Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[buffalo]

buffalo;4798562:

Hitler was born Catholic but did not live the faith.QUOTE]

So I guess that “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” is really convenient fiction then. I guess that rule applies only when it makes the Catholic Church look good?

No, it makes the Protestants look foolish. They believe once I declare Jesus my Lord and Savior I am in. It doesn’t matter if I order the death of 15 million. I’m in. Catholics understand that faith and works and repentance are necessary.

I am a Catholic. If I fail the proposition how does it make the Church look bad? The Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners. Everyone in it is a sinner. We are here to be healed. We fail, but most get up and try again. Don’t you see the diff?

 

[NoMoreGames]

And back to the topic of natural, it IS natural to have pathologies. If it wasn’t would we have immune systems to protect us against some of them (biological ones at least). Maybe beneficial is the word you’re looking for? And just because something isn’t beneficial doesn’t make it wrong.

 

[buffalo]

And back to the topic of natural, it IS natural to have pathologies. If it wasn’t would we have immune systems to protect us against some of them (biological ones at least). Maybe beneficial is the word you’re looking for? And just because something isn’t beneficial doesn’t make it wrong.

But it can go against purpose.

 

[NoMoreGames]

But it can go against purpose.

and that makes it wrong?

 

[fix]

Maybe beneficial is the word you’re looking for? And just because something isn’t beneficial doesn’t make it wrong.

You are using the word “natural” to justify bad acts and physical evils like pathology.

We correct pathology whenever possible. We limit suffering when possible and when in accord with the moral law.

I marvel when people claim some bad thing is “natural” therefore acceptable and good.

 

[buffalo]

and that makes it wrong?

Absolutely, if it is against God’s purpose.

 

[NoMoreGames]

You are using the word “natural” to justify bad acts and physical evils like pathology.

We correct pathology whenever possible. We limit suffering when possible and when in accord with the moral law.

I marvel when people claim some bad thing is “natural” therefore acceptable and good.

so you’re saying all gays are suffering and evil?

Absolutely, if it is against God’s purpose.

But once again, that is from a christian standpoint, not a social one. Certain types of Hinduism worship cows. Is the nation preventing them from doing that? Nope, nor should they. Same situation with gay marriage.

 

[fix]

so you’re saying all gays are suffering and evil?

I am saying it is absurd to argue that simply because some action, inclination, or deformity is found to occur in nature in no way proves such things should not be corrected or should be seen as consistent with health or consistent with the moral law.

You may as well ask if all congenitally blind persons are evil or suffering.

 

[buffalo]

so you’re saying all gays are suffering and evil?

But once again, that is from a christian standpoint, not a social one. Certain types of Hinduism worship cows. Is the nation preventing them from doing that? Nope, nor should they. Same situation with gay marriage.

What is the purpose of worshipping cows? Is it against natural law? Does the plumbing work? Can it generate offspring?

 

[Bennie_P]

Wait. You’re saying that by gays wanting the right to marry, THEY are the ones trying to silence rights? How is that possible with their rights are the ones taken away at this point?

You say that they are trying to take away the freedom or religion, when the religion is one the forcing it’s beliefs upon the country. I really don’t follow that.

Yep.

Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of the process.
Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.
What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?
Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages - many of who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman…

Father de Valk publishes Catholic Insight, a Canadian magazine that “bases itself on the Church’s teaching and applies it to various circumstances in our time.” He is being accused by a homosexual activist of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals.
Yet following the example of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XV, Father has stated on several occasions that we must love homosexuals and treat them with the dignity due every human person. “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” Father told me during an interview. “Opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons.” This is the deeply-held belief of orthodox Christians that is now considered a possible hate act warranting state intervention. This is what happens when government agencies broadly define homophobia as opposition to any homosexual act.
Yet the complaint against Father de Valk is just one of several in recent years that has been pursued against Christians by Canada’s human rights commissions. In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus council over $1,000 dollars for declining to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian marriage ceremony…

Nor have Canada’s bishops been spared. Bishop Fred Henry, one of Canada’s most outspoken defenders of the sanctity of life and marriage, was brought before a human rights commission for upholding Catholic moral teaching. While the complaint was ultimately withdrawn — not by the commission, but by the individual who originally filed the complaint — Bishop Henry incurred thousands of dollars of legal costs…
.
Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America, was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn — a Canadian author who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never mentioned by name in news reports - referred to only as “a Catholic website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the website was Catholic Answers.

catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/

It is a fact of life to consider.

First step get it the law of the land.

Second step have laws against those that continue to oppose and speak out against immorality.

Third step the Church must go underground.

If it can happen in Canada… Mexico… Spain it can happen here.

The Church doesn’t impose it teachings on society, but is in step with the mores of the majority. But a minority is lying its way to put its agenda as the new morality. At this time the majority rejects it, that was what Prop 8 was all about.

The “gay” agenda is trying to wear us out, like a kicking screaming spoiled child does when his parents say no way.

But does the parent hate the child? Neither does society or the Church.

But some things are bad both for the child and in this case society and freedom.

You can fool yourself, but you can not fool me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Gay marriage, on the other hand, does not take away life nor limit the rights of others.

It violates the rights of children to have parents of two different genders – not two different roles, not two different personalities. Men are not women. Children have a right to be given a chance at the outset to experience an actual father and an actual mother. There is no substitute for that experience. In the event of heterosexual divorce, most children are still not ultimately separated from the opposite gender, but maintain contact or shared custody. But a child without that will never experience a true mother plus a true father (not a fake “mother,” not a gay person who cutely calls the partner “wife” or “husband,” as if anyone, including a child, is deceived by pretentious verbal engineering.)

The way the law works in this country is that certain rights imply other rights. Certain rights govern other rights, and extend rights. I would only approve of gay “marriage” if it could be assured that, unlike heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage conferred no rights of parenthood. That would never happen under our legal system.

 

[buffalo]

It violates the rights of children to have parents of two different genders – not two different roles, not two different personalities. Men are not women. Children have a right to be given a chance at the outset to experience an actual father and an actual mother. There is no substitute for that experience. In the event of heterosexual divorce, most children are still not ultimately separated from the opposite gender, but maintain contact or shared custody. But a child without that will never experience a true mother plus a true father (not a fake “mother,” not a gay person who cutely calls the partner “wife” or “husband,” as if anyone, including a child, is deceived by pretentious verbal engineering.)

The way the law works in this country is that certain rights imply other rights. Certain rights govern other rights, and extend rights. I would only approve of gay “marriage” if it could be assured that, unlike heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage conferred no rights of parenthood. That would never happen under our legal system.

Children have no rights in the US.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Children have no rights in the US.

1. State by state, they certainly do have legal rights.
2. Every person of any age has moral rights; some of these are universal; others are implied by our founding documents.

In addition, governments of states and country have a legal interest in anything which promotes the common good, including in the civil institution of marriage. As both marriage and parenthood are integral to the formation of citizens functioning within the state, the civil government is within its legal jurisdiction to set boundaries, incentives, and prohibitions.

 

[buffalo]

1. State by state, they certainly do have legal rights.
2. Every person of any age has moral rights; some of these are universal; others are implied by our founding documents.

In addition, governments of states and country have a legal interest in anything which promotes the common good, including in the civil institution of marriage. As both marriage and parenthood are integral to the formation of citizens functioning within the state, the civil government is within its legal jurisdiction to set boundaries, incentives, and prohibitions.

All these rights are trumped by the fact the right to life is denied them in the womb.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

** In the name of Allah , the Most Gracious , Ever Merciful **

Salaam/ Peace

… Gay marriage, on the other hand, does not take away life

We came from God & will return to Him . In this earth , we must not do anything that God did not sanction . He destroyed the whole city because of that sin . Why should we dare to allow others to repeat the mistake ?

nor limit the rights of others.

If all men become gay , how our unmarried sisters will have their own families ?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thank you, posters 36 and 37, for being utterly nonresponsive. We’re not talking about abortion. These posts are totally off-topic.

The title of this thread is “Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion.”

 

[Suzanne728]

Hi, Although I’m a practicing Catholic and often fall more on the conservative side of things on most all issues, I don’t agree with the position against gay marriage in the Catholic Church. I respect a Catholic’s right to have that position, however. I like that they are firm in their positions and hold fast to them. But on my own personal spiritual journey with God, after much contemplation and prayer, I have arrived at my own belief which is…

I believe very very strongly in faithfulness in marriage and monogamy. I believe that God should be center to that marriage. I don’t believe in promiscuity or adultery. I don’t believe in divorce. And I also believe this kind of marriage centered on love, faithfulness, and God can be achieved by a man and a woman, two men, or two women.

Something the Catholic Church does teach is that only God can judge. We need to remember this. Catholicism to me is centered around love- my love for God and my love for my fellow human beings. We may have different views at times because we’re human and no one has all the answers. But whats important is to treat everyone with love and kindness.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Hi, Although I’m a practicing Catholic and often fall more on the conservative side of things on most all issues, I don’t agree with the position against gay marriage in the Catholic Church. I respect a Catholic’s right to have that position, however. I like that they are firm in their positions and hold fast to them. But on my own personal spiritual journey with God, after much contemplation and prayer, I have arrived at my own belief which is…

I believe very very strongly in faithfulness in marriage and monogamy. I believe that God should be center to that marriage. I don’t believe in promiscuity or adultery. I don’t believe in divorce. And I also believe this kind of marriage centered on love, faithfulness, and God can be achieved by a man and a woman, two men, or two women.

Something the Catholic Church does teach is that only God can judge. We need to remember this. Catholicism to me is centered around love- my love for God and my love for my fellow human beings. We may have different views at times because we’re human and no one has all the answers. But whats important is to treat everyone with love and kindness.

I don’t have time to rebuttal the other comments at this point, but I would like to say that I think you match my view the most. There are damaging, childbearing relationships sanctioned by the catholic church, but a potentially loving and selfless one is denied because they can’t have children.

 

[Suzanne728]

One other thing… I just read some of the other posts…
I believe also, we need to respect everyone’s right to hold their beliefs. If someone holds an idea that doesn’t match up with ours, it doesn’t mean we should become upset. If someone doesn’t support Gay marriage, that’s their belief and it’s just as valid to them as mine is to me.

Also, people don’t change their minds much through dialogue. This is especially true with things like racism or discrimination. Experiences change minds more. For example, experiencing the kindness and goodness of a retired gay couple or becoming friends with a coworker of another race. Through experiences we come to change our minds and shape our beliefs in my opinion.

 

[cthulhubryan]

so you’re saying all gays are suffering and evil?

But once again, that is from a christian standpoint, not a social one. Certain types of Hinduism worship cows. Is the nation preventing them from doing that? Nope, nor should they. Same situation with gay marriage.

First. No Hindu worships a cow. Ok. Some forms of Hinduism believe that the cow is the highest form of reincarnation and that being in that state is the last marga before moksha.

Is there an organized religion that teaches that homosexual behavior is the preferred method of sexual intercourse? I know of none. If not, then the comparison with Hinduism is in error as you cannot equate religious ideologies with personal behavior unless that behavior is dictated by the religion.