Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[royal_archer]

if it’s not in hte field of medicine, then any education isn’t applicible and thefore irrelevant.

Doctor is a title, but not necessarily medicinal. So if you have a doctorate in english lit, you are still a doctor but you can’t operate on people.

True, no one is forcing me, but that does not mean you will not do physical harm to my body. It’s none of my business if i let you operate on me without a lisence? I think it is my bussiness even if you have one.

I really don’t see where you are going with this, I don’t even see the connections at this point.

Your the one who has been advocating the changing of titles and the criteria one must attain to be associated with a title. So if I am not your doctor, why should you care if the government calls me doctor?

Are you starting to see the silliness of randomly changing the deffinitions of titles and terminology? If not why don’t you start calling me senator or congressman or officer?

 

[royal_archer]

It wouldn’t be ok, but they could if they really wanted to.

And you think the business would not be sued?

So if that is how you feel, I wonder: what really insulting term should we use when refering to you?

Of course you know we wouldn’t because that would be rude and in appropriate. So I can’t understand why you are so insistant on insulting others.

 

[friarjamesosf]

but to answer further, does a society deserve respect in regards of their ability to reason? Is it fair to force laws onto a society that seem unreasonable to it?

We seem to have left conscience behind – moral conscience that is.

On the point you raise though, in terms of society’s concept of reasonable law – it was only a few months ago that we had a government that was forcing laws such as the Patriot Act that many in society not only thought unreasonable, but even immoral.

So, my question is - if you have a situation in which moral and natural law would be denied, but the society deems it unreasonable, such as Civil Rights of African Americans, Irish Americans, Catholic Americans, and so on and so on, which SHOULD take precedence in your mind - social or moral?

 

[NoMoreGames]

And you think the business would not be sued?

So if that is how you feel, I wonder: what really insulting term should we use when refering to you?

Of course you know we wouldn’t because that would be rude and in appropriate. So I can’t understand why you are so insistant on insulting others.

There are indeed consequences to actions, part of freedom is the responsibility to accept the consequences of the actions you choose.

Honestly, I would be shocked if you could find a term to call me that is offensve to me.

Why do i insist on being insulting others? Making something legal that other people may not agree with is not insulting them. Atheists may find any church insulting to the collective scientific intelligence of humanity, yet they accept that people have to freedom to practice if they so desire. They realize that other peoples beliefs do not change what they are free to believe and let them practice as they wish.

 

[NoMoreGames]

We seem to have left conscience behind – moral conscience that is.

On the point you raise though, in terms of society’s concept of reasonable law – it was only a few months ago that we had a government that was forcing laws such as the Patriot Act that many in society not only thought unreasonable, but even immoral.

So, my question is - if you have a situation in which moral and natural law would be denied, but the society deems it unreasonable, such as Civil Rights of African Americans, Irish Americans, Catholic Americans, and so on and so on, which SHOULD take precedence in your mind - social or moral?

I woun’t say that people that it was immoral, just a huge invasion of privacy. It didn’t really effecy anyone’s morals…

You question is really confusing, so you’re saying that in the case of civil rights, it defies both moral and natural law? I know that’s not it so could you explain it a again for a simpleton such as myself?

 

[Bennie_P]

fornication is not a monogomus relationship between two individuals based on love.

The government has no authority to change what the religious definition of marriage is. They do however, have the authority to change the terms of the governmental institution called marriage.

The right of marraige is not a right based on love alone, marriage is more then just legalization of sex. Your concept on what the purpose of marriage is illogical.

civil marriage is a tool for the goverment to use to promote stabilty and the concept of the family and provide protection for children. It is for the goverment good that men and women should commit to each other in order to provide safety, stabilty and an enviroment which will promote the stability and productivity of it’s citizen and the off-spring of it’s citizens.

Gay marraige on the other hand underminds the concept of marraige for it only promotes the selfish aims of a couple which can neither produce new citizens nor be a model of stability. Despite the lies in which the “gay” rights movement tries to get people to believe, gay couples do not represent stability, nor productivity nor life, but an undermining of what the true intent of what marriage represents for a stable society in which the govenrment wants to promote.

Homosexual sex represents death, the culture of death, it does not reflect life for never can same sex marriage create life. Children come to Gay couples only if they take a child away from another, or produce it in a test tube. Even if one of the two in a gay relationship is a biological parent the couple can only have that child by taking from or dening the child from another.

A child in a gay marriage is deprieved of truth and conceived only through thief, deceit and/or both.

Gay marriage is really not about marriage, for the vast majority of homosexuals neither wish to commit to another for life, nor intend to be soley faithful to their “commited” partner.

Gay marriage is either a lie, or a delusion, or a mutitude variations of both. Those that claim that there is such a thing as “gay” marriage is either lying to the public about their true intent or lying to themselves, in denial of the confusion which they attempt to understand by accepting falsehood notions that to act of the various feelings or emotions which their bodies and minds have may manifest as a normal and proper action. But they do so without looking into the consequences of said actions.

Gay marriage is the last bearer to break in its destruction of the true concept of family. Family, the foundation of a good and strong society.

For government to change its definition of marraige is to make the final crossing into mass insanity.

 

[friarjamesosf]

originally posted by Bennie P
Regular Member Join Date: February 12, 2007
Posts: 2,355

Re: Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

---

Quote:

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.

It seems to me that the contributing factors to the situation in England are pretty much the same factors that you say gay marriage will cause.

If what is going on there now is the product of straight marriage, doesn’t that make gay marriage and straight marriage rather equal?

 

[Bennie_P]

It seems to me that the contributing factors to the situation in England are pretty much the same factors that you say gay marriage will cause.

If what is going on there now is the product of straight marriage, doesn’t that make gay marriage and straight marriage rather equal?

What is going on in England is the destruction of marriage for the lower classes it is almost non-existent. and that is why gay marriage will be the final nail in the coffin to forever destroy marriage. No one gets married in England any more, except gays.

 

[NoMoreGames]

What is going on in England is the destruction of marriage for the lower classes it is almost non-existent. and that is why gay marriage will be the final nail in the coffin to forever destroy marriage. No one gets married in England no more, except gays.

so aren’t gays they only thing keeping marriage in existence in England?

 

[Bennie_P]

so aren’t gays they only thing keeping marriage in existence in England?

See, I knew your idea of marriage is it is just a joke.

 

[elts1956]

We seem to have left conscience behind – moral conscience that is.

On the point you raise though, in terms of society’s concept of reasonable law – it was only a few months ago that we had a government that was forcing laws such as the Patriot Act that many in society not only thought unreasonable, but even immoral.

So, my question is - if you have a situation in which moral and natural law would be denied, but the society deems it unreasonable, such as Civil Rights of African Americans, Irish Americans, Catholic Americans, and so on and so on, which SHOULD take precedence in your mind - social or moral?

I find it very hard, in this instance, to tell the difference between Social and Moral.

 

[friarjamesosf]

Well, I found one law by none other than St. Paul that says:

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

Why does everyone always stop at vs 9. Read Vs 10 also.

Also, I believe one of the Church’s doctrines states in one form or another that marriage is for procreation. That any unnatural prevention of this aim is sin. Now homosexuals cannot procreate, so therefore they would not be fulfilling the laws of the Church.

Wow - my head’s spinning on that one. Church Law statesin its Canons that (my paraphrase) procreation is ONE reason for marriage. BEFORE mentioning procreation, the text speaks about the good of the couple, then procreation and education of children.

As to your position that since homosexuals cannot procreate they would not be fulfilling the laws of the church - I would raise again the issue of an elderly couple, one or both beyond the age of bearing children – or – having had one or more of the body parts required for bearing children removed would also not be fulfilling the laws of the church. So, obviously, if the ability to procreate is the issue - the church has allowed itself to legally witness a lot of occassions of sin.

As far as the other groups mentioned in 1 Cortinthians 6:9, I would be interested in knowing what some of you are doing to help save their souls? There are lots of people and traits/actions mentioned there.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The right of marraige is not a right based on love alone, marriage is more then just legalization of sex. Your concept on what the purpose of marriage is illogical.

whoa whoa whoa. I said based off love. Where did you get that i meant legalization of sex? One doesn’t even need to be married to have legal sex. Love =/= sex, why did you assume i believe otherwise?

civil marriage is a tool for the goverment to use to promote stabilty and the concept of the family and provide protection for children. It is for the goverment good that men and women should commit to each other in order to provide safety, stabilty and an enviroment which will promote the stability and productivity of it’s citizen and the off-spring of it’s citizens.

gay relationships have the same ability to be sable as one between a man and a woman. More on the producing citizens later.

Gay marraige on the other hand underminds the concept of marraige for it only promotes the selfish aims of a couple which can neither produce new citizens nor be a model of stability. Despite the lies in which the “gay” rights movement tries to get people to believe, gay couples do not represent stability, nor productivity nor life, but an undermining of what the true intent of what marriage represents for a stable society in which the govenrment wants to promote.

Ok, so it is possible to wrongfully enter into a marriage (which is supposed to be selfLESS) for selfish reasons. That is not limited to the gay community. As far as productivity? How does one’s orientation effect productivity? Gays (married or not) have the same capabilities to positivity contribute their talents to society. If you mean not being able to bear children, see next comment.

Homosexual sex represents death, the culture of death, it does not reflect life for never can same sex marriage create life. Children come to Gay couples only if they take a child away from another, or produce it in a test tube. Even if one of the two in a gay relationship is a biological parent the couple can only have that child by taking from or dening the child from another.

So you’re saying that adoption does not promote life? What’s the difference between having a biological child or saving one from a potentially dangerous situation?

A child in a gay marriage is deprieved of truth and conceived only through thief, deceit and/or both.

how is it denied truth? What truth exactly? It’s not like the child would think that only gay couples exist.

Gay marriage is really not about marriage, for the vast majority of homosexuals neither wish to commit to another for life, nor intend to be soley faithful to their “commited” partner.

Because unfaithful and “open” straight relationships don’t exist

Gay marriage is either a lie, or a delusion, or a mutitude variations of both. Those that claim that there is such a thing as “gay” marriage is either lying to the public about their true intent or lying to themselves, in denial of the confusion which they attempt to understand by accepting falsehood notions that to act of the various feelings or emotions which their bodies and minds have may manifest as a normal and proper action. But they do so without looking into the consequences of said actions.

It’s easy to say something you don’t understand is a lie. If someone told you that you that they could prove the love between you and God was a lie. You wouldn’t believe them. Rightfully so. Outside of love, it is impossible to tell those in the relationship what they are feeling with 100% accuracy.

Gay marriage is the last bearer to break in its destruction of the true concept of family. Family, the foundation of a good and strong society.

For government to change its definition of marraige is to make the final crossing into mass insanity.

And yet there are nations that allow it and are not in total chaos.

 

[RyanL]

NoMoreGames,

In case you’re actually interested in genuine knowledge rather than mere adversarial confrontation…which seems unlikely…here are a few articles to get you started with the anti-brainwashing:

The Dutch Decline - what gay marriage means where it’s legal

Feminist who finds your arguments unpersuasive and ridiculous

What happens when sex-as-procreation is isolated from sex-as-recreation - the Swedish progressiveness. Oh, and Norway, too. And Denmark. And the Netherlands. So yeah.

In short, and hopefully without being mean, you lack the factual and philosophical understanding to meaningfully engage this debate. That doesn’t make you a bad person, just uninformed. The fact that you respond as if you don’t care, however…well…perhaps that’s just my misunderstanding. Please do read the articles and feel free to visit the articles they link to…

…'cuz as it stands, you’re just kicking against the goad.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[friarjamesosf]

There are already protection in place to most employment situations and housing. The only legal way to bare someone in the area of housing is if the individual has felony background or is a registered sex-offender.

I would if I where you not worry about such descrimination to be protected by law.

As to employment in some cases discrimintion based on morality codes, such as an openly gay teacher (a promoter of an active gay life style) in a school run by a religious institution should be allowed, for how is a Church run school promote Church teaching if one of its teaches openly oppose it?

The last two retail companies I worked for offered the same benefits for same-sex couples as they did for married couples. I think your fears are not warranted.

How did you jump from “an openly gay teacher” to “a promoter of an active gay lifestyle?” How do you define “an active gay lifestyle?”

 

[NoMoreGames]

See, I knew your idea of marriage is it is just a joke.

It was a sarcastic comment. If i thought it was a joke why would i waste my time trying to hold an educated debate on the topic?

I don’t understand how gay marriage would destroy society. The same number of traditional marriage would exist, gay marriage would not prevent them from forming. Society therefore has the same amount to place it’s foundation, so why would it have any more chance of crumbling than it does now?

 

[friarjamesosf]

The whole purpose of words is that they mean something. If it meant nothing, then why do gay rights activists want gay union to be called “marriage” rather than “unions”? Apparently it does mean something.

I’m not sure, but I would think that gay rights activists want “gay union” to be called marriage for the same reason straight people want their civil unions called marriage – or the same reason that straight people do not want the gay people to have marriages.

 

[NoMoreGames]

NoMoreGames,

In case you’re actually interested in genuine knowledge rather than mere adversarial confrontation…which seems unlikely…here are a few articles to get you started with the anti-brainwashing:

The Dutch Decline - what gay marriage means where it’s legal

Feminist who finds your arguments unpersuasive and ridiculous

What happens when sex-as-procreation is isolated from sex-as-recreation - the Swedish progressiveness. Oh, and Norway, too. And Denmark. And the Netherlands. So yeah.

In short, and hopefully without being mean, you lack the factual and philosophical understanding to meaningfully engage this debate. That doesn’t make you a bad person, just uninformed. The fact that you respond as if you don’t care, however…well…perhaps that’s just my misunderstanding. Please do read the articles and feel free to visit the articles they link to…

…'cuz as it stands, you’re just kicking against the goad.

God Bless,
RyanL

Thank you for the material. I have a few comments about them, however. Would you prefer a PM or should i put them here in the morning?

 

[friarjamesosf]

For them it means equality.

Homosexual couples probebly dont give a stuff about god. But they do about the law, which affects their every day lives.

I am glad that you used the word “probably” – I personally know hundreds of gay people who love God as much as the straight people I know - whether they are an individual gay person or a gay couple as you suggest.

The claims that so many on here make about homosexuals and their “hate” relationship to God simply are not true. That does not mean that some homosexuals might hate God, probably because they have heard individuals and churches teach for years that God hates them.

Is it not still a direct sin against the 8th commandment to bear false witness against your neighbor??

Not THAT would be an example of what Jesus was talking about when he said do not judge.

 

[RyanL]

Thank you for the material. I have a few comments about them, however. Would you prefer a PM or should i put them here in the morning?

Personally, I find a PM best. Less distractions that way.

I do have a day job, though, so my responses will likely all be later in the evening. Hope that’s not a problem.

God Bless,
RyanL