 11:10).”

The hebrew word sheketz simply refers to non kosher (unclean) animals. In modern yiddish, it’s become something of a jewish curse word for gentiles! The word toeivah refers to temple practices that were foreign to the Hebrews. The two terms deal with culture, not ethics and the translation “abomination” is a poor one. It implies a divinely instituted moral absolute and I don’t think that’s not how the biblical writers understood it. Moses told Pharaoh that for the Egyptians to practice Hebrew rituals would be “toeivah”. Obviously, Moses was not saying the practices of the Hebrews were abominations. They were foreign to the Egyptians and therefore they should not practice them. If you’re going to follow one, you need to be consistant all around. If you are going to insist on the Old Covenant laws regarding ritual purity in sexual matters, you need to stick with the kosher laws as well.

I also find it interesting that folks so vocal in their condemnation of abortion as an expression of faithful Catholicism can so readily dismiss the Church’s very clear teaching that homosexual “marriage” cannot be tolerated.

Taking the life of an innocent human being is not just a “Catholic” issue. There’s a big difference between murdering an innocent and love between two people of the same gender. And I do not support homosexual “marriage”. God bless!

 

[PaulinVA]

There’s a difference, though.

I find it very strange that you’re trying to twist this around and say that I’m somehow hateful because I don’t want you to dissolve my family. In fact, gay marriage would pretty much have no impact on you. I’m not going in the voting booth and demanding Catholic marriages be dissolved. But people in California are going to go to the voting booth and decide of gay marriages are going to be dissolved.

How incredibly disingenuous of you to frame the issue that way.

Californians previously voted to not allow gay marriage. San Francisco started performing gay marriages anyway. The Courts told them to stop. Gays appealed. The State Supreme Court said let there be gay marriage. At the same time, it was known that there was (or would be) a proposition to amend the state constitution to disallow gay marriage.

If you entered into a gay marriage knowing that the issue was not totally settled, and, in fact, the “marriage” would only be recognized in one or two other states and not by the Federal government, I don’t see how you can argue something is being taken from you.

 

[Digitonomy]

Californians previously voted to not allow gay marriage. San Francisco started performing gay marriages anyway. The Courts told them to stop. Gays appealed.

Correction: the City of San Francisco appealed.

PaulinVA:

If you entered into a gay marriage knowing that the issue was not totally settled, and, in fact, the “marriage” would only be recognized in one or two other states and not by the Federal government, I don’t see how you can argue something is being taken from you.

Regardless of judgments Exalt or others may make about the wisdom or risk of his action, it is what it is - a legal marriage under California law. Obviously if that changes, a person would be correct to say that it had been taken away.