Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[Jossy]

How it is any more confusing that living in a house hold with divorced and remarried parents? or parents leaving their children in daycare all day?

I disagree with your reasoning here.
It is definately confusing to childen with the same sex
parents. They will be trying to figure out which one is the
father and which is the mother.
Divorce and remarry situations are not that confusing because the father figure is a male and the mother figure is a woman.
Only anger from the child because of the situation they find
themselves in.
At least the daycare child knows that he/she has a male
father and a female mother.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I disagree with your reasoning here.
It is definately confusing to childen with the same sex
parents. They will be trying to figure out which one is the
father and which is the mother.
Divorce and remarry situations are not that confusing because the father figure is a male and the mother figure is a woman.
Only anger from the child because of the situation they find
themselves in.
At least the daycare child knows that he/she has a male
father and a female mother.

I’ll start of by saying there is not always a “man” and a “woman” in a gay relationship (I hope I worded that right) meaning the child would not have to figure out which one was mom and which was dad, they would simply be parents.

But we’ll follow you logic from here on out. So you’re making the assumption that a father has clearly defined roles and a mother has clearly defined roles? What about a stay at home dad and a full time working mom? Wouldn’t that confuse the child equally because these roles you feel are so clearly defined would be switched and the child would have to figure out which was mom and which was dad (in terms of roles, not gender)? And then it would be more confusing when the gender role did not match the actual role.

As for it not being the same as a broken home because the child would still have a mother and father. What it the father just up and leaves? Well, then there is no male to fill the male roll and we’re back to gender role vs actual role confusion.

And a day care is hardly even parenting at all. So rather than the actual parents fulfilling the roles, you have workers, potentially of either gender, filling both roles. Making there be multiple gender role vs actual role confusions (the workers and the parents), not just one.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And a day care is hardly even parenting at all. So rather than the actual parents fulfilling the roles, you have workers, potentially of either gender, filling both roles.

Yes. That is precisely why we don’t call day care workers parents. We would never officially assign them parenting roles, give them parenting rights, etc.

“Fulfilling a role,” whether gay or straight, does not equal being a parent. We may need additional role models in our lives (for certain roles, including parenting), but we should not fool ourselves that we don’t really need a male and a female in intimate roles. Arriving at an unfortunate deficiency is one thing (by desertion, divorce, or early death). Institutionalizing a deficiency is something else entirely.

 

[friarjamesosf]

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.

I am first pondering whether I prefer “blatter” to “gross ignorance?”

Truth is indeed truth. In moral issues, there is often the existence of “a higher good” or “higher cause.” For example, you mentioned murder above. Working off a concept of “murder” as being the taking of another’s life, I would personally consider that about as high and primal as anything. According to Levitican Law, it is wrong to murder - it is a direct sin against the commandments.

Now comes along someone who challenges this eternal, unchangable truth and declares that nation or freedom is of higher good, thus allowing people to murder for the sake of the nation, or in the defense of freedom. How does this proposal stand up to eternal unchangable truth?

We can’t really blame it on the authority of scripture because, well, Jesus said that when someone strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer him the other. That’s no way to wage war!! And when Jesus said that we are to love our neighbors, I don’t think he meant for us to bomb them - even if they are enemies - Jesus said to pray for our enemies - not prey on them.

So, there is indeed eternal unchangable truth though some cultures seem to spend a great deal of time trying to change them. Ultimately, far above my poor ability to establish a morality for others, I trust that God has that well taken care of.

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis is on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church.

I am sure that we can all agree that Jesus Christ is Lord of all and that this Lord loves each and everyone one of us with a deep and lasting love that we do not deserve and we may never even understand!

Blessings!
jim

 

[The_Smiter]

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)

Fine. But marriage is a religious construct not a governmental one. Government adopted it but it has always been defined from its religious foundations. You seem to think that a secular society simply sprang up overnight form notheing. It hs taken all of its cues from religious foundationsa and is now unfortunately rejecting all of those foundations and accepting what it says it wants by redefining what those foundations are. If you want to create a new kind of society, at least be honest enough to admit that’s what you want to do. Don’t take a society that is already esptblisehd and twist it about so much that it simply does not resemble where it came from.

 

[cristininha]

Yes. That is precisely why we don’t call day care workers parents. We would never officially assign them parenting roles, give them parenting rights, etc.

“Fulfilling a role,” whether gay or straight, does not equal being a parent. We may need additional role models in our lives (for certain roles, including parenting), but we should not fool ourselves that we don’t really need a male and a female in intimate roles. Arriving at an unfortunate deficiency is one thing (by desertion, divorce, or early death). Institutionalizing a deficiency is something else entirely.

Death is unavoidable, but it’s interesting to see you haven’t included divorce and desertion under the “institutionalized deficiency” category… According to your reasoning I’d have thought they would be perceived as such…

 

[NoMoreGames]

You make some interesting points, but in order to arrive at them you make some assumptions that aren’t necessarily true.

But marriage is a religious construct not a governmental one. Government adopted it but it has always been defined from its religious foundations.

It was indeed constructed by religion and adopted by the government, true. But the government has NOT always defined it by religious foundations. I suppose it has in hte sense that it is between a man and a woman, but not much farther than that. The government does not include God in it’s process, where as God is a pivotal point in marriage under religion.

You seem to think that a secular society simply sprang up overnight form notheing. It hs taken all of its cues from religious foundationsa and is now unfortunately rejecting all of those foundations and accepting what it says it wants by redefining what those foundations are. If you want to create a new kind of society, at least be honest enough to admit that’s what you want to do. Don’t take a society that is already esptblisehd and twist it about so much that it simply does not resemble where it came from.

Nowhere have I even suggested that society spring up over night. It’s not right to assume, however, that it has taken ALL of it’s cue from religions foundations (at least not christian ones). Consider ancient egypt, it spring forth from the tribes of Israel at one point, yes, but hardly reflected their beliefs. And as you say, society does not spring up over night, so a new society can not simply be created, as you say. It will always have roots in the past, but that does not mean it has to be exactly the same as in the past. Take medieval times for example. In this society, Catholicism was one the the three legs it was built upon. When the idea or monarchy began to fall, would you say that was “twisting” it? You use twisting with a negative connotation. It was changing. If you study history, american society is a direct result from all of the things that happened during this time, and yet or society does not resemble that.

It would not be completely changing society to allow gay marriage as it was to do away with monarchy.

 

[fix]

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

We believe it because it is true. There are many proofs Jesus is God. Again, those proofs are rejected by you. That does not make the proof wrong.

You will only accept materialistic proof. That is limiting and incorrect.

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.

Not sure what you mean by social, but we do not dissect out truths from each other as if they are all separate.

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.

That some limited deviations in how people came together may change is no evidence the very nature of marriage can be changed.

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.

Marriage is a natural institution, not some plastic object to be toyed with as you desire. Marriage will always be between one man and one woman no matter how any one society perverts it.

The state can claim direct abortion is not murder, but it is no matter how corrupt we become.

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)

Truth is truth. Reality is reality. People are confused, deceived, or whatever, but that does not change truth.

You still have not proved the very fundamental understanding of marriage should be destroyed based on your erroneous belief in moral relativism.

 

[fix]

Yes. That is precisely why we don’t call day care workers parents. We would never officially assign them parenting roles, give them parenting rights, etc.

“Fulfilling a role,” whether gay or straight, does not equal being a parent. We may need additional role models in our lives (for certain roles, including parenting), but we should not fool ourselves that we don’t really need a male and a female in intimate roles. Arriving at an unfortunate deficiency is one thing (by desertion, divorce, or early death). Institutionalizing a deficiency is something else entirely.

Excellent point.

 

[NoMoreGames]

We believe it because it is true. There are many proofs Jesus is God. Again, those proofs are rejected by you. That does not make the proof wrong.

Notice i said someting we believe, meaning I’m not rejecting anything. My pastor even stated that we cannot PROVE God exists, it is BELIEF.

You are really missing the fundamental difference between those two terms. I find that ironic because this whole things is essentially about redefining terms

You will only accept materialistic proof. That is limiting and incorrect.

Ok this explains your misconceptions. Anythign not materilistc is NOT proof. I’m not saying that non materilitic things don’t contribute to faith, they 100% do. But they contribute to FAITH, not PROOF.

I am sincerely asking you to stop talking to me like i don’t believe in God and that i’m out to disprove his existence. I’m not at all, it’s just how you’ve interpreted it.

That some limited deviations in how people came together may change is no evidence the very nature of marriage can be changed.

the very RELIGIOUS nature of marriage

Marriage is a natural institution, not some plastic object to be toyed with as you desire. Marriage will always be between one man and one woman no matter how any one society perverts it.

RELIGIOUS marriage will always be between a man and a woman. See my previous posts about how state and religious marriage are two different institutions.

You still have not proved the very fundamental understanding of marriage should be destroyed based on your erroneous belief in moral relativism.

You mean I have not proved why YOUR understanding of social marriages. But you’ve even defended that understanding doesn’t change truth. What if marriage is, fundamentally, an eternal bond of love between two people and up to now it’s just been understood differently?

 

[NoMoreGames]

Excellent point.

see the last post on page 23 and tell me your thoughts on that.

 

[fix]

Death is unavoidable, but it’s interesting to see you haven’t included divorce and desertion under the “institutionalized deficiency” category… According to your reasoning I’d have thought they would be perceived as such…

Civil divorce is needed at times. That is not contrary to the natural law. That is it abused, currently, does not make it wrong.

BTW, the abuses that we have today with marriage do not prove we need to add more abuse. How about we start right now and stop this gay marriage nonsense and work backward to correct the other abuses?

 

[fix]

Notice i said someting we believe, meaning I’m not rejecting anything. My pastor even stated that we cannot PROVE God exists, it is BELIEF.

Then you should ask your pastor to expand his ken.

You are really missing the fundamental difference between those two terms. I find that ironic because this whole things is essentially about redefining terms

No, you seem to be a materialist in that you think the only authentic proof is the one that you can see or smell or hear or the like.

Now, would it be reasonable to claim you should prove 2+2=4 without using math? I think not. When we prove the truths of God we do not use mathematical proofs. We use proofs like metaphysics. I suggest you look at things like the encyclical Faith and Reason by the last Pope.

Ok this explains your misconceptions. Anythign not materilistc is NOT proof. I’m not saying that non materilitic things don’t contribute to faith, they 100% do. But they contribute to FAITH, not PROOF.

See above

I am sincerely asking you to stop talking to me like i don’t believe in God and that i’m out to disprove his existence. I’m not at all, it’s just how you’ve interpreted it.

Then you accept God really exists. Great.

the very RELIGIOUS nature of marriage

Does that mean you claim it is untrue?

RELIGIOUS marriage will always be between a man and a woman. See my previous posts about how state and religious marriage are two different institutions.

Marriage is marriage. You can have a sacramental marriage, or not, but that does not make marriage anything we claim.

You mean I have not proved why YOUR understanding of social marriages. But you’ve even defended that understanding doesn’t change truth. What if marriage is, fundamentally, an eternal bond of love between two people and up to now it’s just been understood differently?

What if marriage is really a watermelon? Your question is not really meaningful. We know what marriage is from right reason, history, common sense, the Church, and biology.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Civil divorce is needed at times. That is not contrary to the natural law. That is it abused, currently, does not make it wrong.

BTW, the abuses that we have today with marriage do not prove we need to add more abuse. How about we start right now and stop this gay marriage nonsense and work backward to correct the other abuses?

The response right after this one states that marraige. Considering the first statement in this quote, I’m not sure f you realse how many contradictions that exposes.

If marriage is marriage, how can you feel that civil divorce is occasionally needed. The church does not believe or support divorce in any way. So assuming your were honest when you said divorce can be needed, and that you believe the church’s teaching, how can you not see the difference between religious and social marriage?

Side note: both the church and natural law have been sued as defence to forbid social (that is, not religious) gay marriage, yet according to you, this time the contradict each other. Interesting

As far as homosexual parenting being abusive, I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion, could you explain?

What if marriage is really a watermelon? Your question is not really meaningful. We know what marriage is from right reason, history, common sense, the Church, and biology.

You are once again comparing a concept to a physical object, they are not the same. You say marraige has been proved right by the following, I offer the following questions:

reason: Does love follow reason in the first place? Giving up your life completely for someone else? Assuming we’re referring to the same concept of reason, that does not work.

history: Has everything in history has been shown to be right and ok? See wars and epidemics.

common sense: see reason

the Church: is rejected by some people in society, so why then should a church teaching have bearing over someone who doesn’t follow it? A catholic does not allow Muslim beliefs to have bearing of your actions.

Biology: As far as biological reproduction goes, a couple does not need to be married for it to biologically happen. Marriage does not really have a connecting to biology, intact it kind of impedes it. Biologically speaking, the point of reproduction to to continue your line of DNA, the best way to do this is sharing with other forms of DNA, not just one, in order to produce at least a singe organism with part of your genetic line that will survive. Mating with only one other limits that chance.

And to prevent this from going off topic once again by responding to every point in your last response, and to halt attacking my beliefs (which you don’t even truly know by the way), I pose this question about truth and the difference between faith and knowledge. In a society where individuals are free to believe in a god or not, on what grounds can religious proof be used to control an individual’s actions?

 

[Squishy]

Homosexual couples should have the same rights as Hertosexual couples. If you have to do this in sociaty by somthing called marriage then so be it. They have just as much legitimacy to be recognized as any others.

Claiming that most Homosexual relationships are short and brief things this is no more true than saying the same of many more hetrosexual couples.

People are born the way they are. Im sure most Homosexuals would have loved to be normal and not have these urges for the same sex growing up but thats the way it is. They have the right to live their lifes in such a way that the state recognises them as life partners and they are accorded the rights of such a partnership.

You dont have to like what they do or even agree with it however you do have to accept it. Start taking away rights from people or not according them the rights they deserve is a travesty you may as well not accord people of a different political/religious/skin colour rights.

How would you feel if the state turned round to a catholic couple and refused to recognize their maggiage? Their is absolutly no difference.

 

[Sheena_Hartgill]

Perhaps my response is simplistic but I would consider love as being when we are most complete when we are with another. When we cannot imagine being without that person in our lives. When we stand together through good times and bad no matter what because we just are too close to be separated. Of course this could be expressed in other ways between friends and family however when it is between two consenting adults there is another spiritual togetherness that can be expressed physically. A marriage ceremony then is like any other sacrament recognition of what already is.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^^ except that a subjective claim of feeling “complete” cannot be the objective standard by which society creates and enforces boundaries in institutionalized partnerships such as marriages. Some men feel “complete” with several wives; others feel complete in their incestuous relationships with daughters or sons – substituting that child for a full, normal, healthy, relationship with an adult of the opposite gender.

(Yes, your response i.m.o. is simplistic.)

 

[Sheena_Hartgill]

When you talk of incest you are referring to a relationship based on abuse and force. Which lead to a feeling of shame and guilt. When I talk of two adults consenting to share a common life I am talking about companionship and care which build both in joy and freedom and a knowledge of shared life. I would like to know how you would define love.

 

[AngelAshley]

I have not been able to read this entire thread, it’s quite long. But I have written an article that deals with most of the issues surrounding homosexual marriage, and the misconceptions that the Catholic Church seems to have about homosexuality.

In fact, I have broken down the article at catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp and found some very disturbing things… I invite you to read my article and come to your own conclusions about homosexuality.

geocities.com/gaymarriage@ymail.com/

Please feel free to contact me if you have any direct questions, I will try to keep up with this topic too for additional discussion on this subject.

• Ash

 

[NoMoreGames]

I have not been able to read this entire thread, it’s quite long. But I have written an article that deals with most of the issues surrounding homosexual marriage, and the misconceptions that the Catholic Church seems to have about homosexuality.

In fact, I have broken down the article at catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp and found some very disturbing things… I invite you to read my article and come to your own conclusions about homosexuality.

geocities.com/gaymarriage@ymail.com/

Please feel free to contact me if you have any direct questions, I will try to keep up with this topic too for additional discussion on this subject.

• Ash

Very good anaylsis. I read the original article first, and most of my reactions matched what you had written. Regardless of which side you’re on, i suggest you read it (the analysis simply points out the parts of logic in the oroginal article that don’t match up, as well as shows that some of the answers aren’t related to, nor do they answer, the questions).

Just a comment on the first line of the paragraph that contains the original author’s point 67 (There seem to be good reasons that children need both biological parents.) Does that mean adoption will lead to disordered children?

And on the comment author’s point 48, in addition to the quotes: I know it was mentioned before, but the suicide and substance abuse rates is not elevated in a lock of “being at ease” with one’s self, but the coming out process (which is just ridiculous) and the lack of acceptance.

Also, I would like to point out the rhetorical trickery in the title “What stand should informed people take on same-sex marriage?” It makes it sound like if you take the opposite stance, you are not informed. It’s actually a very common rhetorical device.

And on the overall point that all homosexual are so promiscuous and “non sexually satisfied,” I know of homosexuals who are saving it for marriage just as some straight couples are. Homosexuality is NOT just about sex for everyone (but granted, it is for some, but so is heterosexuality)