Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter NoMoreGames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NoMoreGames said:
So the fact that at one point it taught the only way to have your sins forgiven was to buy an indulgence was not a mistake?
Click to expand...
The magisterium never taught such a thing. Some individuals may have abused their position, but that is no proof the Church taught error.
 
fix said:
The magisterium never taught such a thing. Some individuals may have abused their position, but that is no proof the Church taught error.
Click to expand...
Too many confuse the failure of men and blame the Catholic proposition for these failures. The Church is a hospital for sinners, where you go to get spiritually healed.
 
buffalo said:
Too many confuse the failure of men and blame the Catholic proposition for these failures. The Church is a hospital for sinners, where you go to get spiritually healed.
Click to expand...
Why is it not possible that the mistranslation and misinterpretation of the Bible’s mention of homosexuality is a failure of man?
 
friarjamesosf said:
Originally Posted by royal archer
“If you walked down the street with a pig with the name of a muslim leader listed on teh side of it, Would muslims have the right to be offended?”

I would think that would be a natural response. I really missed something in your original post - I don’t get what you are taking about here.
Click to expand...
Does an individual have the un inhibitable right to offend others?
friarjamesosf said:
“I didn’t say “all”. I acknowledge there are some people who are not offended by this activity. Just like I am not offended if you cross your legs and the heal of your foot is pointed towards me. However there are many who are insulted by this activity. In either case it is rude to act in an offensive manner around those who could be offended.”

I will then agree in the sense that if a heterosexual couple were
acting in an offensive manner in front of me, I might consider it rude. Are we not talking about common decency here?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately we are not. There are some who have decided to not engage in common decency and this thread is about should the government endorse and sanction that indecent activity.
friarjamesosf said:
"I was reffering to the term “Marriage”. However the terms “Freedom”, “Justice” and “Liberty” are also near and dear to my heart, especially as a veteran. As such I am offended when people throw these terms around lightly when ever they don’t get their way. "

Let me comment mid-paragraph here. In general, I agree with you - but the extent to which I agree would have to depend on what it means to “throw these terms around lightly.” We probably mean pretty much the same here.

My agreement to that would also depend on what specific things are meant when we say “when ever they don’t get their way.”
What about cases in which “don’t get their way” means that constitutional rights are being denied them. Such as slavery -
or women’s fight for their equal rights - for example, if I am being denied my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, would I being throwing the terms “equality” or “justice” or “freedom” around lightly if I say that those things are not being guaranteed
by the constitution? I hope you don’t think so.
Click to expand...
I am refering to those such as the individuals who want the government to fund their obscene “art” and when the governement cuts their funding they claim it as censorship or other violations of their freedom. There are many other cases where people want others to do for them and when they do not get what they want they cry foul. This is not the same as those who want to be left in peace and not have the government impose tyrany on them.
friarjamesosf said:
“These are all part of a orderly society. You can not drive the wrong way down a one way street and claim it as a freedom. Nor can you hurl insults at others in an intrusive manner and call it freedom.”

Let me ask you a question about an orderly society. If there are say, 613 laws on the books. Some of those law deal with real estate and a lot of them deal with proper sexual/marital relations between men and women. Of those, let’s say 20 of them deal with various immoral sexual activity that involve a heterosexual man and a heterosexual female. One of them deals with various sexual activity of two homosexuals.

Would I be out of line if I got insulted that it seems like the homosexual sexual activity is getting so much attact as immoral and anti-social, anti-family, etc., when the 20 heterosexual situations are not getting the benefit of that attention?
Click to expand...
In general I agree. The only possible exception is the degree to which an act is made public will impact the level of enforcement.
friarjamesosf said:
“Good point, let’s not stone those who engage in immoral activity. That doesn’t meen we promote the immoral activity.”

Personally, I am not asking you to promote that which you consider immoral activity. I am asking you not to deny the opportunity of such activity to those who do not consider it immoral.

Let’s not make claims that homosexual marriage will destroy the earth and “real marriage.” Let’s simply suggest that probably no one wants to have to watch some activity that is offensive to them. If we could stop our wild claims and bickering and agree to intriduce some basic human respect, I think we would be doing a very moral thing for all!
Click to expand...
If they want to form a union and not commit vulgar acts in public, then I see no reason why secular laws should stop them. However the laws should not stop people from shunning those that act in an immoral manner. Nor should the laws undermine deffinitions in place long before the governments were established.

A related case would be when the World Wildlife Fund forced the former World Wrestling Federation to change it’s name because the Wildlife Fund did not want to share innitials with an organiation which engaged in acts the Wildlife Fund did not agree with.
friarjamesosf said:
“Mathew 5:17 'Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them.”

…and he completed them by not doing what the traditional written law said to do. He virtually denounced that part of the law.
Click to expand...
God is above God’s laws, we are not.
 
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...
Gay marriage does limit the rights of other. Those of children who need both mother and father.

It is also forcing Christian adoption agencys to close down because they won’t adopt to gay couples.
 
Hope these verses explains you.

But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Matthew 5:32

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes. Proverbs 6:25

Keeping you from the immoral woman, from the smooth tongue of the wayward wife. Proverbs 6:24

For the prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread, and the adulteress preys upon your very life. Proverbs 6:26

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. Matthew 5:27

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. Romans 1:24

For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Ephesians 5:5

Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 2 Timothy 2:22

Why should I forgive you? Your children have forsaken me and sworn by gods that are not gods. I supplied all their needs, yet they committed adultery and thronged to the houses of prostitutes. Jeremiah 5:7

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I Corinthians 6:9-10

Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery. Hebrews13:4

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 1 Corinthians 5:9

But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 1 Corinthians 5:11

And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. Leviticus 20:17
And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless. Leviticus 20:19-21
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:17

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 1:4

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7

This is the way of an adulteress: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, 'I’ve done nothing wrong. Proverbs 30:20

If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers— would you now return to me?" declares the LORD. Jeremiah 3:1

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites. 1 Corinthians 6:9

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. Romans 1:27

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 1 Timothy 6:9

For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 1 John 2:16
 
I’m not sure how verses about adultery and prostration say that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed. Sure some homosexuals are very promiscuous, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t honest couples. And most of them just put down sexual immorality, not specifically homosexuality, and it’s possible that today’s term or homosexuality is not even the same one that is referred to in the Bible.
 
ClementRome said:
Gay marriage does limit the rights of other. Those of children who need both mother and father.

It is also forcing Christian adoption agencys to close down because they won’t adopt to gay couples.
Click to expand...
So single parents shouln’t be allowed children either?

And if Christian adoption agencies are funded by the government, they have to obide by the governments regulations. Same as schools funded by the government. If a child wants to start a Gay Straight Alliance at a school, or any other club, it has to be allowed unless the school shuts down all clubs.
 
So single parents shouln’t be allowed children either?

And if Christian adoption agencies are funded by the government, they have to obide by the governments regulations. Same as schools funded by the government. If a child wants to start a Gay Straight Alliance at a school, or any other club, it has to be allowed unless the school shuts down all clubs.
Click to expand...
and only those with the mark could buy or sell.
 
And if Christian adoption agencies are funded by the government, they have to obide by the governments regulations.
Click to expand...
rules that force them to act against their conscience.
Same as schools funded by the government. If a child wants to start a Gay Straight Alliance at a school, or any other club, it has to be allowed unless the school shuts down all clubs.
Click to expand...
This does not force anyone to act against their conscience
Click to expand...

only those with the mark could buy or sell
 
Benadam said:
only those with the mark could buy or sell
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how one is fair and one is not? It both cases, the service must be available for all if it is associated with the government. If the agency was privately funded, it could do as it pleased, same with private schools that receive no government funding.
 
NoMoreGames said:
I don’t understand how one is fair and one is not? It both cases, the service must be available for all if it is associated with the government. If the agency was privately funded, it could do as it pleased, same with private schools that receive no government funding.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.

If an adoption agency who only wanted to give service to gay parents was funded by the government they would be shut down as well.
 
NoMoreGames said:
I don’t understand how one is fair and one is not? It both cases, the service must be available for all if it is associated with the government. If the agency was privately funded, it could do as it pleased, same with private schools that receive no government funding.
Click to expand...
fairness is relative to the foundation of morality it serves. Utilitarian morality would be served by a different standard of fairness for example.

My point is that this nation’s moral foundation is shifting and the new foundation forces acts that vilolate the conscience formed by the former foundation.

The former foundation did not force acts that I can think of but only prohibited them. except of course minor conflicts with a misinformed conscience unwilling to give up life for a neighbor. Conscienteous observer.

This is a fundamental difference worth looking at.
 
Benadam said:
fairness is relative to the foundation of morality it serves. Utilitarian morality would be served by a different standard of fairness for example.

My point is that this nation’s moral foundation is shifting and the new foundation forces acts that vilolate the conscience formed by the former foundation.

The former foundation did not force acts that I can think of but only prohibited them. except of course minor conflicts with a misinformed conscience unwilling to give up life for a neighbor. Conscienteous observer.

This is a fundamental difference worth looking at.
Click to expand...
This is true. So all of the former foundations would simply no longer get founding if they did not adapt to the new system’s ideas. Gey marraige wouldn’t be forced on to people. Not every one would have to get marraide one one of the same gender. Busineese that rely partially on the governemnt would only have to recogonice these marraiges, not be foreced into marriage.

This is a fundamental difference worth looking at: Marriage wouldn’t be forced, but governmentally associated establishments wound not be allowed to discriminate based on the individual’s personal morals.
 
NoMoreGames said:
This is true. So all of the former foundations would simply no longer get founding if they did not adapt to the new system’s ideas. Gey marraige wouldn’t be forced on to people. Not every one would have to get marraide one one of the same gender. Busineese that rely partially on the governemnt would only have to recogonice these marraiges, not be foreced into marriage.

This is a fundamental difference worth looking at: Marriage wouldn’t be forced, but governmentally associated establishments wound not be allowed to discriminate based on the individual’s personal morals.
Click to expand...
Gay marriage would not be forced. Adoption agencies would be forced to put children in an environment they consider immoral. This forces them to act against their conscience. A moral foundation that becomes overshadowed by another that forces acts against conscience is funfdamentally different than one that forces no one to act against their conscience but only prohibits acts.IMO
 
Benadam said:
Gay marriage would not be forced. Adoption agencies would be forced to put children in an environment they consider immoral. This forces them to act against their conscience. A moral foundation that becomes overshadowed by another that forces acts against conscience is funfdamentally different than one that forces no one to act against their conscience but only prohibits acts.IMO
Click to expand...
They would not be forced to do anything. They would just have to choose between governmental funding or not adopting to gay couples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top