Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[The_Smiter]

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)

“Being gay” as you state is not sinful. this is where your gross ignorance of those who do not afree with you is most evident. It is only when we act on our natures, disordered or not, that we sin. I wake up everyday thinking that I might get away with any number of things. Yet, I order my passions in such a way as to avoid the near occasion of sin. In line with the Church’s teaching (a teaching that I know you disagree with and oppose) would encourage people with homosexual thoughts and inclinations to lead a celibate and chaste life as a single person. This is a cross to bear - just as everyone has a cross top bear in life. None of us chose the crosses that we bear as a result of Original Sin and its effects being in the world. But it is our duty to veer away from temptation and not embrace the sins that we are confronted with. This is true for all people - not just gays and lesbians.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

We have free will, there are always (there’s that word) options. Choose Truth because it will lead to everlasting joy. Life on earth seems long but it is nothing compared to eternity. It’s what we do with this short time that determines our life forever. To borrow a phrase “there is a light at the end of the very long and dark tunnel”. Fight the good fight. Fight for Truth. We may have more in common than is known. God knows.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I am surprised at your question when your arguments for and
against is involving religious beliefs regarding the topic.

I’m not sure how arguing that the state’s purpose of marriage should be equal to any couple who are committed to each other is a religious argument. (I realize the topic got way off and discussed the religious beliefs of homosexuality for a few pages) Could you point out any of my defenses that gay marriage should be legal in the eyes of the state that are religious in basis?

Yes. If chromosones are configured in an usual way then so be it. DNA not ideal – God’s will.

Who’s to say that it was the liar (I’m not giving him the honor of capitalization, i don’t think he deserves it ) who caused the mutation (if there even is a genetic component)? You still have to yet provide any reason that it should be denied in the state (only reasons why it is not supported in Catholicism, so can you ** please** answer one simple question with a yes or no: Do you believe that gay marriage should be legal in society?

“Being gay” as you state is not sinful. this is where your gross ignorance of those who do not afree with you is most evident. It is only when we act on our natures, disordered or not, that we sin. I wake up everyday thinking that I might get away with any number of things. Yet, I order my passions in such a way as to avoid the near occasion of sin. In line with the Church’s teaching (a teaching that I know you disagree with and oppose) would encourage people with homosexual thoughts and inclinations to lead a celibate and chaste life as a single person. This is a cross to bear - just as everyone has a cross top bear in life. None of us chose the crosses that we bear as a result of Original Sin and its effects being in the world. But it is our duty to veer away from temptation and not embrace the sins that we are confronted with. This is true for all people - not just gays and lesbians.

How does that show any ignorance. I stated that being gay is not a sin. I fully understand the position of the church (indeed it was the only position i was throughly exposed to for the first 18+ years of my life). What I stated is not incorrect in the eyes of the church, hence no ignorance.

And I understand that it is a Catholic belief that it is a cross to bear - a sort of disorder. but the questions in the topic is why should it be denied SOCIALLY, as not all people are Catholic and therefore not all people believe it is a sin (and it is within their right to do so).

 

[Sheena_Hartgill]

In Luke 6:43 it says No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
We know that God looks at our individual hearts, surly we too need to look at the heart of people, if there is love what gives us the right to dictate how that love should be expressed?
Perhaps we should be more concerned about how we love others rather than trying to convict people for love we don’t understand. Surly we should love the work of God – that of convicting others of sin to the Holy Spirit and look rather at how gay people single, celibate or in committed “married” relationship love, in other words at the fruit they produce. Are these people loving others and serving God. If we can allow children to choose their own friends, what arrogance gives us the right to choose friends for the God of the universe?

 

[friarjamesosf]

Couples who may valid marry who are in their 80’s who present no artificial obstical to promoting life are perfectly free to marry. If it be God’s will, then a couple in their 80’s may conceive. There are documented cases of women having children in their late 50’s.

Be careful about the answer you seek. The Truth will find you.

With your reference to “no artificial obstacle,” I could assume you mean that each person has the common body parts that are used for/allow for conception. Is that always true about every female in their 80’s?

As for God’s will in the matter, I agree with you 100% - I cited both Sarah and Elizabeth. But, IF God can take a woman of “advanced years, all of which have been spent ‘sterile’” and
perform the miracle that enables her to bear a child, why could God not be able to do a similar miracle to allow two men to concieve? I’m not saying He/She would, and I am not saying that He/She would condon, I am simply saying that it may not be such a good idea for me to tell God what He/She is allowed to do.
Point being - the Church blesses marriages that would not normally allow for pro-creation to exists without contra-natural involvement.

As for the documented cases of women bearing children in their late 50s, are you aware of any such documented cases of women bearing children in the late 80s, which of course, is the basis of this whole exchange.

Be careful about the answers you supply. The Turth may find you wanting.

 

[friarjamesosf]

Thank you for wording things in a way that has eluded me for 15+ pages I think we have very similar opinions.

I think you’re right.

 

[friarjamesosf]

Truth is specific. Truth is as real as it gets. What do you seek?

I seek the truth on the history of the Roman concept of “Papal Infallibility.”

Not that it has ANYTHING to do with this discussion, but I simply could not leave an open ended question like yours lay peacefully in hope of a happy death.

 

[friarjamesosf]

Yes. If chromosones are configured in an usual way then so be it. DNA not ideal – God’s will. We are not perfect. Our love for God is tested by our (name removed by moderator)erfections. God loves us so much that He tests and strenghens our love by placing us in the fire. I am not perfect, I am tested and cast into fire each and every day. I am thankful for these tests no matter how terrible they might seem because I know that the suffering involved is not lost with God. In the end He will do what is right and merciful. As much as I love God I must also love every single one of my brothers and sisters as they are created in His image. I must see Jesus in every human being. We all must.

Amen!

 

[friarjamesosf]

“Being gay” as you state is not sinful. this is where your gross ignorance of those who do not afree with you is most evident. It is only when we act on our natures, disordered or not, that we sin. I wake up everyday thinking that I might get away with any number of things. Yet, I order my passions in such a way as to avoid the near occasion of sin. In line with the Church’s teaching (a teaching that I know you disagree with and oppose) would encourage people with homosexual thoughts and inclinations to lead a celibate and chaste life as a single person. This is a cross to bear - just as everyone has a cross top bear in life. None of us chose the crosses that we bear as a result of Original Sin and its effects being in the world. But it is our duty to veer away from temptation and not embrace the sins that we are confronted with. This is true for all people - not just gays and lesbians.

Personally, I think refering to “gross ignorance” is not nice.
But then again, no one asked what I thought about it.

As for all of us having a cross to bear, I would seriously ask you to reflect on something for a few minutes – and this reflection will not be a sin or blasphemy.

I would ask you, in your own personal situation, to consider that a great majority of people believed - and thought they found scripture quotes that supported this belief - that God condemned heterosexuality.

Now, know that God is not saying it is a sin to merely BE heterosexual - it’s only when you act out in a heterosexual way - like having sex with a person of the opposite gender that it IS A SIN!

I mean, after all, clearly our situation today seems to indicate that humankind has mis-interpreted natural law. I say this because often times, the result of heterosexual activity is a child. All can clearly see that we are so overpopulated. There are millions and millions of children being born into this world into gross poverty, so much so that a child might not have a very good chance of attending their own first birthday party. Yet these child are products of a heterosexual relationship.

And natural law would seem to indicate that a male is the “stronger sex” while a women is “the weaker.” I would guess that there are thousands of women, living in a heterosexual “marriage” that often wish the male wasn’t quite so strong…if you know what I mean. Domestic violence rates seem to climb higher and higher – and my friend, I believe most of those incidents have to be owned by the heterosexual community - because often, in cases of human violence in a gay household, it is not even officially reported as “domestic” violence.

I would also suggest - no demand that you understand that the very idea of heterosexual “marriage” threathens and even destroys the sacredness of REAL marriage. I have absolutely no rational idea of how it threathens and destroys REAL marriage - I just KNOW that IT DOES!!!

If you have managed to read this far, I thank you.
If you have felt hurt or outraged about what I said about heterosexual marriage, then I share your hurt and outrage on other occassions.

Why are so many of us always quite vehement when we propose or defend some aspect of life or society that separates us from each other instead of bringing us together?

One last thought - although it belongs in another tread - why do so many of us respect, promote, and defend life - while we also promote and defend war. I could be totally wrong, but I’d guess that war has ended more life than abortions have.

Pray for peace and justice - even if IT’s truth is not YOUR truth.

 

[fix]

Moral relativsm seems to lead to blindness. Blindness of the most basic aspects of human nature.

I guess we now live in a cartoon world where we each make up reality as we go along.

 

[friarjamesosf]

In Luke 6:43 it says No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
We know that God looks at our individual hearts, surly we too need to look at the heart of people, if there is love what gives us the right to dictate how that love should be expressed?
Perhaps we should be more concerned about how we love others rather than trying to convict people for love we don’t understand. Surly we should love the work of God – that of convicting others of sin to the Holy Spirit and look rather at how gay people single, celibate or in committed “married” relationship love, in other words at the fruit they produce. Are these people loving others and serving God. If we can allow children to choose their own friends, what arrogance gives us the right to choose friends for the God of the universe?

 

[NoMoreGames]

Moral relativsm seems to lead to blindness. Blindness of the most basic aspects of human nature.

I guess we now live in a cartoon world where we each make up reality as we go along.

I’m going to get exestintial on you, but what is reality but how the individual percieves the world aroudn him?

Ok but seriously, americans have the right to believe that there is no universal truth if they so desire. Just because Catholics do does not mean the nation has to. Should the actions of people with different beliefs be bound by your beliefs?

 

[fix]

I’m going to get exestintial on you, but what is reality but how the individual percieves the world aroudn him?

Reality exists independent of how any one person misperceives it.

If a person thinks they are invisible that does not make them invisible.

Ok but seriously, americans have the right to believe that there is no universal truth if they so desire.

I am not sure about the use of the term “right” in this context. If you mean the state will not put you in jail for believing an erroneous idea then yes you are free to be in error.

Just because Catholics do does not mean the nation has to. Should the actions of people with different beliefs be bound by your beliefs?

Should the nation be bound by your beliefs? The problem is we are not talking about certain religious beliefs like the Virgin birth. We are talking about actions and the objective and unchanging nature of marriage.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Reality exists independent of how any one person misperceives it.

If a person thinks they are invisible that does not make them invisible.

That was sarcasm, i figured you’d get that what i started the next like with “Ok, but seriously” I’ve had a philosophy class based on the concept of reality, which would argue against what you said that that is a totally different topic all together.

I am not sure about the use of the term “right” in this context. If you mean the state will not put you in jail for believing an erroneous idea then yes you are free to be in error.

But it’s your belief that they would be in error, not theirs. HUGE difference between faith and knowledge. No matter how much you argue, at this point in history, many catholic beliefs are only faith.

Should the nation be bound by your beliefs? The problem is we are not talking about certain religious beliefs like the Virgin birth. We are talking about actions and the objective and unchanging nature of marriage.

They really aren’t so different. The belief that homosexuality (and the physical acts that sometimes accompany it) is disordered is simply that, a belief. There is really no evidence towards either side, hence a belief. Regardless of if you realize it not, the state has changed it’s function of marriage frequently over history (not limited to the united states), so what’s how does it violate your right to practice Catholicism to change the sate’s (and the state’s alone) meaning of marriage?

For all those who define mariage as being between a man and a women (an a non religious level) and that to make it between 2 of the same gender would be totally redefining it, take a look at this, it seems it already has been redefined. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

 

[fix]

But it’s your belief that they would be in error, not theirs. HUGE difference between faith and knowledge. No matter how much you argue, at this point in history, many catholic beliefs are only faith.

No, there is objective truth. It you want a new thread on that please go ahead and start one.

There is evidence of my position. It is not a novel position at all. That you reject that evidence does not make my position wrong. It does mean you refuse to accept it .

They really aren’t so different. The belief that homosexuality (and the physical acts that sometimes accompany it) is disordered is simply that, a belief.

It is a truth that is known from reason.

There is really no evidence towards either side, hence a belief.

I think you are using the word belief to mean some item that is not based in truth or is arbitrary. What you seem to be saying is that you will only accept evidence that is materialistic in nature.

There is plenty of proof homosexual acts are morally evil and that the inclination is not ordered toward the good. Those proofs, which you reject, are good and logical. Again, you simply refuse to accept what is true.

Regardless of if you realize it not, the state has changed it’s function of marriage frequently over history (not limited to the united states), so what’s how does it violate your right to practice Catholicism to change the sate’s (and the state’s alone) meaning of marriage?

When has the state said two same sex persons compose a marriage before these past few years?

For all those who define mariage as being between a man and a women (an a non religious level) and that to make it between 2 of the same gender would be totally redefining it, take a look at this, it seems it already has been redefined. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Words get redefined all the time. But, such redefining cannot change the nature of the institution. I mean we can call an ant an elephant, but that does not change the nature of the ant or the elephant. What that can do is desensitize people to what is true and real.

That is the notion of the “gay agenda” to desensitize the population.

 

[fix]

In Luke 6:43 it says No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
We know that God looks at our individual hearts, surly we too need to look at the heart of people, if there is love what gives us the right to dictate how that love should be expressed?
Perhaps we should be more concerned about how we love others rather than trying to convict people for love we don’t understand. Surly we should love the work of God – that of convicting others of sin to the Holy Spirit and look rather at how gay people single, celibate or in committed “married” relationship love, in other words at the fruit they produce. Are these people loving others and serving God. If we can allow children to choose their own friends, what arrogance gives us the right to choose friends for the God of the universe?

How do you define love?

 

[The_Smiter]

Personally, I think refering to “gross ignorance” is not nice.
But then again, no one asked what I thought about it.

As for all of us having a cross to bear, I would seriously ask you to reflect on something for a few minutes – and this reflection will not be a sin or blasphemy.

I would ask you, in your own personal situation, to consider that a great majority of people believed - and thought they found scripture quotes that supported this belief - that God condemned heterosexuality.

Now, know that God is not saying it is a sin to merely BE heterosexual - it’s only when you act out in a heterosexual way - like having sex with a person of the opposite gender that it IS A SIN!

I mean, after all, clearly our situation today seems to indicate that humankind has mis-interpreted natural law. I say this because often times, the result of heterosexual activity is a child. All can clearly see that we are so overpopulated. There are millions and millions of children being born into this world into gross poverty, so much so that a child might not have a very good chance of attending their own first birthday party. Yet these child are products of a heterosexual relationship.

And natural law would seem to indicate that a male is the “stronger sex” while a women is “the weaker.” I would guess that there are thousands of women, living in a heterosexual “marriage” that often wish the male wasn’t quite so strong…if you know what I mean. Domestic violence rates seem to climb higher and higher – and my friend, I believe most of those incidents have to be owned by the heterosexual community - because often, in cases of human violence in a gay household, it is not even officially reported as “domestic” violence.

I would also suggest - no demand that you understand that the very idea of heterosexual “marriage” threathens and even destroys the sacredness of REAL marriage. I have absolutely no rational idea of how it threathens and destroys REAL marriage - I just KNOW that IT DOES!!!

If you have managed to read this far, I thank you.
If you have felt hurt or outraged about what I said about heterosexual marriage, then I share your hurt and outrage on other occassions.

Why are so many of us always quite vehement when we propose or defend some aspect of life or society that separates us from each other instead of bringing us together?

One last thought - although it belongs in another tread - why do so many of us respect, promote, and defend life - while we also promote and defend war. I could be totally wrong, but I’d guess that war has ended more life than abortions have.

Pray for peace and justice - even if IT’s truth is not YOUR truth.

As to the rest of your post - it really is blather because most if not all of it has already been addressed and refuted earlier in the thread. I might respond to it at length but not at this time.

However - TRUTH is TRUTH. There is not your truth and my truth. What you are proposing is relativistic morality/ethics and that is the entire problem with people not being able to understand what is meant by truth. The extreme= case being that if I think murder is OK and you do not, then one truth can’t be OK and the other bunk. We have to agree on an objective truth - and the position that religious conviction can be divorced from this debate is disingenuous when marriage is a religious construct to begin with.

 

[NoMoreGames]

No, there is objective truth. It you want a new thread on that please go ahead and start one.

There is evidence of my position. It is not a novel position at all. That you reject that evidence does not make my position wrong. It does mean you refuse to accept it .

It is a truth that is known from reason.

I think you are using the word belief to mean some item that is not based in truth or is arbitrary. What you seem to be saying is that you will only accept evidence that is materialistic in nature.

it is the lack of materialistic proof that makes it a belief. You can not PROVE Jesus was God, that is something we BELIEVE.

There is plenty of proof homosexual acts are morally evil and that the inclination is not ordered toward the good. Those proofs, which you reject, are good and logical. Again, you simply refuse to accept what is true.

Plenty of religious basis, but not physical. This topic was, after all, not about the religious belief that homosexuality was evil, but about social, I’ll say it again, SOCIAL, reasons to deny or promote gay marriage in the country.

When has the state said two same sex persons compose a marriage before these past few years?

I didn’t say that the function of marriage was changed to same sex couples in history, just that it was changed (arranged marriages to power hungary political marriages to what we have today). These changes all reflected the STATE’S view and function of marriage, not religion’s.

Words get redefined all the time. But, such redefining cannot change the nature of the institution. I mean we can call an ant an elephant, but that does not change the nature of the ant or the elephant. What that can do is desensitize people to what is true and real.

That is the notion of the “gay agenda” to desensitize the population.

Comparing physical (ant) to conceptual (marraige) is not the same. A piece of rock will always be a piece of rock, but concepts are always changing (the role of women in society for example) I think you mean desensitizing people to what YOU BELIEVE is true.

Two people can interpret a painting two totally different ways, yet what person A sees should not effect what person B sees.

I think you’re missing the point of this. Not everyone in this country has the same set of beliefs. And really, the belief in objecting truth is a BELIEF. I know people that believe just the opposite, and their rational is no less legitimate than yours.

My original question was why should gay marriage not be permitted in this nation when we are guaranteed freedom of religion. You have yet to answer it using social terms, only religious (which are not valid to the question because of the freedom of religion)

 

[NoMoreGames]

However - TRUTH is TRUTH. There is not your truth and my truth. What you are proposing is relativistic morality/ethics and that is the entire problem with people not being able to understand what is meant by truth. The extreme= case being that if I think murder is OK and you do not, then one truth can’t be OK and the other bunk. We have to agree on an objective truth - and the position that religious conviction can be divorced from this debate is disingenuous when marriage is a religious construct to begin with.

This was never about truth. Even if you believe murder was ok, it could still not be done in this country because of the law. The law was what was in question in the first place. And religion CAN be removed from the debate. As of present, a couple can get married under the state and have no religious connection. It is for that reason that marriage in the church and marriage in the state are different today (regardless of where it started)

 

[alan1941]

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.

Thank you for your response but apparently you have issues with homosexuality which you haven’t faced. No there is no ‘equal protection’ argument specifically about gay marriage but there is an equal protection argument that guarantess you as a woman equal rights in the workplace and as such should guarantee gays the equal protection of marriage or civil unions. Your argument ad absurdum about wizards behind curtains is specious.To you as a heterosexual(?) the argument in favor of homosexuals is ludicrous (not: correct spelling). “Judges drinking kolaid”? My dear to what are you referring? So you are in favor of freed slaves but willing to enslave homosexuals by denying them equal rights under the law. My dear you are inconsitent. Imagine if you will that you are a heterosexual living in a society which forbids you marriage and all the other rights ensuing that privilege. Put yourself in that position and maybe you will have a bit more sympathy for those who are.