Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[Benadam]

the marital bond is about protection.

In animals the pair bond ensures a safe environment for the male and female to mate ( they might kill each other without it) and for the ofspring if they require care.

The marital bond lifts that safe environment up to the human dimension. The purposes are deeply rooted. Same sex unions are manifestations of a quasipairbond. They do not flow from the source. To force them into a place they do not fit violates religious freedom because it forces acts that violate the consience formed from the religions that are cognizant of the marital bond as it really is.

 

[NoMoreGames]

To nomoregames - why are attacking everyone who are trying
to answer your original comments relating to the above. It
seems as if you are at war here.
Why don’t you accept what reasons are given here, rather than
trying to counter-attack very angle of a question or answer.
Don’t try to paint a bad picture of the Catholic Church regarding
this because the Church teaches the truth and will NEVER
BOW DOWN TO ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST ITS
TEACHINGS.
Just stop being a pain…

Am am not attacking anyone. In fact, id’s say there have been more personal attacks made on my beliefs (and i’ll state again, you don’t really know what they are). Why not accept reason that I don’t understand? Simple, I don’t understand. them. I make counter questions until I do. I’m not painting a bad picture of the church, in face the question was created to discuss the issue without incorporating religious beliefs (that’s what I figured social justice was the appropriate place) I don’t mean to be a pain, but honestly, if you see me that way, stop reading the thread. Nothing wrong with forcing people to actually explain their positions

Go ahead egg him. What you are calling intelligent is an example of what true bigotry is…

Gay appoligist come to Catholic answers and insult the Church, our Pope, the teachings of our Church and God himself. Totally ignoring the fact we are people of belief, which part of that belief is follow the teachings of our Church. They call us hateful, bigots, stupid and just plane dumb.

I’ve tried to keep it away from being personal, but this post really struck me in the wrong way. I’m not a gay apologist. I did not come to CatholicAnswers to insult the church. I’ve been browsing since I was 16, I just never made a used name until now. I have never insulted God. I have been catholic my entire life and love God with my whole heart. It is not fair at all for you to say that. I have never called anyone stupid and hateful. I realize more than most that Catholic care can be interpreted as hate by those who don’t understand it. There have been some really good points made here, far from stupid.

In other words they think they are smarter then us, our bishops, our Popes and Christ himself, declaring their misunderstood feelings (by themselves) and misplaced sexual urges (toward others) trump the 21 centuries of what the Church Teaches.

I have admitted when a valid point was made (many by KindredSoul). I have never claimed to be smarter the Jesus. I have simply posed questions about the basis for the teachings of the church. It is impossible to say that people have not misused the Catholic faith as a means of control through out history. Perhaps it is continuing and it is just hard for us to see because we are part of it.

They show how they are truly the ones that have a prejudice topped off with a purity of hate, so self assured they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

A lot of other nations already support gay marriage.

Would it be intelligent, or an act of hate if one of us would show up at your local “gay” bar start ranting about how stupid you are, how hateful you are, how dumb you are, etc, etc,?

I have never , nor will I ever attend “one of my gay bars” I think the side of homosexuality, heck even humanity, that those places display are disgusting and degrading. And none of my posts have said anything along the lines of “Catholics are hateful and stupid.” They have all been very well thought out ideas relating to a response by another poster.

Go ahead and cheer on the hateful rants, but be assured it is far from being initellgent, it is more like a NAZI showing up at Temple berating the rabbi just before he leads the assembly off to be shot.

I really don’t remember having a hateful rant. Can you show me where i made one? Comparing me to a nazi about to assassinate a congregation? I really don’t see the connection.

Debate over go home… or shoot us.

If it is for you, then simply stop posting. No one is forcing you to look at this thread. There are still some areas I have questions aobut, and as long as there are helpful people willing to answer them then I’ll keep asking.

You entire post is based on a stereotype of what you think I am. I state again, how do you know i’m not just challenging people to learn how to defend their beliefs? And in a way that can stand up in a society that does not bow to the same God we do.

 

[NoMoreGames]

It is society in which we must protect, and the first line of defense is protecting the concept of family. Accepting “Gay” marriage is corrupting the idea of what a familiy is thus putting all of society in danger. Even putting your basic rights you share with each and everyone else in society into danger.

When the concept of a democracy sprung up, don’t you think there were defenders who felt the need to protect the concept of government (referring to monarchy)? Democracy is unarguably different then monarchy, but that doesn’t mean it is not ok. Society is still strong in the nations that allow gay marriage, so I’m not sure how allowing it puts society in danger.

The Church doesn’t tell anyone which party to vote for, but it does tell which issues to defend and which to oppose. And it is very clear what the Church teachings concerning marriage are. Catholics are to defend traditional marriage, not just within the concept of their own marriages, but in the voting booth and with other politcal actions.

I remember sitting in mass the Sunday before the election listening to a letter from the bishop saying that Catholics were morally obliged to vote against certain issues (listening in between the lines, it said we had to vote republican). I’m not saying it’s wrong for them to do that.

The Church does not promote hate of homosexuals, but what you call discrimination against same-sex couples is just that, but discriminition is not an intrinsic evil. In many cases, and this is one, it is a necessary defense mechanism to protect your family, your community and society as a whole.

Wow, i never suggested that they did. There are better ways to protect then discrimination (which can occasionally be hateful, not saying that when the church does it it is). Once again, society has not crumbled where gay marriage is legal. What exactly does society need protection from?

You think many of us don’t have proper understand of homosexuality, but many of us we know very well the danger one puts themselves, their love ones and society in when they act out on thier same-sex attraction, (as well as others that act outside of the marriage bed) for it takes detached observers to see the problems and make sound judgements on its instinisic worth or danger to society as a whole.

But couldn’t it just necessarily take an insider to see the good in it? I’m not condone promiscuity; in fact I despise it, so no, it doesn’t take an “outsider” to see the dangers in that. Marriage is not about promiscuity though, is it?

Personally, I trust that celibate old man in Rome and his fellow Bishops a whole lot more then persons that define and identify themselves mainly by their sexual urges or by their supporters that are afraid to hurt other’s feelings, or afraid of being accused falsely as being hateful by telling them the truth.

I really don’t think it’s fair to say gays mainly define themselves by their sexuality. Take a look at this, there is a lot of truth in it.

If you break up the quoteed text its a lot easier to respond to. Oh, and I though the debate was over?

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The Truth is simple. The Liar would have us spin a monstrous web and laugh as it watches us trip over our own words trying to be clever all while sowing the seeds of Lies and doubt. The Church has He who is Truth with His infallible teachings by His infallible Teacher. Anything outside Truth is Lies.

Pray that Truth be revealed and made present to those who retain an obstinate doubt.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The Truth is simple. The Liar would have us spin a monstrous web and laugh as it watches us trip over our own words trying to be clever all while sowing the seeds of Lies and doubt. The Church has He who is Truth with His infallible teachings by His infallible Teacher. Anything outside Truth is Lies.

Pray that Truth be revealed and made present to those who retain an obstinate doubt.

I think we would both agree that God is love, so where true honest love is, so is God.

 

[Mike_Dye]

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.

Why would you expect Catholics or followers of Christ in other faiths to accept an anti-biblical premise. Gay Unions will never ever be accepted by the Catholic Church… simply because it cannot be. Sorry but you are appealing to the wrong venue.

 

[JuneBug72]

Why would you expect Catholics or followers of Christ in other faiths to accept an anti-biblical premise. Gay Unions will never ever be accepted by the Catholic Church… simply because it cannot be. Sorry but you are appealing to the wrong venue.

Actually there are Christians who would accept gay unions.

 

[RyanL]

Actually there are Christians who would accept gay unions.

There are also Christians who would accept priestesses, Christians who would accept abortion, Christians who would accept premarital sex, Christians who reject the divinity of Christ (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Christians who assert their own divinity (Mormons)…

There are “Christians” who accept all sorts of silly things. The Catholic Church is not one of those groups. Her teachings are not “reformable” because she passes on only what she has received – she does not presume the authority to correct the teachings she professes come from Christ and the Apostles.

SO…wrong tree.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

I think we would both agree that God is love, so where true honest love is, so is God.

Um…sorta.

Ever read Lolita?

There’s true honest love and there’s true honest love. At its center, the love between a husband and wife mirrors the inner life of the Most Holy Trinity. Can’t say the same for same sex couples. This doesn’t mean it’s not love, just that it’s not properly ordered love…properly ordered love, btw, meaning Christologically centered love.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[AliciaCL]

I gave a very well researched explanation of the Biblical references to homosexuality on the previous pages. if you want, i can write it all out again but what it really comes down to is this: I was told i rejected valid arguments because i didn’t agree with them (which is not necessarily true, i was just bringing up counter points). Similarly, you are rejecting a logical and well explained reason simply because you don’t agree with it.

Please, DO, enlighten us with your reasoned, logical presentation of why and how the Bible supports the position that homosexual acts are moral. I’m all eyes and ears. Here’s your big chance.

 

[Bennie_P]

When the concept of a democracy sprung up, don’t you think there were defenders who felt the need to protect the concept of government (referring to monarchy)? Democracy is unarguably different then monarchy, but that doesn’t mean it is not ok. Society is still strong in the nations that allow gay marriage, so I’m not sure how allowing it puts society in danger.

When do you think Democracy sprung? Besides America was not established as a “democracy” but a republic. England though they had a King was ruled by common law and function as a democracy. The King had to abide by the common law and ruled as long as he had the support of the parliament. The revolt in American was about economic freedom, not sexual freedom. The founders of this Nation still had a sense about them concerning morality based on Judea-Christianity and if they thought such silliness as the government protecting immorality they would have put in the constitution protections to safe guard the basic structure of the family. For family is the base, the foundation of a strong society. If you would open your eyes you would see where “gay” marriage is legalized, society has in fact on a slow burn and is creating its own hell. I read stories daily where priest and ministers are persecuted for teaching their congregations teachings on morality, being brandied as speaking hate speech. It isn’t just about “gay” marriage, but definition of what makes a family and why it is important.

In England among the lower economic classes, family structure has all but died away. Sexual morality is laughed, as teenage pregnancies continues to increase, where now we have single motherhood had levels never dreamed of 30 years ago. Single motherhood is now more considered the norm and into the third and fourth generation of children being raised with fathers. Young women many before they leave adolescents have two or three children with each having different fathers. Children have become at risk to higher levels of violence, drug addiction, child abuse and neglect which even in the worst ‘ghettos” of America do not experience. This has gone along with the ever increasing idea that sexual morality is what one claims it to be. To continue to lower the idea of moral standards, instead of promoting a return to higher standards will only create such un-families and homes of despair. And that is what ‘gay’ marriage will do to a society. Make mockery of family, knocking down the foundation of what makes a society strong. You need to truly step back, lay the propaganda and truly do some independent research. Myself I have lived the life of liberal activist, I have been to Europe and what the conclusions I have come to is the family is the foundation of society and those that come from strong families have a better chance of overcoming any disadvantage. And those that don’t have a strong family but have strong families to look at for the ideal to strive for, tend to have hope to break cycles of despair. Your proposal is a danger for it provides no hope.

I remember sitting in mass the Sunday before the election listening to a letter from the bishop saying that Catholics were morally obliged to vote against certain issues (listening in between the lines, it said we had to vote republican). I’m not saying it’s wrong for them to do that.

Maybe that is because at the time what people of the other parties are offering contradicts Church teaching, which is not the fault of the Church but the politician’s positions. Myself, I don’t see either party has promoting all what the Church teaches. But on the issues which promote life and the strength of family as a Catholic if the politician happens to be a Republican then he/she will get my vote. Have you every wonder why Republican Party members (not the party leaders for the Democrats party leaders tend to be rich elites) tend to more wealthy? Could it be they have strong family values, which make for a more stable life in general? Which one result is a tendacy to be more ecomonical stabled, as oppose to endless cycle of poverty we found among those theat have come to beleive that the goverment should provide their means of livelyhood? Not to say we should not take care the widows and orphans as well as the disabled, for I truly believe we must.

Myself, I am product of parents which were of the laboring class and union members which never made it past or far past the poverty level. At the age of 12 I become fatherless, but my widowed mother still held to idea of strong family values. From the parents of which only had only a Jr. High school education, I was the generation after 10 generations of Americans that went to college and earned a degree. So I am far from being a Republican elitist. I am not registered as either a Republican nor a Democrat.

 

[Bennie_P]

Continued…

Wow, i never suggested that they did. There are better ways to protect then discrimination (which can occasionally be hateful, not saying that when the church does it it is). Once again, society has not crumbled where gay marriage is legal. What exactly does society need protection from?
Once I again discrimination is not an intrinsic evil. We discriminate by law against many forms of unacceptable marriage arrangements. The gay rights movement trying to tie this issue in with the past discrimination against African Americans is illicit and is rejected by the majority of African-Americans and other minorities. What we need protection from is continue mockery and degeneration of the family. The family is the backbone of a strong society. And where homosexuality, by government fiat, considered being a protected class, the Church is persecuted and forced by law to accept within its own boundaries a lie which it is silenced to speak out against. Society losses it’s freedom of Speech and freedom of Religion.

But couldn’t it just necessarily take an insider to see the good in it? I’m not condone promiscuity; in fact I despise it, so no, it doesn’t take an “outsider” to see the dangers in that. Marriage is not about promiscuity though, is it?

Insider have spoken against, yet are demonized by those that refuse to see what they came to understand. To promote the breakdown of the family and redefining the family is condoning promiscuity, by default. The statistics concerning homosexual behavior, (as well as other non-traditional sexual attitudes) show that promiscuity is more the rule then the exception. There are other means for the small number of “gays” to protect themselves legally concerning property rights shared among themselves. But the vast of majority of “gays” have no reason to promote gay marriage but for the reason to silence any discussion of the morality or immorality of homosexual behavior. And it is intellectually dishonest not to admit that, or one has to be totally blind to that reality. It is either a lie to deny it or one has to be immersed in totally denial not see it.

I really don’t think it’s fair to say gays mainly define themselves by their sexuality. Take a look at this, there is a lot of truth in it.

Not all do, but the “gay” rights movement is just that a movement defined solely on the sexuality of the individual. In the civil rights movement it was not just about the individual, but also about the future of the individual’s children and their children and society as whole. The so called ‘gay’ rights movement cannot not say that…

If you break up the quoteed text its a lot easier to respond to. Oh, and I though the debate was over?
I like to make you work at it, it helps you to think deeper and maybe digest what I am trying to express.

Your not going to change my mind, but I prayed about it and He(God) told not to give up on you, for He isn’t finished with you yet.

 

[Qhua]

Is this serious or sarcastic?

Sarcastic dude. I love this country (USA) and the premise on which it was founded.

But I am serious about the comparison.

My Church - Does not allow worship of Satan
Church across the Street - Allows worship of Satan

That’s what being an American (Catholic or Non-Catholic) is all about.

===The same rules should apply to Gay Marriages.

My Church - Does not allow Gay Marriage ceremonies
Church across the Street - Allow Gay Marriage ceremonies

That’s what being an American (Catholic or Non-Catholic) is all about.

---

Or even more simply put:

Worship Satan = Sin
Gay Marriage = Sin

Why allow one, but not the other?

 

[RyanL]

Worship Satan = Sin
Gay Marriage = Sin

Why allow one, but not the other?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but people are free to play make believe all they want, whether at your church across the street or otherwise. Also, there are limits to what kinds of sacrifices any particular religion can perform in this country…so I’m not sure that’s quite what you had in mind.

Rather, the question has to do with whether or not the government has the obligation to recognize it. Without a specific, well-defined interest…I don’t see the need. I tried pushing for that well-defined interest from NMG and got vague platitudes about promoting love – which isn’t the government’s job any more than “promoting nice.”

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Qhua]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but people are free to play make believe all they want, whether at your church across the street or otherwise.

Agreed

Also, there are limits to what kinds of sacrifices any particular religion can perform in this country…so I’m not sure that’s quite what you had in mind.

As there should be. I was thinking of worshipping Satan in the the simplest sense of just praying to him.

Rather, the question has to do with whether or not the government has the obligation to recognize it. Without a specific, well-defined interest…I don’t see the need.

What is the government’s well-defined interest is recognizing heterosexual marriages?

I would imagine that most well-defined interest for recognizing heterosexual marriages can be applied to gay marriages… except for the biologically inability to produce offsprings.

But then, barren women and Men with low sperm counts shouldn’t be allowed to get married either then. I think we have tests for these nowadays. Should we reinstate the old blood work test and substitute it for the “Ability to have babies test”?

I tried pushing for that well-defined interest from NMG and got vague platitudes about promoting love – which isn’t the government’s job any more than “promoting nice.”

Agreed. Love can happen with or without a legal document stating that you are married. LOL Heck, aren’t most running jokes about marriage surrounding the issue of unhappily married couples?

 

[Qhua]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but people are free to play make believe all they want, whether at your church across the street or otherwise.

So why not let them make believe they are married?

 

[magdelaine]

So why not let them make believe they are married?

They already can! Just don’t expect society to make it a legally recognized institution.

 

[Qhua]

They already can! Just don’t expect society to make it a legally recognized institution.

Actually, I do expect society will eventually recognize it. But that’s not my point.

My point is that it is puzzling how we can live in the greatest country in the world, founded on the premise of Freedom Religion and pursuit of happiness, disallow gay marriages?

 

[magdelaine]

Actually, I do expect society will eventually recognize it. But that’s not my point.

My point is that it is puzzling how we can live in the greatest country in the world, founded on the premise of Freedom Religion and pursuit of happiness, disallow gay marriages?

Please re-read RyanL’s post on the role of government and discrimination. It’s just brilliant and already answers your question.

 

[Qhua]

Please re-read RyanL’s post on the role of government and discrimination. It’s just brilliant and already answers your question.

Just read it! Thanks for the reference.

Rather, the government’s job is (or at least, should be) to promote physical security (police, fire, military, etc.), manage the infrastructure (taxes, roads, power, etc.) and otherwise stay out of things. Marriage falls into under both categories, as we need future citizens for either categories to last long. That’s the government’s ONLY interest in marriage – making more citizens. It’s not about “promoting love” or “promoting nice” or even “promoting equality,” or pretty much any other platitude you’re liable to come up with. The old and the infertile are allowed to marry because (1) the fertile octogenarian (google it) is a longstanding legal concept that (with modern science) makes more and more sense (if you call it that) and (2) performing fertility tests has historically been impossible and is otherwise highly invasive.

I agree with RyanL. To believe the government is here to protect equality is a bit naive.

And although I see truths in the statement about baby making, I’m still not 100% sold. If that’s the case, why not make the actual live baby, the marker of a marriage? Forget a marriage license, make a baby!

And once you have a baby (with the accepted paternity + maternity DNA testing of the baby… cuz we don’t want to create a baby market out there), then as the parents, you can legally get married.

And if you don’t have a baby for proof of your baby making prowess, then you shouldn’t be allowed to get married. And if you can make babies but choose not to, oh well, no marriage for you either!

I don’t mean to divert this thread so I’ll stop.

Good stuff!