Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjdrury81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
What about the rights of a father who does not wants his child exposed to a gay story book in a public grade school? The State is forcing public schools to indoctrinate 1st graders with a story books showing a gay relationship. “It’s not a parental notification issue.”

So, it’s not about privacy and it’s not about marriage – it’s about forced indictrination of kids who haven’t reached puberty.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I understand your concern. It seems like kids this young shouldn’t be taught anything about sex. My understanding of the rational behind this instruction is that it is an attempt to prevent future discrimination, bullying and violence against kids who may have a gay parent or kids who are gay. Kids who are different or who come from a non-traditional family can get picked on a lot. If they are taught from an early age to treat everyone the same, chances are better that this will not be such an issue. And parents are free to teach their kids their own feelings on this at home. I mean, kids from all religions and political views go to the same schools. A teacher would tell kids to treat all religions the same, yet you at home might tell your child that while the Hindu children must be treated with respect, that you personally do not agree with their beliefs. Same if the kids parents were Communists, or any other non-mainstream thing.
 
Swan said:
I understand your concern. It seems like kids this young shouldn’t be taught anything about sex. My understanding of the rational behind this instruction is that it is an attempt to prevent future discrimination, bullying and violence against kids who may have a gay parent or kids who are gay. Kids who are different or who come from a non-traditional family can get picked on a lot. If they are taught from an early age to treat everyone the same, chances are better that this will not be such an issue. And parents are free to teach their kids their own feelings on this at home. I mean, kids from all religions and political views go to the same schools. A teacher would tell kids to treat all religions the same, yet you at home might tell your child that while the Hindu children must be treated with respect, that you personally do not agree with their beliefs. Same if the kids parents were Communists, or any other non-mainstream thing.
Click to expand...
So you’re OK with State run schools indoctrinating little kids? And the parents have no right to opt out?

Peace,
Ed
 
The thread was posed in a civil sense. With this in mind, there is no real case against this kind of union.

The catholic church can, and does, refuse to carry out these ceremonies. That is their prerogative per their doctrine. There are more religions, still, that have no qualms with same sex relations. They see it as a part of nature, not a choice a person makes.

These people have the same freedom of religion and guarantee of equal rights under the law, the same as you do. Remember, what they can keep from one, they can take away from us all. To practice your religion with the intent to deny someone theirs, I think you cross a line.

And please, no one cite Deuteronomy, or any other such clearly dated material…don’t make me pull out the “clothing of different threads” nonsense. When was the last time you wore wooden sandals all day!? Ever get stuck at work on a Sunday? Well…we oughta round up our stones…we got a lot of people to kill in the name of god.

Fact is, Jesus never said anything, one way or the other, about homosexuality. I think if you view the Old Testament as an account of what worked and what didn’t work in governing a people, and the New Testament as a guide to governing the self, you’re closer to the mark (just my $0.02). I’m not saying he would ordain a same-sex union (I don’t think he would’ve), but there’s more religions than just christianity. Marriage is not a uniquely christian practice, and so shouldn’t be treated as such. So long as these other spiritual paths exist for the betterment of the person following it, the law must allow for that person to follow that path to self-improvement. I’d hate to see OUR government micromanage our spiritual and home lives.

They can’t even macromanage themselves.
 
spectrm said:
The thread was posed in a civil sense. With this in mind, there is no real case against this kind of union.

The catholic church can, and does, refuse to carry out these ceremonies. That is their prerogative per their doctrine. There are more religions, still, that have no qualms with same sex relations. They see it as a part of nature, not a choice a person makes.

These people have the same freedom of religion and guarantee of equal rights under the law, the same as you do. Remember, what they can keep from one, they can take away from us all. To practice your religion with the intent to deny someone theirs, I think you cross a line.

And please, no one cite Deuteronomy, or any other such clearly dated material…don’t make me pull out the “clothing of different threads” nonsense. When was the last time you wore wooden sandals all day!? Ever get stuck at work on a Sunday? Well…we oughta round up our stones…we got a lot of people to kill in the name of god.

Fact is, Jesus never said anything, one way or the other, about homosexuality. I think if you view the Old Testament as an account of what worked and what didn’t work in governing a people, and the New Testament as a guide to governing the self, you’re closer to the mark (just my $0.02). I’m not saying he would ordain a same-sex union (I don’t think he would’ve), but there’s more religions than just christianity. Marriage is not a uniquely christian practice, and so shouldn’t be treated as such. So long as these other spiritual paths exist for the betterment of the person following it, the law must allow for that person to follow that path to self-improvement. I’d hate to see OUR government micromanage our spiritual and home lives.

They can’t even macromanage themselves.
Click to expand...
Why is it good for civil society? What spiritual pusuit is threated by oppression? The matrimonial bond is a fundamental structure of civil society. You presuppose that because it is a civil society that same sex unions can be infused into it’s structures without consideration. I don’t understand why it isn’t given that respect. We have to dliberate for years to alter the structure of our wildlife preserves but altering the structure of society doesn’t deserve an honest review of the ramifications?

With that intro you probaly shouldn’t include religious arguments specially if you don’t make arguments from another source.
 
spectrm said:
…

These people have the same freedom of religion and guarantee of equal rights under the law, the same as you do. …
Click to expand...
Is that not what they are upset about? They want additional rights which others do not have.
 
spectrm said:
The thread was posed in a civil sense. With this in mind, there is no real case against this kind of union.

The catholic church can, and does, refuse to carry out these ceremonies. That is their prerogative per their doctrine. There are more religions, still, that have no qualms with same sex relations. They see it as a part of nature, not a choice a person makes.

These people have the same freedom of religion and guarantee of equal rights under the law, the same as you do. Remember, what they can keep from one, they can take away from us all. To practice your religion with the intent to deny someone theirs, I think you cross a line.

And please, no one cite Deuteronomy, or any other such clearly dated material…don’t make me pull out the “clothing of different threads” nonsense. When was the last time you wore wooden sandals all day!? Ever get stuck at work on a Sunday? Well…we oughta round up our stones…we got a lot of people to kill in the name of god.

Fact is, Jesus never said anything, one way or the other, about homosexuality. I think if you view the Old Testament as an account of what worked and what didn’t work in governing a people, and the New Testament as a guide to governing the self, you’re closer to the mark (just my $0.02). I’m not saying he would ordain a same-sex union (I don’t think he would’ve), but there’s more religions than just christianity. Marriage is not a uniquely christian practice, and so shouldn’t be treated as such. So long as these other spiritual paths exist for the betterment of the person following it, the law must allow for that person to follow that path to self-improvement. I’d hate to see OUR government micromanage our spiritual and home lives.

They can’t even macromanage themselves.
Click to expand...
This is a forum called Catholic Answers. The answers are Catholic. Of course, there are other religions. So what? Gay sex is against natural law, but already, the polygamists and those who abuse animals are lining up for their “rights.” This is about sex not love. Legalizing incest in Europe. Don’t you see where this is going?

These unions are about sex.

Is it OK that the government forces little kids to read gay story books?

To my brothers and sisters in Christ,

Opinions do not matter. Why? Because we have solid Church teaching that deals with natural law and God’s law. Do not be confused or deceived. When you were in your sin you sought any excuse to continue, but now there is no justification. If you know how to do right then do it. If you fail, God is merciful and has given you Confession.

Gay sex is disordered biologically.

Peace,
Ed
 
Benadam said:
Why is it good for civil society? What spiritual pusuit is threated by oppression? The matrimonial bond is a fundamental structure of civil society. You presuppose that because it is a civil society that same sex unions can be infused into it’s structures without consideration. I don’t understand why it isn’t given that respect. We have to dliberate for years to alter the structure of our wildlife preserves but altering the structure of society doesn’t deserve an honest review of the ramifications?

With that intro you probaly shouldn’t include religious arguments specially if you don’t make arguments from another source.
Click to expand...
Surely - the ramifications of these decisions should be considered. But the ramifications of same sex marriage should have been considered when making marriage a part of the nations legal code. There’s no reason to make marriage anything other than a personal/religious affair.

I’ll refrain from making religious arguments so long as you refrain from making scientific arguments…does that make much sense? I think there are good ideas in all ideologies. One shouldn’t ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’ as the expression goes.
40.png
edwest2:
This is a forum called Catholic Answers. The answers are Catholic. Of course, there are other religions. So what? Gay sex is against natural law, but already, the polygamists and those who abuse animals are lining up for their “rights.” This is about sex not love. Legalizing incest in Europe. Don’t you see where this is going?
Click to expand...
Polygamists should be afforded the same rights, as well. It all based around one concept - the sovereignty of the individual. If a grown, self-aware, fully-capable adult chooses to live their life a certain way, they have the freedom to do so. As marriage (in the context we’re speaking) is a social matter, it must be treated as other parts of social policy - equal rights under the law and freedom from law that restricts one’s right to practice their religion. Unless you can prove that a gay person marrying their gay lover will somehow effect your life in a legally actionable way, there is no reason to deny them their rights. I don’t believe animals can legally state their emotional intention in such a way as to make a marriage binding.
40.png
edwest2:
These unions are about sex.
Click to expand...
You have clearly never known any real gay persons.
40.png
edwest2:
Is it OK that the government forces little kids to read gay story books?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe they do. Citation?
40.png
edwest2:
To my brothers and sisters in Christ,
Click to expand...
no need to speak with me…
40.png
edwest2:
Opinions do not matter. Why? Because we have solid Church teaching that deals with natural law and God’s law. Do not be confused or deceived. When you were in your sin you sought any excuse to continue, but now there is no justification. If you know how to do right then do it. If you fail, God is merciful and has given you Confession.
Click to expand...
None of this changes how social law should be enacted.
40.png
edwest2:
Gay sex is disordered biologically.
Click to expand...
It’s certainly an anamoly…and counter-intuitive to evolution. But it doesn’t invalidate their existence and their right to practice whatever religion they believe in - even if that religion condones gay marriage.

Sorry, but it’s nust not your decision to make.
Texas Roofer:
Sorry Jermosh, based on a series of post you made I see no reason to continue with you the comment was to spectrm
Click to expand...
Then I shall repeat: What freedoms do you speak of? They don’t want any right that isn’t already afforded to straights and any right they are granted to them will only make more options available to everyone.
 
spectrm said:
Surely - the ramifications of these decisions should be considered. But the ramifications of same sex marriage should have been considered when making marriage a part of the nations legal code. There’s no reason to make marriage anything other than a personal/religious affair.

I’ll refrain from making religious arguments so long as you refrain from making scientific arguments…does that make much sense? I think there are good ideas in all ideologies. One shouldn’t ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’ as the expression goes.
Click to expand...
Science cannot determine right and wrong. If science is based on false ideas of health and disease then we can never agree.
Polygamists should be afforded the same rights, as well. It all based around one concept - the sovereignty of the individual. If a grown, self-aware, fully-capable adult chooses to live their life a certain way, they have the freedom to do so. As marriage (in the context we’re speaking) is a social matter, it must be treated as other parts of social policy - equal rights under the law and freedom from law that restricts one’s right to practice their religion. Unless you can prove that a gay person marrying their gay lover will somehow effect your life in a legally actionable way, there is no reason to deny them their rights. I don’t believe animals can legally state their emotional intention in such a way as to make a marriage binding.
Click to expand...
If those who make the laws based their reasoning on relativism and license then your argument holds up. But, if a society needs to be infused with moral truth then your position is tyrranical.
 
spectrm said:
Surely - the ramifications of these decisions should be considered. But the ramifications of same sex marriage should have been considered when making marriage a part of the nations legal code. There’s no reason to make marriage anything other than a personal/religious affair.

I’ll refrain from making religious arguments so long as you refrain from making scientific arguments…does that make much sense? I think there are good ideas in all ideologies. One shouldn’t ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’ as the expression goes.

Polygamists should be afforded the same rights, as well. It all based around one concept - the sovereignty of the individual. If a grown, self-aware, fully-capable adult chooses to live their life a certain way, they have the freedom to do so. As marriage (in the context we’re speaking) is a social matter, it must be treated as other parts of social policy - equal rights under the law and freedom from law that restricts one’s right to practice their religion. Unless you can prove that a gay person marrying their gay lover will somehow effect your life in a legally actionable way, there is no reason to deny them their rights. I don’t believe animals can legally state their emotional intention in such a way as to make a marriage binding.

You have clearly never known any real gay persons.

I don’t believe they do. Citation?

no need to speak with me…

None of this changes how social law should be enacted.

It’s certainly an anamoly…and counter-intuitive to evolution. But it doesn’t invalidate their existence and their right to practice whatever religion they believe in - even if that religion condones gay marriage.

Sorry, but it’s nust not your decision to make.

Then I shall repeat: What freedoms do you speak of? They don’t want any right that isn’t already afforded to straights and any right they are granted to them will only make more options available to everyone.
Click to expand...
As practicing Christians, we have a moral obligation to not let immorality dominate the society in which we live. We don’t want our kids exposed to this immorality especially if we don’t want them to believe it’s a natural function and that it’s “okay”. In the same way there are decency laws as to what goes on television, we would speak up and are speaking up for things which cross the moral line there and which would influence the morals of of what we teach our children, we must stop immorality from spreading anymore in society at large.

They are already trying to make incest legal in Europe. Should we just idly stand by and do nothing? No, we have a moral obligation. Someone once said that a society given over to immorality, will eventually destroy itself. I believe this holds true historically.

Even civily speaking, should we let an institution that has always been defined as a man and a woman all of a sudden become corrupted by an immoral and indecent act and become something other than it was intended to be by our founding fathers and from the beginning of time?? And people don’t understand why we are challenging this??!!
 
AmyBrownEyes said:
Thank you for replying back to my post. And may God bless you. I still haven’t come out to my parents about being a lesbian but they don’t have a problem with gays. However I think it is different when you have a gay friend versus a family member.
Click to expand...
amy,
Have you given any thought about what the Lord has said about the sin of homosexuality.

This issue isn’t about hate, its about sin.

Rom.1:26-28 reads 'God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way men abandoned natural relations with womwn and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other rmen and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind to do what not ought to be done."
See also Lev.18:22, 1Cor.6;9-10
God bless you as you seach for thee truth in His Holy word.
How do you respond to this warning from the Lord?

jean
 
spectrm said:
Surely - the ramifications of these decisions should be considered. But the ramifications of same sex marriage should have been considered when making marriage a part of the nations legal code. There’s no reason to make marriage anything other than a personal/religious affair.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
spectrm said:
Surely - the ramifications of these decisions should be considered. But the ramifications of same sex marriage should have been considered when making marriage a part of the nations legal code. There’s no reason to make marriage anything other than a personal/religious affair.

I’ll refrain from making religious arguments so long as you refrain from making scientific arguments…does that make much sense? I think there are good ideas in all ideologies. One shouldn’t ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’ as the expression goes.

Polygamists should be afforded the same rights, as well. It all based around one concept - the sovereignty of the individual. If a grown, self-aware, fully-capable adult chooses to live their life a certain way, they have the freedom to do so. As marriage (in the context we’re speaking) is a social matter, it must be treated as other parts of social policy - equal rights under the law and freedom from law that restricts one’s right to practice their religion. Unless you can prove that a gay person marrying their gay lover will somehow effect your life in a legally actionable way, there is no reason to deny them their rights. I don’t believe animals can legally state their emotional intention in such a way as to make a marriage binding.

You have clearly never known any real gay persons.

I don’t believe they do. Citation?

no need to speak with me…

None of this changes how social law should be enacted.

It’s certainly an anamoly…and counter-intuitive to evolution. But it doesn’t invalidate their existence and their right to practice whatever religion they believe in - even if that religion condones gay marriage.

Sorry, but it’s nust not your decision to make.

Then I shall repeat: What freedoms do you speak of? They don’t want any right that isn’t already afforded to straights and any right they are granted to them will only make more options available to everyone.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is my decision to make whenever they put it on the ballot.

And yes, gay sex, when legalized, leads to State run schools forcing little kids to read gay propaganda and “It is not a parental notification issue.”

davidparkerfund.org/html/lawsuit.html

Peace,
Ed
 
There are at least 5 million children who die before the age of 5 each year and to spend millions of dollars fighting laws to prevent gay marriage is an atrocity. Our Lord said if we are truly His disciples we will care for the widows and the orphans. Stop deceiving yourselves into thinking you can talk someone into believing you have the truth when you have hostility in your heart.
Go save some women and children.
 
Ronald_E said:
There are at least 5 million children who die before the age of 5 each year and to spend millions of dollars fighting laws to prevent gay marriage is an atrocity. Our Lord said if we are truly His disciples we will care for the widows and the orphans. Stop deceiving yourselves into thinking you can talk someone into believing you have the truth when you have hostility in your heart.
Go save some women and children.
Click to expand...
No, actually: Paying scant attention to the avalanche movement of ‘gay marriage’ is the atrocity. Generations (millions) will also be affected. Stop deceiving yourself that there will be minor or no societal impact with a sea-change in our primary social institutions.

(We are saving children, or at least trying, with rather delayed help from authority figures.)
 
Ronald_E said:
There are at least 5 million children who die before the age of 5 each year and to spend millions of dollars fighting laws to prevent gay marriage is an atrocity. Our Lord said if we are truly His disciples we will care for the widows and the orphans. Stop deceiving yourselves into thinking you can talk someone into believing you have the truth when you have hostility in your heart.
Go save some women and children.
Click to expand...
Nice dodge. Ignore gay marriage and save dying people. Which sin did God condone?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Yes, it is my decision to make whenever they put it on the ballot.
Click to expand...
As is your right as a citizen - and I would fight to the death to defend that right for you as I would for me.
edwest2 said:
And yes, gay sex, when legalized,
Click to expand...
technically, gay sex IS legal in most states. Gay marriage, is the topic at hand.
edwest2 said:
leads to State run schools forcing little kids to read gay propaganda and “It is not a parental notification issue.”
Click to expand...
If your primary contention is that parents aren’t being notified, I agree with you. I agree with any citizen’s right to enact their own education upon their children. Parent’s should certainly be notified so they can opt to have their children excluded from the days activities - provided one thing: they replace that missing education.

You don’t have to teach your kids that gay relations are okay. Some of the more secular in the educational system may convey this in a classroom, and you are right in you conscience to prefer another way. But replace that day with the lesson that fits your faith. You believe that gay relations are sinful and should be seen with disdain, but this is no reason to treat the person as less or, least of all, to ridicule the children of gay parents. Children should be taught to love all people - not because they are gay or straight, a friend or a stranger, but because they are a fellow person.

I also followed the same logic when sex education was being integrated into schools. I can see how one would perceive the possibility for promiscuity and other ideas not in line with the families to be in the classroom - near the beginning. But the population of parents who were willing to put their children through it, and have many of those smart children challenge certain ideas with not only what they were taught at home, but also what they themselves believe (I know…I was one of them) helped shape a truly secular educational program that merely teaches what options exist (and yes, they talked of certain beliefs that contraception is immoral), alternatives to sex, the physiology of it, and the risks involved. I’d say that’s a pretty good base. Fill in the morality and ideology as you see fit, the school just provides the ‘physical-world’ knowledge.

I hope you can agree with me on this much.

And as an addendum, you’d be surprised how proud your kids would make you if you gave them the chance, in such an environment…though I do see first grade as a bit young for any real form of social education. I can’t help but think this wasn’t a curriculum decision, but the choice of a single teacher - agenda or not. Is it a possibility this is a bit blown out of proportion?
edwest2 said:
davidparkerfund.org/html/lawsuit.html
Click to expand...
Once again, it’s the parents right to be notified of the type and content of education their children are receiving - especially when it pertains to subjects that are CLEARLY controversial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top