Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[NoMoreGames]

Again, not a religion. To be a religion, some form of god-figure must be present.

Are you ignoring the point i made? Regardless, if you are, freedom of religion includes the option to choose no religion at all.

 

[CWBetts]

Are you ignoring the point i made? Regardless, if you are, freedom of religion includes the option to choose no religion at all.

But the minority should not force their will upon everyone else. The people have spoken. In this country EVERY TIME an issue comes on the ballot defining marriage as between one man and one woman, it passes. EVERY TIME SO whay cant the God-hating rabid atheists accept that fact? In this nation, we believe that two men or two women do not constitute a marriage.

 

[NoMoreGames]

But the minority should not force their will upon everyone else. The people have spoken. In this country EVERY TIME an issue comes on the ballot defining marriage as between one man and one woman, it passes. EVERY TIME SO whay cant the God-hating rabid atheists accept that fact? In this nation, we believe that two men or two women do not constitute a marriage.

First off, not all supporters of gay marriage are God-hating rabid atheists, that is a harsh generalization. Second, just because the majority is scared of a new idea, others should be denied rights? Even imprisoned criminals have certain rights, but two people in love can’t marry?

 

[CWBetts]

First off, not all supporters of gay marriage are God-hating rabid atheists, that is a harsh generalization. Second, just because the majority is scared of a new idea, others should be denied rights? Even imprisoned criminals have certain rights, but two people in love can’t marry?

When societies fall it is due to a moral breakdown. It isn’t fear. Its called “learning form the errors of others” And yes the vast majority of supportes of gay marraige HATE GOD. Many states have “civil unions” that give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Why so obsessed over the word “marraige”

 

[pathia]

When societies fall it is due to a moral breakdown. It isn’t fear. Its called “learning form the errors of others” And yes the vast majority of supportes of gay marraige HATE GOD. Many states have “civil unions” that give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Why so obsessed over the word “marraige”

Since when did four count as ‘many’?

 

[NoMoreGames]

When societies fall it is due to a moral breakdown. It isn’t fear. Its called “learning form the errors of others” And yes the vast majority of supportes of gay marraige HATE GOD. Many states have “civil unions” that give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Why so obsessed over the word “marraige”

No, not many states. And it is impossible for you to say that a vast majority hate God. You don’t know their hearts, not does it make your generalization any less hurtful to those who love (the opposite of hate) God.

 

[Bennie_P]

Are you ignoring the point i made? Regardless, if you are, freedom of religion includes the option to choose no religion at all.

For ones-self not everbody else.

The question of homosexuality activity being disorderd behavoir?Many in the medical and pscharitry community still believe it is, but the “gay” rights movement made its first move to attack that notion, which has probably done more harm to those that struggle with SSA, then help. Just for the fact they stopped all meaningful studies and/or dicussions in the medical and pscharitry community concerning the disfuncational behavoir. Leaving those which want real help no place to go to find understanding in their SSA feeelings, emotions and related disorders they may have as a result of acting out on those feelings and emotions.

Trying to normalize the behavoir may in fact be causing more pschological terror among the homosexual community with its false one size fits explanation of homosexuality and its causes, when in fact it is a combination of many factors unique to the individual. In order to stop certain barbaric practices of the past, the ‘gay’ rights movement has succeded in banishing many into a life of physical, mental and spiritual abuse, by those that claim they fighting for their rights.

This again is the elite vanguard (‘gay’ rights /GLBT movement) making choices for others, which amounts to tyrany of a minute minority(‘gayrights’ /GLBT movement) over those (all that may suffer with SSA) in which they want to label as the same as themselves in order to justify objectionable and damaging behavoir.

Although recent behavioral inventories of homosexual men have
revealed more anonymous sex than previously imagined, it is like the case of the Emperor’s new clothes: everyone sees the problem, but no one dares acknowledge the obvious.

The removal of homosexuality from the
*DSM *had the effect of

discouraging treatment and research. The bulk of early psychodynamic research and theory beginning with Freud indicated that homosexuality is not a natural, inborn condition. Yet the literature came to an abrupt stop when it became

“common knowledge” that homosexuality was in fact not a problem. This discouraged clinicians from communicating with each other, and from making presentations at professional meetings.

The silence among researchers was not brought about by new scientific evidence showing homosexuality to be a normal and healthy variant of human sexuality; rather it became fashionable not to discuss homosexuality as a problem any longer.

Other pro-gay researchers fear any inquiry into psychological causes would amount to a concession of pathology; after all, there has been no similar investigation of the causes of heterosexuality (Stein and Cohen, 1986). They have encouraged only the search for a genetic or endocrine basis for homosexuality, in the belief that such a discovery would once and for all resolve the issue of homosexuality’s normality.

We too consider it possible that there could be some predisposing genetic factors; but in this regard we see a parallel with alcoholism. Although there is now greater recognition of some biological predisposition to alcoholism, we continue to acknowledge it as problematic, we continue to treat it, and we still find the most successful treatments to be psychological, social and spiritual supportive therapy.

If there is not a stereotypical homosexual then why is it so important for the GLBT community to show hatred and destroy one of their own when he or she trys to seek help to deal with their SSA? You know when one becomes a heretic against “the” movement?

“I was born abnormal, and therefore I’m normal is not good logic,” Dr. John Shea.

 

[NoMoreGames]

For ones-self not everbody else.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. One person can choose to not have a faith, but everyone cannot?

The question of homosexuality activity being disorderd behavoir?Many in the medical and pscharitry community still believe it is, but the “gay” rights movement made its first move to attack that notion, which has probably done more harm to those that struggle with SSA, then help. Just for the fact they stopped all meaningful studies and/or dicussions in the medical and pscharitry community concerning the disfuncational behavoir. Leaving those which want real help no place to go to find understanding in their SSA feeelings, emotions and related disorders they may have as a result of acting out on those feelings and emotions.

Do you have proof the studies have stopped (this is an honest question.) Is it possible they continued, just not as vocal, and the conclusions they came to did not support your claim that it is disordered, hence you haven’t heard about them?

Trying to normalize the behavoir may in fact be causing more pschological terror among the homosexual community with its false one size fits explanation of homosexuality and its causes, when in fact it is a combination of many factors unique to the individual. In order to stop certain barbaric practices of the past, the ‘gay’ rights movement has succeded in banishing many into a life of physical, mental and spiritual abuse, by those that claim they fighting for their rights.

I don’t agree that people are arguing a one size fits all explanation for homosexuality, nor that the movement for equal rights is leading to more abuse? The movement it about acceptance, and against the abuse received from those who are scared of things they do not understand.

This again is the elite vanguard (‘gay’ rights /GLBT movement) making choices for others, which amounts to tyrany of a minute minority(‘gayrights’ /GLBT movement) over those (all that may suffer with SSA) in which they want to label as the same as themselves in order to justify objectionable and damaging behavoir.

If there is not a stereotypical homosexual then why is it so important for the GLBT community to show hatred and destroy one of their own when he or she trys to seek help to deal with their SSA? You know when one becomes a heretic against “the” movement?

There most definitely is a stereotypical homosexual, but in the same sentence you just expanded that stereotype to the entire community, which is highly inaccurate, you even said a minute majority are the ones doing negative things, not the community. Labels can be applied to everything, you probably do it as you walk through the store and pass by people without even realizing it, but those labels don’t change who people are. Just like you can call it gay, homosexuality, or SSA, it doesn’t change what it actually is. And as far as showing hatred against those who seek help for it, I think as a story from this thread has shown, it’s not about hating the person, it’s about trying to protect them from something that has proved to be detrimental.

“I was born abnormal, and therefore I’m normal is not good logic,” Dr. John Shea.

Abnormal is not synonymous with negative. Some of the most extraordinary people (scientists, speakers and religious alike) could be considered abnormal. And once again, it’s all how you define normal. Normal means majority, so in one way or another, we are all abnormal.

 

[Bennie_P]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. One person can choose to not have a faith, but everyone cannot?

Do you have proof the studies have stopped (this is an honest question.) Is it possible they continued, just not as vocal, and the conclusions they came to did not support your claim that it is disordered, hence you haven’t heard about them?

I just gave you a link. It is up to you check out all the validity of the opinions posted by the CSS group.

I don’t agree that people are arguing a one size fits all explanation for homosexuality, nor that the movement for equal rights is leading to more abuse? The movement it about acceptance, and against the abuse received from those who are scared of things they do not understand.

That is false argument, for people do understand what gay marriage is and is not. The only fear I have there are people that have come to believe it is normal to ignor the danger of such social experiments.

There most definitely is a stereotypical homosexual, but in the same sentence you just expanded that stereotype to the entire community, which is highly inaccurate, you even said a minute majority are the ones doing negative things, not the community. Labels can be applied to everything, you probably do it as you walk through the store and pass by people without even realizing it, but those labels don’t change who people are. Just like you can call it gay, homosexuality, or SSA, it doesn’t change what it actually is. And as far as showing hatred against those who seek help for it, I think as a story from this thread has shown, it’s not about hating the person, it’s about trying to protect them from something that has proved to be detrimental.

No I didn’t I accused you have labeling all those that struggle with SSA are all the same when each person is an unique individual and it is the "gay’ rights movement which denies people their individuality. To deny ones individuality is what is detrimental to those individuals and society. The hate you speak of is a self-hate many finds themselves wit when they make bad choices concerning behavoir.

Abnormal is not synonymous with negative. Some of the most extraordinary people (scientists, speakers and religious alike) could be considered abnormal. And once again, it’s all how you define normal. Normal means majority, so in one way or another, we are all abnormal.

Onl y if you make the claim one is normal by accepting a districtutive behavoir as OK.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I just gave you a link. It is up to you check out all the validity of the opinions posted by the CSS group.

I did, several times, and I didn’t see anything about underground studies that favor the view opposite of yours that you just didn’t hear about. If i missed it please copy the section. As a side note, you tell me it’s up to me to see if the sources are even valid, so I can assume you’re basing your argument off of sources that you don’t even know the validity of?

That is false argument, for people do understand what gay marriage is and is not. The only fear I have there are people that have come to believe it is normal to ignor the danger of such social experiments.

How is it a false argument? The original point that I quoted (stated by you) didn’t even have to do with marriage.

No I didn’t I accused you have labeling all those that struggle with SSA are all the same when each person is an unique individual and it is the "gay’ rights movement which denies people their individuality. To deny ones individuality is what is detrimental to those individuals and society. The hate you speak of is a self-hate many finds themselves wit when they make bad choices concerning behavoir.

You’re really starting to make less and less sense. All homosexuals are not the same, so I don’t understand how the desire to be able to marry strips someone of their individuality. Self hate only arises when gays are rejected from society and wrongfully feel that they are corrupted, so this “self hate” is actually inflicted by people who lack acceptance.

Onl y if you make the claim one is normal by accepting a districtutive behavoir as OK

I take it you mean destructive? If so, really how is a homosexual relationship destructive. Many couples exist who support each other better than an abusive straight couple. I really don’t understand you’re logic, you are saying, not proving.

 

[Joseph_Metrick]

The difference in views points is entirely based on someone’s belief system. How do you argue with someone that basically believes we’re animals with intellect? My body is mine to do with as I please. If I don’t believe God created me, and I am responsible to Him for what I do with this body, then I have no constraints other than what other people or society places on me. If I can “marry” a man why can’t I “marry” more than one woman? Why not a man and 2 women? We’re not hurting anyone, we’re all adults, and we all consent to “marriage.” If you want to go deeper, the laws of this nation were founded on Christianity, the humanist, socialist, animists and all the other “ists” believe they are superior to our God and we have no right to constrain them with our religious beliefs. When this nation no longer creates or abides by Biblical law it will no longer be a “free” nation. With God there is Heaven,without God there is hell. I’ld strongly suggest you get ready for hell, because it’s on it’s way.

 

[eichenb2]

First off, not all supporters of gay marriage are God-hating rabid atheists, that is a harsh generalization. Second, just because the majority is scared of a new idea, others should be denied rights? Even imprisoned criminals have certain rights, but two people in love can’t marry?

Not according to Natural Law or the Catholic Church!

 

[NoMoreGames]

Not according to Natural Law or the Catholic Church!

But the Catholic church doesn’t control the country, and natural law, as used here, is a religious concept, so your reasoning doesn’t hold up in the eyes of society.

 

[eichenb2]

But the Catholic church doesn’t control the country, and natural law, as used here, is a religious concept, so your reasoning doesn’t hold up in the eyes of society.

Interesting responce
I never suggested that the Catholic Church controlled the country. The question was asked why two people who “loved” each other could not get married. My response had two aspects.

1. The Catholic Church does not allow a sacramental marriage to any two people who “love” each other. So, if these two people are of the same sex and in the Catholic Church, they will never be allowed to married. As for the state and its role, this is another matter. However, Catholics who have a properly formed conscience have a responsibility to uphold Catholic values by there votes and Legal political activity. I know some may say that Catholics should not force there values on others. I would ask them if their Catholic faith is merely personally efficacious or is it True? Catholic Magisterium teaches that it is a mortal sin to engage in homosexual activity. If one dies in a state of mortal sin, they are in danger of going to Hell. If a Catholic knows this and believes it, it would be unloving, in the extreme, to not tell people engaging in this practice.
2. Natural Law is not a purely religious concept. It is a philosophical concept, roughly, that suggests existence of a law or design which is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere and for everyone. It is one of the major philosophical underpinnings of Catholic Moral Theology. Beyond that, though, it is predominant in most political though systems, monotheistic or not. This is due to the fact that the basis of Natural Law is rationality. Philosopher, theologians, and political thinkers for generations have thought, discussed, and sought to apply Natural Law by asking common questions and formulating responses based on common experience, scientific evidence, and history. Since, it appears that you need a primer on Natural Law; I will suggest “Aristotle for everybody” by Mortimer J. Adler and “50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It” by Charles E. Rice.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Interesting responce
I never suggested that the Catholic Church controlled the country. The question was asked why two people who “loved” each other could not get married. My response had two aspects.

1. The Catholic Church does not allow a sacramental marriage to any two people who “love” each other. So, if these two people are of the same sex and in the Catholic Church, they will never be allowed to married. As for the state and its role, this is another matter. However, Catholics who have a properly formed conscience have a responsibility to uphold Catholic values by there votes and Legal political activity. I know some may say that Catholics should not force there values on others. I would ask them if their Catholic faith is merely personally efficacious or is it True? Catholic Magisterium teaches that it is a mortal sin to engage in homosexual activity. If one dies in a state of mortal sin, they are in danger of going to Hell. If a Catholic knows this and believes it, it would be unloving, in the extreme, to not tell people engaging in this practice.

I know you didn’t state that, sorry for making it sound like you did. Telling and sharing beliefs is one thing, forcing them is another. I agree that you should vote with your beliefs, but at the same time should not limit the actions of others because of them. This is again the difference between projecting the message that you believe homosexual acts are wrong, and forcing them to accept your view because they are in the majority.

1. Natural Law is not a purely religious concept. It is a philosophical concept, roughly, that suggests existence of a law or design which is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere and for everyone. It is one of the major philosophical underpinnings of Catholic Moral Theology. Beyond that, though, it is predominant in most political though systems, monotheistic or not. This is due to the fact that the basis of Natural Law is rationality. Philosopher, theologians, and political thinkers for generations have thought, discussed, and sought to apply Natural Law by asking common questions and formulating responses based on common experience, scientific evidence, and history. Since, it appears that you need a primer on Natural Law; I will suggest “Aristotle for everybody” by Mortimer J. Adler and “50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It” by Charles E. Rice.

Natural law is not purely religious, no, but when you use it as a defense to forbid two men to marry, it becomes one. The philosophic natural law would argue that it would be against natural law not to marry another of the same gender, but to violate yourself at a principle level by living your life in a way where you are going against yourself, in essence, an inauthentic life (see existentialism).

As far as saying that allowing homosexual marriage would permit polygamous marriages, this is not true. By definition a relationship can only exist between two people, not even in the romantic sense. If you had a group of three people, there would be three relationships present, between A & B, between B & C, and between A & C. Not sure if i’m making my idea clear, but there is still only one relationship in a gay couple, making polygamous marriage and homosexual marriage non-synonymous.

 

[Jon_S]

I agree that you should vote with your beliefs, but at the same time should not limit the actions of others because of them.

?

Are you telling me that if I believe abortion is murder, I should drop my conviction to avoid “limiting the actions of others?”

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

But the Catholic church doesn’t control the country, and natural law, as used here, is a religious concept, so your reasoning doesn’t hold up in the eyes of society.

It continues to amaze me how man believes his secular law trumps Gods law, natural or otherwise. It will all be known in the end.

 

[NoMoreGames]

?

Are you telling me that if I believe abortion is murder, I should drop my conviction to avoid “limiting the actions of others?”

As much as the church tries to lump homosexual marriage and abortion into the same category, they are very different. Abortion involves two people, one consenting and one non consenting. Gay marriage involves two consenting adults and no loss of life.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

As much as the church tries to lump homosexual marriage and abortion into the same category, they are very different. Abortion involves two people, one consenting and one non consenting. Gay marriage involves two consenting adults and no loss of life.

Are you saying we have forced abortion? I don’t think so.

 

[eichenb2]

Are you saying we have forced abortion? I don’t think so.

We could argue with them, until the proverbial Cows come home. If, however, he does not follow the premises of Natural Law on which the Catholic Church is morally moored, then they will need to live with the simple fact that Christ, through the mouthpiece of His Church, declares, infallibly, that homosexual activity is objectively disordered and grave matter. Interestingly, though, adultery is also entered by two willing parties consentually. Should we then classify it as less morally reprehensible.