Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[alan1941]

This is in no way a comprehensive answer but I wanted to point out that marriage in general is a societal institution and as such has a tremendous effect on society. It is the fundamental building block of society. To allow homosexual marriage is to allow an alteration to that fundamental structure, to introduce immorality into the foundation of society. It contradicts the nature of marriage and hence contradicts and breaks down the building blocks of society.

Homosexual marriages are not rooted in life-giving and life-long relationships, they are not rooted in the family. They are strictly a dysfunctional means of seeking pleasure and rarely long-lasting. To build one’s society on this is very dangerous… we already know the terrible effects of broken homes on children. Further, the primary place of education for children is the family and with children growing up in and around dysfunctional relationships we’ll certainly a see an increasing trend of dysfunction and broken relationships.

The homosexual lifestyle, while being immoral, is not what is in question… a person is free to pursue the lifestyle (though not encouraged). It is altering this foundation that is in question.

Hope that helps… much more could be said about the slow (and sometimes fast) erosion of freedom of religion for Catholics…

It appears that you are using circular reasoning. You say that homosexuality is immoral and therefore allowing homosexual marriages is damaging to the foundations of marriage because it is immoral, but I pose to you the question is it immoral for a homosexual to enter a heterosexual marriage? You say that homosexual marriage is not life-giving. By the same reasoning celibacy is not life-giving and therefore the Church should require everyone to marry. But the church recognizes the life-giving nature of celibacy as non-biological. You obviously do not know many gay couples or you would know that their unions are life-giving to each partner, again like celibacy in a non-biological way.
The Church while it may justifiably (?) oppose calling gay unions marriage should support the rights of gay to form gay unions based simply on its social justice teachings and based on the 'equal protection ’ clause of the Constitution.

 

[AliciaCL]

. . . The Church while it may justifiably (?) oppose calling gay unions marriage should support the rights of gay to form gay unions based simply on its social justice teachings and based on the 'equal protection ’ clause of the Constitution.

Once again this is where the emotionalism has gone off the rails. There is no legitimate equal protection argument in favor of gay marriage. A man and man or woman and woman are not the same as a man and woman. Blue and blue or green and green do not equate to blue and green. It is not rocket science. The gay movement’s argument is about like “ignore that man behind the curtain” in the Wizard of Oz. They twist equality to mean anyone you want to marry. It is ludicris logic and a sham but it’s all there is. And from a legal point of view, it does open to the door to legalizing pedophelia, group marriage, etc. with the exact same reasoning. Sure they get some judges who have drank the koolaid to say gay marriage is the same as heterosexual. Doesn’t make it any more logically or morally right than the hundreds of years our laws declared slaves as legally in bondage.

 

[yours]

Your question is about the connection between Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion. Well question. If one of the reasons that the Christians broke from Judaism was their belief that salvation was for everyone, and it is true that God creates everyone, then why is this an issue? Why does the Vatican think they can restrict and outlaw it? Did they suddenly decide that heaven is NOT for everyone? Or that God does NOT create gay people? Think about it.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Once again this is where the emotionalism has gone off the rails. There is no legitimate equal protection argument in favor of gay marriage. A man and man or woman and woman are not the same as a man and woman. Blue and blue or green and green do not equate to blue and green. It is not rocket science. The gay movement’s argument is about like “ignore that man behind the curtain” in the Wizard of Oz. They twist equality to mean anyone you want to marry. It is ludicris logic and a sham but it’s all there is. And from a legal point of view, it does open to the door to legalizing pedophelia, group marriage, etc. with the exact same reasoning. Sure they get some judges who have drank the koolaid to say gay marriage is the same as heterosexual. Doesn’t make it any more logically or morally right than the hundreds of years our laws declared slaves as legally in bondage.

So yes, while blue is not equal to green, is one better? Or is blue negative, or detrimental to society? Why can’t something change (since the only thing constant is, in fact, change) to make more a a blue green. It’s not the as green, but who can argue that it’s any less (without opinions, only fact)?

I’ve made other comments about why homosexual marriage is not the same as group marriage, you should look for them.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The more i watching this silencing Christianity video, the more it is becoming just as twisted as the methods it is supposed to be fighting, and it is just as much propaganda as anything. The young woman’s story of being cured from her homosexuality is outrageous. Most homosexuals I know are actually attracted to the same sex, not merely seeking protecting from their fathers and love from their mothers. She also states that if you tell a child for long enough that he’s stupid, he will never believe he is intelligent, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t intelegnt. One know know Jesus and still be homosexual with out any conflict. Just being homosexual is not in itself a destructive lifestyle. The story is just an attempt to convince uneducated and people who are to lazy to properly educate themselves on both sides of an issue to agree with those publishing the video.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I believe that there are individuals who wrongfully think they are gay based on external influences, this woman was one of them, as are the other people that come out of homosexuality. If you can honestly get married to someone of the opposite gender and never have homosexual feelings again, then you never were in the first place. The tolerance does go both ways, just not be the people who are in the eyes of the media.

The next speaker, Gary Cass, was just as ridiculous. He states there have been 10 church shootings in three year. While I’m not saying that isn’t true, he never states the shootings were by gay activists. He makes watchers believe that they were by positioning it next to a story where gay activists were incredibly disrespectful (I’m not saying that they were right in doing so, just saying there may not be a connection). He also never states that it was a gay activist that tried to burn down a convent, just that arson was attempted. This program repeats that gay movements are not based on proof, yet they are being just as vague, He states that christians in San Fran are living in fear, making us believe that all 10 shootings happened there. Both sides are guilty of using manipulative rhetoric to gain supporters.

 

[Highwayhound]

The same as the government approving a traditional relationship? Not necessarily for the financial benefits (though it may be fore some), but more so it gives things a concrete feeling? Makes it feel more legitimate? That’s a difficult question to answer without going into individual specifics.

When I got married I had no such desire for government approval. The government was a nuisance standing there with its hand out begging for money. Any feeling of legitimacy I had came from me and my relationship with God.

Since it is not necessarily for the financial benefits should we have a government license for other relationships of a personal nature, such as friendships? All of my friendships have limited to no financial benefit for me.

God bless

 

[KindredSoul]

“If abortion being legal, yet not sanctioned, means it does not compromise your faith. Is it possible for gay marriage to be the same way? If it was done in a way which was legal, yet paid for by the individuals choosing to be married, or united (terminology is not important in this case, only the action), would that effect your ability to practice your faith?”

First, I just wanna reaffirm that I still do believe abortion should be entirely illegal. I’m not saying that to convince you, since I think you may agree (given things you’ve said) but I’m just making sure anyone coming across the post doesn’t get the wrong impression from me…

Now, as to gay marriage being legal but not sanctioned…so far as I know, Gay Marriage is already legal but not sanctioned. That is to say, if two gay people go into a church that permits Gay Marriage (say, like some Quakers or Episcopalians) and have a marriage ceremony that is in no way seeking government sanction (and thus has nothing to do with the Government), the government cannot and would not infringe. At least as far as I understand (and I’m fairly sure there are examples of such marriages taking place), the government cannot interfere because that is a purely religious and private matter. We already, therefore, have that situation, and I’m fine with that; even though I personally don’t consider the marriages valid or true (because I believe marriage can only exist between a man and woman), to make it a criminal act would violate the free practice of religion.

However, Gay activists seem to want more: They certainly seem to want the Government to do something that officially acknowledges and puts a Government seal of approval on their relationship…in other words, Gay people aren’t asking merely to be allowed to marry (they have that already), they are asking the Government to partake of that marriage, whether a significant total of taxpayers who keep the Government going like it or not. In short, they want the Government to sanction their actions, and I’ve discussed the problems with that earlier.

And I understand we don’t agree, but I would like to thank you for honest, educated debate on the topic, it’s what I was looking for. Who’s to say I wasn’t looking to have my mind changed but wanted to wait for sound reasoning? Sleep well

I am glad to have thus far obliged. We may disagree, but you seem polite about it–and that is, indeed, refreshing.

 

[NoMoreGames]

First, I just wanna reaffirm that I still do believe abortion should be entirely illegal. I’m not saying that to convince you, since I think you may agree (given things you’ve said) but I’m just making sure anyone coming across the post doesn’t get the wrong impression from me…

I too am very much against it

Now, as to gay marriage being legal but not sanctioned…so far as I know, Gay Marriage is already legal but not sanctioned. That is to say, if two gay people go into a church that permits Gay Marriage (say, like some Quakers or Episcopalians) and have a marriage ceremony that is in no way seeking government sanction (and thus has nothing to do with the Government), the government cannot and would not infringe. At least as far as I understand (and I’m fairly sure there are examples of such marriages taking place), the government cannot interfere because that is a purely religious and private matter. We already, therefore, have that situation, and I’m fine with that; even though I personally don’t consider the marriages valid or true (because I believe marriage can only exist between a man and woman), to make it a criminal act would violate the free practice of religion.

Ah, but this has everything to do wiht the government. Sure they can get married in an accepting church, just as a teen girl could go get a back alley abortion, but that doesnt change hte legality of the action. To clarify, the gay marraige happens ,but not under the law, where as the abortion happens illegally, but that doesnt change the fact it happened. I hope I’m making sense (I have a feeling I’m not )

However, Gay activists seem to want more: They certainly seem to want the Government to do something that officially acknowledges and puts a Government seal of approval on their relationship…in other words, Gay people aren’t asking merely to be allowed to marry (they have that already), they are asking the Government to partake of that marriage, whether a significant total of taxpayers who keep the Government going like it or not. In short, they want the Government to sanction their actions, and I’ve discussed the problems with that earlier.

Well let’s look at it this way. Athiests too are tax payers, yet ocationaly they have to deal with God in public places. Is that not governmental sanction of religion (which violates their freedom as much as governmental gay marriage would effect yours)?

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The licentiousness of so-called Gay-marriage has no base in Truth and is Lies from The Liar. God is Truth and He gave us free will. Free to do what is Truth. Not free to live in Lies – without penalty. Grace may bring those who live in Lies to Him by mercy, on the other hand accepting the Lies may send those who reject His Truth to everlasting separation with The Liar.

God is Truth and Life.

The Liar is Falsehood and Death.

Choose wisely and always be prepared.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The licentiousness of so-called Gay-marriage has no base in Truth and is Lies from The Liar. God is Truth and He gave us free will. Free to do what is Truth. Not free to live in Lies – without penalty. Grace may bring those who live in Lies to Him by mercy, on the other hand accepting the Lies may send those who reject His Truth to everlasting separation with The Liar.

God is Truth and Life.

The Liar is Falsehood and Death.

Choose wisely and always be prepared.

Try to remember that this is on the social aspect, that is removing religious beliefs and still making an argument for or against gay marriage.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

It is social – not “merely” religion. True, social life resides in Truth who is God. Removing God from Society is to follow The Liar. Do not give The Liar one second of time. Imagining society without God is “Dancing With The Devil”. The Liar will chip away until he sows doubt. The Liar doesn’t have to convice you that The Liar exists, all he needs to do is create doubt that He who is Truth exists.

 

[NoMoreGames]

It is social – not “merely” religion. True, social life resides in Truth who is God. Removing God from Society is to follow The Liar. Do not give The Liar one second of time. Imagining society without God is “Dancing With The Devil”. The Liar will chip away until he sows doubt. The Liar doesn’t have to convice you that The Liar exists, all he needs to do is create doubt that He who is Truth exists.

I think you’re missing the point. Not every one in society believes in God and the devil, it has been this way since the beginning or the nation. So if you’re defense against gay marriage is that the devil is entering society, all someone has to say is “I don’t believe in the devil” and your argument falls apart.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Truth does not fall apart. Truth is forever. One either accepts or rejects the Truth.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Truth does not fall apart. Truth is forever. One either accepts or rejects the Truth.

This is true, but you are only saying not proving. Consider one who “rejects the Truth,” why should they believe anything you’ve said as a reason to forbid homosexual marriage? In a society partially based off of freedom of religion, if you are denying a certain group of people a right they think they deserve, you need to have a basis which nobody can deny. Atheists do not believe in religious truths, so saying that homosexuality is morally wrong means nothing to them, as they don’t not believe it. KindredSoul has made many valid points, look back at the past few pages so you can get a better idea of the way this discussion is going. While I’m not saying what you have said is false, not everyone in a society free to choose its religion would agree with you.

 

[Jossy]

But it’s the catholic position that homosexuality is immoral, not society. All of your arguments to prevent it in this country are still religious, no matter how much you try to make it seem like they are not. It might crumble your perception of society, but not necessarily society itself, since that society is based, in part, on freedom.

And to say that gay marriages are not rooted in family and are therefore chiefly for pleasure is a rash generalization. Gay couples can be long term just like any others.

Yes, it is the Catholic postion and rightly so.
People are not born gay, they are born normal but let the
devil take control of their lives.
Parents must pray always for their children - to keep them
safe from evil.
Pray always that you do not fall into sin.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Yes, it is the Catholic postion and rightly so.
People are not born gay, they are born normal but let the
devil take control of their lives.
Parents must pray always for their children - to keep them
safe from evil.
Pray always that you do not fall into sin.

You haven’t said anything that is not true, but once again, not all of society feels this way, so why should one set of beliefs have full bearing over all other beliefs in this country?

Side note, if you truly believe that simply being gay is a sin (as it seems you have suggested), I pray you never have a gay child. Even the church agrees that the sate of being gay is not sinful in itself. (PM me if you need to discuss the non social side further in order to keep this thread on topic)

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

I don’t try to convince anyone of anything. With His help I convey the Truth (documented in the catechism, magestrial teachings, encyclicals, and The Bible) and then let God do his Work.

 

[friarjamesosf]

A question - on the sacrament of marriage, Roman canon law would allow the marriage between a widow and a widower, say, in their 80’s? Yet outside of a miracle of the Sarah and Elizabeth rank, this couple could not produce life and forward humanity. If gay people cannot marry because of that reason, why should others be allowed to marry?

One more question…if a person is born a female, would you not say that it would be “natural law” that she would feel attracted to males. And vice versa with a born male feeling attracted to femaIes. So, in the “laws of nature,” it seems what is natural for one human being may not be natural for another. I realize that a whole lot of people desperately want to believe the fallacy that homosexuals CHOOSE their sexual orientation - which would probably ONLY be true if heterosexuals could CHOOSE their own gender.

OK - one more - I promise. Could you direct me to Chapter and Verse in which Jesus, who we say completed, perfected, fulfilled the Law," speaks about homosexuality? Personally, I can’t find it - although I would think it would be somewhere near to Jesus saying that women cannot be priests.

Blessings!
br jim

 

[dgoldman]

are those who are against gay marriage also against the freedom of religion?

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.

No (at least I am not). However, I do not believe that gay marriage falls “under the category of freedom of religion”.

You are speaking of a civil marriage which is not a right, any more than driving on the public streets is a right. Civil marriage is a privilege. To obtain a civil marriage license you must comply with the civil laws regarding the civil marriage. Currently the laws in 48? states require marriage to be between a man and a woman.

I do not believe you can make a valid argument that the civil marriage laws either establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. Now, if the law stated that you must be a practicing Christian to obtain a license, you might have a case.

It does not matter why we desire civil marriage to be defined a certain way. All that matters is that we have the right to make our views known - the most powerful way to express ourselves is through our vote.

You have been provided many excellent reasons why some believe what they believe. You obviously disagree with those reasons. That is your right.

Our society has had numerous times lately to make our views known. Every time the voters have spoken, they have maintained civil marriage should be between a man and a woman.