Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter NoMoreGames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not only possible to be a monogamous homosexual couple. It is possible to be gay yet celibate. God made us this way, and God does not make mistakes. Therefore while we should stay celibate, we should not be considered mentally ill or defective. Those are human approaches to explain things. God sees us all as perfect in His eyes, simply because, again, he has created all of us as we are and he does nothing but works of perfection.
 
goofyjim said:
It is not only possible to be a monogamous homosexual couple. It is possible to be gay yet celibate. God made us this way, and God does not make mistakes. Therefore while we should stay celibate, we should not be considered mentally ill or defective. Those are human approaches to explain things. God sees us all as perfect in His eyes, simply because, again, he has created all of us as we are and he does nothing but works of perfection.
Click to expand...
No, God knows what He is doing, He doesn’t make mistakes, but humans certainly do make them. Otherwise, why confession?
 
elts1956 said:
No, God knows what He is doing, He doesn’t make mistakes, but humans certainly do make them. Otherwise, why confession?
Click to expand...
I carry the cross of same sex attraction. I have since as far back as I can remember. I don’t need confession for the way I was born. The attraction, no matter how strong, is not a sin and not a defect.
 
Squishy said:
Do not spout meaningless statistics please. Some gay people are pramiscuis (spelling?) But saying that the majority of them are is just not true. Many gay couples are together their whole lifes. Its absolutly no more different than hetrosexual people. Many of them sleep around as well. Should we use that as a reason to get rid of the institution of marriage?

On another note. Why dont the gay community get together and start their own religion. They can then have their own definition of marriage which the government would be forced to recognize. Then no one would have the right to complain.
Click to expand...
You think they are meaningless because they contradict the lie you have excepted to be true. I not calling you are liar, but delusional or atleast illogical in your thought process.

Of course it is different then heterosexuality, which is a made up word by the way, made up by the same person who invented the word homosexual, a sodomite who got tired of being called a sodomite.

To try to justify a bad behavoir by pointing your finger at bad behavoiral of another person, is not an argument nor a justification. All that sleep around are in error, and the truth is homosexual behavoir is a bad a choice as well as adultery, fornication and pedephilia. You are trying to make a sliding scale of acceptability that doesn’t exist. You have drawn the line where ***you ***want it.

If we accept same-sex marriage why not accept man-dog marriage? or man-boy marriage? Man-baby marriage? Where is the standard? Where is the line?

Should we also ***not ***discriminate against them? or are you just prudish bigot?
 
goofyjim said:
I carry the cross of same sex attraction. I have since as far back as I can remember. I don’t need confession for the way I was born. The attraction, no matter how strong, is not a sin and not a defect.
Click to expand...
My apologies. You are right, being homosexual and attracted to the same sex is not a sin. Perhaps it isn’t a defect, but I can’t imagine the terrible burden you have dealt with for so many years. My admiration to you for a good heart and a very strong will.
 
NoMoreGames said:
They would not be forced to do anything. They would just have to choose between governmental funding or not adopting to gay couples.
Click to expand...
No, they would be forced out of the business altogether. The state will set the rules and the agency will have no choice but to abide by them, even though they took no government money. Which is what enemies of the Church want: the want the Church to end its historical involvement in health and education.
 
elts1956 said:
My apologies. You are right, being homosexual and attracted to the same sex is not a sin. Perhaps it isn’t a defect, but I can’t imagine the terrible burden you have dealt with for so many years. My admiration to you for a good heart and a very strong will.
Click to expand...
The problem is this word “orientation.” The Church has adopted it, but I fail to see how it differs from perversity in general. Notice how sadists and pedophiles and transgender
types end up in the same political camp as gays. They are trying to get the public to accept as normal acitivities that have traditional been proscribed and practiced only in secret.
 
RobbyS said:
The problem is this word “orientation.” The Church has adopted it, but I fail to see how it differs from perversity in general. Notice how sadists and pedophiles and transgender
types end up in the same political camp as gays. They are trying to get the public to accept as normal acitivities that have traditional been proscribed and practiced only in secret.
Click to expand...
A relativistic society (that’s the US) practices relativism. The disjointed thought patterns of many liberals here in the states give verification of this. If there are no absolutes, there can be no wrong. I wonder how far this country will take this line of philosophy? To the edge, I believe.
 
RobbyS said:
The problem is this word “orientation.” The Church has adopted it, but I fail to see how it differs from perversity in general. Notice how sadists and pedophiles and transgender
types end up in the same political camp as gays. They are trying to get the public to accept as normal acitivities that have traditional been proscribed and practiced only in secret.
Click to expand...
There you go again. Associating even the orientation with such things as pedophilia. It is not perverse to be attracted to a fellow human being, even sexually. The perversion is acting out. It really sickens me how just mentioning in public that one is attracted homosexually suddenly brings the suspicion that one is after children. It is wrong to do that.
 
AngelAshley said:
At the constitution, It’s fairly simple:

uweekly.com/newsmag/02-04-2009/10216

I specially like the flow chart 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you for calling me an idiot.
I always so much love the wisdom of absurdity.:rolleyes:

Now getting back to reality…

Across times, cultures, and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance.

Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.

The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.

Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.

When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution ofmarriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost. (Forces such as divorce, adultery, shacking up, hooking up, the pill, abortion, three and half men, How I meet your mother, Seinfeid, Barney Frank, etc. etc. & etc.)

It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.

To uphold God’s intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

Source
 
goofyjim said:
There you go again. Associating even the orientation with such things as pedophilia. It is not perverse to be attracted to a fellow human being, even sexually. The perversion is acting out. It really sickens me how just mentioning in public that one is attracted homosexually suddenly brings the suspicion that one is after children. It is wrong to do that.
Click to expand...
Jim, I don’t think that is what he is saying, but it is apparant that those other groups are riding on the same train with the ‘gay’ rights movement. That scares the hell out of people ( a healthy fear & prejudice based on sound observation) and rightly so. Once we accept, as you mention to act on it is, the perversion of acting out on the actraction then it becomes harder to stop the train.

Hope you having a great day Jim. It is really nice here, get out and get some of that early spring weather if it has appeared in your town as it has here. Isn’t God great?🙂
 
Bennie_P said:
Across times, cultures, and very different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family. The family, in turn, is the basic unit of society. Thus, marriage is a personal relationship with public significance.
Click to expand...
The social functions of marriage have changed immensely across time, and yet society is still stable after all of these changes. Allowing gay marriage wouldn’t even change the function of it, just the participants. Gay marriage would not bring an end to the family.
Bennie_P said:
Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.
Click to expand...
not all relationships (romantic or not) in society are male-female, so I’m not sure how this is relevant. Men and women work together for each other’s good? I think it is more accurate to say that humanity works together.
Bennie_P said:
The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.
Click to expand...
and yet things like divorce and single parenting are supported by the government, so if its allowing some negative things, why not all?
Bennie_P said:
Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.
Click to expand...
it is not the government’s role to decide morals
Bennie_P said:
When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution ofmarriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost. (Forces such as divorce, adultery, shacking up, hooking up, the pill, abortion, three and half men, How I meet your mother, Seinfeid, Barney Frank, etc. etc. & etc.)
Click to expand...
So by changing a law to include more people, the initial law becomes weaker? When the right to vote was expanded by allowing more than just property owning men of age, was the concept of voting weakened?
Bennie_P said:
It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.
Click to expand...
so now justice justifies unequally?
Bennie_P said:
To uphold God’s intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.
Click to expand...
Christinas must, but this conutry is not ruled by Christianity.

This thread has shown me that the legality of gay marriage based on the concept of freedom of religion is not necessarily true. Instead, not affording the same legal rights to gay couples is a violation of the concept of the equality of genders and the role of the government.
 
Bennie_P said:
Jim, I don’t think that is what he is saying, but it is apparant that those other groups are riding on the same train with the ‘gay’ rights movement. That scares the hell out of people ( a healthy fear & prejudice based on sound observation) and rightly so. Once we accept, as you mention to act on it is, the perversion of acting out on the actraction then it becomes harder to stop the train.

Hope you having a great day Jim. It is really nice here, get out and get some of that early spring weather if it has appeared in your town as it has here. Isn’t God great?🙂
Click to expand...
So if I tell you I am a celibate homosexual you consider it healthy to have a fear that I’m also one of those others like pedophile, sadist, or something?:whacky:
 
goofyjim said:
So if I tell you I am a celibate homosexual you consider it healthy to have a fear that I’m also one of those others like pedophile, sadist, or something?:whacky:
Click to expand...
You know that is not what I said Jim, I was refering to the so called “gay” rights movement. Myself I really have no fear but a strong brotherly love for you…

Did you find time to enjoy the day?🙂
 
NoMoreGames said:
The social functions of marriage have changed immensely across time, and yet society is still stable after all of these changes. Allowing gay marriage wouldn’t even change the function of it, just the participants. Gay marriage would not bring an end to the family.

That is a delusion whith in your mind. Gay has nothing to do building family, and the opposite of building is destroying.

not all relationships (romantic or not) in society are male-female, so I’m not sure how this is relevant. Men and women work together for each other’s good? I think it is more accurate to say that humanity works together.

True, but just because one has a strong and loving relationship with a person it shouldn’t be considerd that in order for it to be full and rewarding only sex has to be involved.

and yet things like divorce and single parenting are supported by the government, so if its allowing some negative things, why not all?

Actually the goverment tries to pick up the peices and fails time and time again when marriage and families fail. That is why government gives insentives to men and women that do marry, fo rit is better for society to have strong marriages between men and women.

it is not the government’s role to decide morals

It is goverment’s role to enforce the mores of society, when it tries to change the mores of acceptable proper behavorial, society declines, crime increases, health suffers, and the government becomes over taxed as it continues to create a system of failure. As goverement gets bigger life at the bottom becomes larger and creating a class infantile dependents of government.

You are trying to make homosexual moral by imposing acceptance of “gay” marriage. So if your own argument concerning the role of government and morality is invalid by your own standard, judgement and words of your statement…

So by changing a law to include more people, the initial law becomes weaker? When the right to vote was expanded by allowing more than just property owning men of age, was the concept of voting weakened?

This is a apple and orange argument. Gays have the vote don’t they?

so now justice justifies unequally?

With marriage it has always been discriminatory, we don’t allow men to marry dogs do we? Infact to approve marriage to same sex makes the majority less equal and gays views and behavorial superior to the views and standards of Judeo-Christianity. With the change of the law you are telling us that our faith is false, our Church is false and our thoughts are false. Now how is that equality? You, in order to falsely proclaim homosexual is normal is delcaring the majority to be mental ill and declare that the majority is second class.

Christinas must, but this conutry is not ruled by Christianity.

This country’s mores and morality and its rule of law is based on Judeo-Christian values. And you want to say our values are no longer valid, but who are you to say your values are more important then the majority’s?

This thread has shown me that the legality of gay marriage based on the concept of freedom of religion is not necessarily true. Instead, not affording the same legal rights to gay couples is a violation of the concept of the equality of genders and the role of the government.

What religion do gays belong to? No gender is being denied a right. A behvorial is not something one is born with, no matter were your attraction come from or how it developed, it is a choice, not a God given right, but contrary to Natural law and/or purpose of function.
Click to expand...
What you had responded to by the way was, straight from the USCCB, word for word. So you are trying to say you are wiser then our Bishops, our Church teachings and all of the rest of us. You want us to ignore our faith, deny us of our rights to beleive and teach our children what we consider the truth and call it that a right? Sounds like facism to me…:mad:
 
Bennie_P said:
Jim, I don’t think that is what he is saying, but it is apparant that those other groups are riding on the same train with the ‘gay’ rights movement. That scares the hell out of people ( a healthy fear & prejudice based on sound observation) and rightly so. Once we accept, as you mention to act on it is, the perversion of acting out on the actraction then it becomes harder to stop the train.

Hope you having a great day Jim. It is really nice here, get out and get some of that early spring weather if it has appeared in your town as it has here. Isn’t God great?🙂
Click to expand...
Do you have any fear that by lumping criminals ( pedophiliacs, sadists) on to the same “train” as homosexuals would make it “harder to stop the train” rolling back the other way, such as justifying criminalizing homosexuality? Such as happened in Nazi Germany? You can stop the train wherever you want. (Just because you make beer legal doesn’t mean we have to make cocaine legal too)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...entration_camp_chart_of_prisoner_markings.jpg

In Nazi German concentration camps, badges were used to classify various types of prisioners. Pink triangles (5th column) were used to classify homosexuals
 
Bennie_P said:
What you had responded to by the way was, straight from the USCCB, word for word. So you are trying to say you are wiser then our Bishops, our Church teachings and all of the rest of us. You want us to ignore our faith, deny us of our rights to beleive and teach our children what we consider the truth and call it that a right? Sounds like facism to me…:mad:
Click to expand...
No, Facism is when you take away the rights of others who don’t believe the same as you (i.e. right to marriage)
 
CatholicLeft said:
Do you have any fear that by lumping criminals ( pedophiliacs, sadists) on to the same “train” as homosexuals would make it “harder to stop the train” rolling back the other way, such as justifying criminalizing homosexuality? Such as happened in Nazi Germany? You can stop the train wherever you want. (Just because you make beer legal doesn’t mean we have to make cocaine legal too)

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/German_concentration_camp_chart_of_prisoner_markings.jpg/180px-German_concentration_camp_chart_of_prisoner_markings.jpg

In Nazi German concentration camps, badges were used to classify various types of prisioners. Pink triangles (5th column) were used to classify homosexuals
Click to expand...
Do you really want to go there? For homosexuals were being persecuted by other homosexuals. Nor were the homosexuals ever in the sames class as Jews. Most homosexuals were not sent to the death camps, but into other types of prisons, and many even were released after serving their sentences. Most of the top leadwership of the NAZI party were either homosexual, or of some other sexual deviate. NAZIs didn’t usually waste their resources for killing the Jews and the supporter of Jews on non-Jews, unless the were considered a threat to their politcal power.

Please don’t cheapen the memory of the Jews that died by the NAZIs by claiming that homosexuals suffered as they did, for it was gay NAZIs that dreamed up the final solution…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top