Very well.
Actually, that only demonstrates that it might not affect your chances of getting to Heaven. If the Government forbade Catholics to go to Mass, and was really good at it so that they were able to physically restrain us from going, God might see that we want to go and we might therefore still get to Heaven. However, that wouldn’t make such a thing any less an infringement on the free practice of religion. Same thing applies to what you just said.
True, but physical restraint is not the same as passing a law that has nothing to do with the way you live your life. Do you feel you cannot fully practice because abortion is legal? I agree that abortion is a horrible act, both socially and religiously, but I do not feel that I cannot praise god or live my faith any less. I don’t advocate it, nor am I scared to share my position. It is the willingness to stand up for the belief that something is wrong that makes it still possible to fully participate in your faith.
In many ways, so called ‘gay marriage’ is worse. Abortion and euthanasia kill the physical life of the person, homosexual acts kill the spiritual, eternal life of the person.
What if a person’s particular religious beliefs state that it is ok to have sex with a child, or that spousal abuse is not just OK, but necessary?. Would not child abuse laws or domestic violence laws restrict freedom of religion?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.
Abortion being legal (i.e. merely allowed, not sanctioned) is a horror for totally different reasons (because any government that does not protect people from murder fails in its most basic function); it doesn’t prevent me from fully practicing my faith as it is, however, I must oppose it because it is murder. If, however, Abortion was tax funded (as our President hopes) then yes, it becomes an similar (even graver) issue to this, and the government is forcing me to support it. Yes, that means I am not fully able to practice my Faith. God may not hold it against me as long as I oppose it (both politically and otherwise), but I’m being denied my right to fully practice my Faith perfectly non-the-less: In perfectly practicing my Faith, I would not be funding a Governmental Machine which claims as one of its very functions the sanctioning of something I feel to be immoral. Thus yes indeed, for the government to sanction (again, sanction, not merely allow) something immoral is an infringement of my religious freedom.
Civil marriage does not just allow certain relationships. It protects and encourages those relationships as being beneficial to society. Only a man and a woman can produce a child, every child has a father and a mother, not just “parents”, and there is nothing the law can do to change that. The law also recognizes the fundamental truth that the relationship between biological parents and their offspring is unique, especially from a public health standpoint. Child-rearing is a long-term project. There is a reason for the state to be interested in the long-term relationships of heterosexuals, then.
But if it doesn’t change your views, I’m still unclear how it makes your faith imperfect. You still reject it. You still do not approve of it You voted as much as you could, and by voting that way showed where you stand. It the majority feels differently, you are not at fault.
That may very well be the most well formed respoonse i have seen yet. I apploude you
I don’t have time to make an educated response at the moment, but i’ll be back 
If the topic were slavery or teaching Nazi propaganda in schools, though, this argument wouldn’t hold water, would it? You wouldn’t just throw up your hands and say, “Oh, well, lost the vote, I guess I’ve done my bit.”
But forcing me to act a certain way or preventing me from acting a certain way in my day to day activities isn’t, again, the only way to infringe on the free practice of my religion (as I’ve covered in previous posts). And that’s the point here: Whether it infringes on my “day to day” practice of religion or just in some other, less easily detectable way, it’s still a violation of my first amendment rights either way.
I agree 110%!
Society finds it is perfectly reasonable to put limitations on marriage. That is why children can not get married, people can not have multiple partner marriages, people can not mary relatives, animals, or innanimate objects.
The problem is that the gay agenda groups are trying to force their lifestyle and distorted views of morality on society as a whole. Why shoud I have to see that on TV, or give bennefits reserved for spouses to others? From a secular point of view, you do not have the right to dictate my choices.
By definition a marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay groups are trying to undermine that. If you want to undermine it for your bennefit, how can you discriminate against poligamist or other deviants?
actually there is a case to be made for polygamy in natural law where one does not exist for gay unions. So we should consider legalizing polygamy long before gay unions.
It is denied in the several states based upon the common good, which in turn is based partly on natural law, partly upon secular concerns. And the state/State considers a number of possible consequences whenever new law is made. They always take the long view, not merely the short view that “only a few” in the present moment might be demanding religious approval and/or full parenting “rights” and more. New law is not made lightly, due to the reach of its results and the likely permanency of it.
Adultary should be illegal it violates the rights of the party who was cheated on.
But there are many regular families who want to adopt. Is it fair to the child to put them in a disordered home when regular homes are available?
Loving someone does not mean supporting their self destructive behavior or supporting them in behavior that is harmful to society.
It is not being denied. All adults have the ability to engage in marriage. They just can not create a relationship that is not a marriage and call it marriage.After thirteen pages of often sidetracked debate, I figured I should refocus.
The point of this thread was NOT to debate if homosexual marriage should be considered moral or if it should be accepted by Catholicism, we all know it is not. It was to provoke discussion on the grounds to which it is denied to a nation partially built on the separation of church and state.
Any discussions any personal orietation, advice to those you feel are going to hell, or why the church feels it is wrong should be kept to a minimum in an attempt to keep this on topic (i know i am probably guilty of this the most
Also, if using “natural law” as grounds, perhaps explain further, because that is a VERY broad subject containing aspects of both religion and philosophy and can support either side.
using that logic then so could serial killers.