Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter NoMoreGames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
eichenb2 said:
Not I, but Christ says it is disordered and objectively wrong. Please, for your own souls sake, understand that Hell is real. God even loves those who are sent to Hell. They choose it though, by there actions.
Click to expand...
I haven’t said this yet for the sake of contradicting myself, but Jesus never directly spoke out against homosexuality. He did, however, warn against judging people, which it really seems like you are doing. I know Hell is real. I can see it all around me, in hate, in discrimination, in lust. What you need to understand is that everything we know about God and Jesus and His Words have been handled by sometimes corrupt MEN. Everything beyond personal encounters with Him. I trust myself and what I know is God speaking to me. When you saw your spouse, you knew they were the one, same thing here, I could never explain it, but I know God is sending me messages. Granted I know the devil is too, but I pray for wisdom every chance I get, and I know He gas granted at least a tiny bit to me. You have your beliefs, I have mine, we both love God and live our lives for Him.

I found this interesting. I know it’s obviously biased, but it brings up a point. gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7g_gac_clobber_passages_Jesus_Teaching_on_Homosexuality.htm
 
NoMoreGames said:
To start of, I’m not being sarcastic. That being said, are those who are against gay marriage also against the freedom of religion? I don’t like how the emails this site sends out places it in the same category as things like abortion, and euthanasia. Those two violate human life, which is universal to all humans. Gay marriage, on the other hand, does not take away life nor limit the rights of others. I’m curious as to why people believe that gay marriage should not be allowed in the country when it falls more so under the category of freedom of religion. 🤷
Click to expand...
State Sanctioned (those being key words)Gay marriage does, in some way, limit the rights of others. Gay Marriage is not a practice of Freedom of Religion, it is an infringement on it.

People of Faith in this nation pay taxes to the government. Now, for the government to passively allow immorality is one thing; that is simply a respect for the fact that people have different beliefs (which is upholding the first amendment). However, for the government to actively sanction (or possibly even enforce) something considered immoral by a rather significant number of tax payers is a totally different story altogether. As long as people of faith are paying taxes the same as anyone else, we should be able to feel confident that our government is not becoming a symbol of immorality, such as it becomes when it actively sanctions (again, as opposed to passively allowing) something.

It would be violating freedom of religion if the government forbade two homosexuals from even having a ceremony and making vows to each other completely independent of the government. However, for the government to refuse to actively sanction such a thing is merely a neutral stance…and in a country where there the government has promised not to infringe on the free practice of religion, such neutrality is ideal for as long as people who are against such actions must pay equal taxes as those who support them.
 
KindredSoul said:
State Sanctioned (those being key words)Gay marriage does, in some way, limit the rights of others. Gay Marriage is not a practice of Freedom of Religion, it is an infringement on it.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand how it would be infringing on freedom of religion. Regardless of whether gays are allowed to marry or not, it does not change what religion you are allowed to practice.
 
eichenb2 said:
Wow. you replies are complicated.
  1. Name one thing that the Catholic held to be Grave Matter and, potentially, Mortal Sin in the past that She now consider OK?
  2. Another mistake is to suggest that following the Church’s teaching whole-heartedly is blind. My following is by no means blind. If you stop from constantly listening to the morally relativistic “gay rights” crowd and read about Church history and theology, you could help your understanding greatly.
  3. Are you suggesting 2000 years of Church Magisterium is, all of the sudden, wrong on this issue?
  4. I teach my children that God created Man and Woman and made them compatable with each other, biologically, physically, and spiritually. Also, we teach them that the devil is an expert at asking, “did God really say…”. In short, we teach them the catechism.
  5. I am a self-hating womanizer. I understand that this tendency of mine is disordered and, so trust the Lord and to go good and not do wrong. I am not perfect but that is why there is reconciliation.
  6. Are Christian are to be gay…that is have the joy of the Lord. Homosexual is not who a person is. It is an attraction. Just like any disordered attraction, it must be handled with prayer.
Click to expand...
1)Ok I did not say that the church practices things that are concidered evil, I am saying that the “she” has commited acts that are today concidered crimes (first and foremost the crusades)
2) Yes the church does now invite us to question the faith but when it calls its followers sinners because of their sexual orientation or the fact that the pope has the right to decide who is allowed to practice the faith (which is a complete waste of time-as if an elected person could decide who God accepts) then they are crossing the line from a religion to a law and if a person is willing to follow the orders of the church (denieing their desires) then I believe they are blindly following orders.
3)And yes that is exactly what I’m saying. The church used to beleive it was okay to kill in the name of your religion; they were wrong. Today they beleive homosexuality is an evil, mortal sin and I beleive whole heartedly that they are wrong.
4) To say that the devil is the reason anyone questions the religion is naive. To ignore your disbeliefs will only prove that you are afraid to confront them.
5) Being a sex addict is not the same as being gay. A relationship between to people of the same sex is exatly the same as a heterosexual marriage spiritually, being attracted to another man doesn’t make you a sex addict, it makes a part of who you are.
6) Why must it be a disordered attraction? It’s a desire that no one should have to deny based on the rules of a religion.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Gay marriage and commitment to God/B] are self contradictory on its face. If you do not know truth, you will not understand this answer.

Under your and many other beliefs yes, but not all. And it is easier to say that If I don’t know the truth I won’t understand than actually explaining why you believe what you believe in your own words. Who’s to say I’m not playing the devil’s advocate and just getting people to defend their beliefs?
Click to expand...
 
NoMoreGames said:
I haven’t said this yet for the sake of contradicting myself, but Jesus never directly spoke out against homosexuality. He did, however, warn against judging people, which it really seems like you are doing. I know Hell is real. I can see it all around me, in hate, in discrimination, in lust. What you need to understand is that everything we know about God and Jesus and His Words have been handled by sometimes corrupt MEN. Everything beyond personal encounters with Him. I trust myself and what I know is God speaking to me. When you saw your spouse, you knew they were the one, same thing here, I could never explain it, but I know God is sending me messages. Granted I know the devil is too, but I pray for wisdom every chance I get, and I know He gas granted at least a tiny bit to me. You have your beliefs, I have mine, we both love God and live our lives for Him.
Click to expand...
While you may have your own beliefs, such a view is a totally different religious viewpoint from anything found in not only Catholicism but in any Bible believing view. People who believe in all the Bible trust that God, at the very least, safeguarded the moral teachings found in the New Testament letters. Homosexuality is condemned in those letters (the only views to the contrary seem to be reeeally grasping at translation straws) and if those letters cannot be trusted, there is no reason to believe the Gospels can either, unless you at least believe in an Infallible Church (which you clearly do not). Therefore, doubting both the New Testament letters and the Church’s infallibility leads to such chaos that one has no reason to believe Jesus said, taught, or did anything that the Gospels say He did. That includes passages you like, such as “Judge not,” and “love one another.” In short, a person can be certain of nothing if they are so extremely skeptical.

You may say that you just know when God communicates with you, but there is a difference between that and falling in love and “just knowing” it. When you fall in love, it is something you are doing and feeling. You can just know, because it’s you. However, when you think a Divine Being is communicating with you, and telling you something that contradicts other people who have also claimed that He has communicated with them, the flaw in such thinking becomes evident. If everyone went by what they “just knew” God was personally telling them, everyone would believe in contradictory beliefs, and if they were all “right”, it’d mean that the Creator of the Universe was either schizophrenic or a compulsive liar. I do not believe so.
 
NoMoreGames said:
I’m not sure I understand how it would be infringing on freedom of religion. Regardless of whether gays are allowed to marry or not, it does not change what religion you are allowed to practice.
Click to expand...
It forces you, by virtue of your taxpaying citizenship, to be officially associated with the approval of a behavior you deeply feel to be immoral, since the government which runs on your taxes is actively and officially sanctioning such a thing (again, opposed to merely allowing it, which is a difference you do not seem to be seeing).

The government sanctioning such behavior is a sort of forgery, symbolically signing the names of religious taxpayers next to the active approval of something we believe to be immoral.
 
KindredSoul said:
While you may have your own beliefs, such a view is a totally different religious viewpoint from anything found in not only Catholicism but in any Bible believing view. People who even so much as believe in the Bible trust that God, at the very least, safeguarded the moral teachings found in the New Testament letters. Homosexuality is condemned in those letters (the only views to the contrary seem to be reeeally grasping at translation straws) and if those letters cannot be trusted, there is no reason to believe the Gospels can either, unless you at least believe in an Infallible Church (which you clearly do not). Therefore, doubting both the New Testament letters and the Church’s infallibility leads to such chaos that one has no reason to believe Jesus said, taught, or did anything that the Gospels say He did. That includes passages you like, such as “Judge not,” and “love one another.” In short, a person can be certain of nothing if they are so extremely skeptical.

You may say that you just know when God communicates with you, but there is a difference between that and falling in love and “just knowing” it. When you fall in love, it is something you are doing and feeling. You can just know, because it’s you. However, when you think a Divine Being is communicating with you, and telling you something that contradicts other people who have also claimed that He has communicated with them, the flaw in such thinking becomes evident. If everyone went by what they “just knew” God was personally telling them, everyone would believe in contradictory beliefs, and if they were all “right”, it’d mean that the Creator of the Universe was either schizophrenic or a compulsive liar. I do not believe so.
Click to expand...
Who’s to say faith wasn’t made to as much personal as it is communal? In fact, I think the letters shoudl be questioned the most because of their nature.

REGARDLESS let’s try to steer this away from telling others that they are damned for loving God in a different way than you and back to the topic at hand.
 
KindredSoul said:
It forces you, by virtue of your taxpaying citizenship, to be officially associated with the approval of a behavior you deeply feel to be immoral, since the government which runs on your taxes is actively and officially sanctioning such a thing (again, opposed to merely allowing it, which is a difference you do not seem to be seeing).

The government sanctioning such behavior is a sort of forgery, symbolically signing the names of religious taxpayers next to the active approval of something we believe to be immoral.
Click to expand...
Once again, that doesn’t mean you still can’t practice Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, hence it does not compromise the freedom of religion.
 
NoMoreGames said:
Who’s to say faith wasn’t made to as much personal as it is communal? In fact, I think the letters shoudl be questioned the most because of their nature.
Click to expand...
If the personal and communal contradict one another, both cannot be true. And if many personal view contradict each other, they cannot all be true. So, by your very skeptical view, you cannot know if you’re right any more than you know that the apostles, who at least actually saw and knew Jesus, are right.
REGARDLESS let’s try to steer this away from telling others that they are damned for loving God in a different way than you and back to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
Since you’re the one not seeming to realize that Catholicism trusts the Church and the Bible, and you’re the one saying that such trust is illegitimate or that we should be more skeptical like yourself, and this is how you are attempting to justify homosexuality, this is all very relevant to the topic. Plus, I never said who is and isn’t condemned…we’re talking about what is and isn’t immoral. There’s a huge difference.
 
NoMoreGames said:
Once again, that doesn’t mean you still can’t practice Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, hence it does not compromise the freedom of religion.
Click to expand...
So being forced to cooperate (even indirectly) in something that goes against your religion is not compromising your religion? I strongly disagree.
 
KindredSoul said:
So being forced to cooperate (even indirectly) in something that goes against your religion is not compromising your religion? I strongly disagree.
Click to expand...
not compromising your ability to choose which religion you practice and how devout you are, no. Besides indirect involvement, how does it prevent you from deciding which religion to follow?
 
NoMoreGames said:
not compromising your ability to choose which religion you practice and how devout you are, no. Besides indirect involvement, how does it prevent you from deciding which religion to follow?
Click to expand...
There are more ways to infringe on the free practice of religion than just telling someone “You can’t be this or that religion.” Infringing their ability to live their religion perfectly is another way of doing so. If your religion requests that you in no way support a certain sin, then yes, forcing you to cooperate in sanctioning that sin does in fact force you to compromise how closely you are able to live to the ideals of your religion.
 
KindredSoul said:
Since you’re the one not seeming to realize that Catholicism trusts the Church and the Bible, and you’re the one saying that such trust is illegitimate or that we should be more skeptical like yourself, and this is how you are attempting to justify homosexuality, this is all very relevant to the topic. Plus, I never said who is and isn’t condemned…we’re talking about what is and isn’t immoral. There’s a huge difference.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to you. And I know I got off topic, that was my attempt to bring it back to the original question. I am not using my skepticism as a means to justify it being legal in society, so no, it is not on topic.
KindredSoul said:
There are more ways to infringe on the free practice of religion than just telling someone “You can’t be this or that religion.” Infringing their ability to live their religion perfectly is another way of doing so. If your religion requests that you in no way support a certain sin, then yes, forcing you to cooperate in sanctioning that sin does in fact force you to compromise how closely you are able to live to the ideals of your religion.
Click to expand...
True, but if you personally rejected the notion, God would see that. It would then have no effect on how fully you could life the religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top