Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[NoMoreGames]

But forcing me to act a certain way or preventing me from acting a certain way in my day to day activities isn’t, again, the only way to infringe on the free practice of my religion (as I’ve covered in previous posts). And that’s the point here: Whether it infringes on my “day to day” practice of religion or just in some other, less easily detectable way, it’s still a violation of my first amendment rights either way.

I understand that, the purpose of that post was to clarify my meaning of acting so that your response would focus on the content rather than the words, but I see how well that worked Look for my post about a compromise (though not likely to happen) and tell me your thouhgts.

If the topic were slavery or teaching Nazi propaganda in schools, though, this argument wouldn’t hold water, would it? You wouldn’t just throw up your hands and say, “Oh, well, lost the vote, I guess I’ve done my bit.”

Citizens of a democracy should not be expected to act differently about issues important to them. I don’t agree with people pushing for gay marriage, but I can’t expect them to throw up their hands and give up. Instead, we continue to have a public discussion, letting everyone be heard, and hope that the right always prevails.

That post wasn’t at all about either side backing down, just me asking questions to better understand how a law could prevent you from fully living your faith.

Royal archer, most of your points still use religion as a basis (homosexulaity being a disorder) and a vague refrence to natural law, so if you can’t keep to the topic at hand. please back down.

As for you saying the definition of marriage, look back a few pages and read part 2 of the definition. Also notice that is says “by law” in the first part. You logic is circular, the law is marriage is between man a a woman because that’s the definition, but the definition is that it is between a man and a woman based off law.

 

[royal_archer]

…
.

Royal archer, most of your points still use religion as a basis (homosexulaity being a disorder) and a vague refrence to natural law, so if you can’t keep to the topic at hand. please back down.

…

The topic includes Freedom of Religion. The members of my religion have the right to practice our religion with out you or others publicly maligning it. How would you feel if we created an organization called the rainbow coalition and then used that organization to promote something you felt was highly offensive? What if we were to take other terms that you feel describe you and promote those terms as being descriptive of something you find disgusting? How would you feel if we promoted hate speach against you? The problem is that the gay marriage agenda seeks to push it’s agenda with out regards to the religious freedom of others in society.

 

[KindredSoul]

I understand that, the purpose of that post was to clarify my meaning of acting so that your response would focus on the content rather than the words, but I see how well that worked Look for my post about a compromise (though not likely to happen) and tell me your thouhgts.

Will do. As there are pages upon pages in this thread, could you tell me which number it is?

I’ll read it and let you know my thoughts later, my friend. For now, I’m gonna call it a night.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The topic includes Freedom of Religion. The members of my religion have the right to practice our religion with out you or others publicly maligning it. How would you feel if we created an organization called the rainbow coalition and then used that organization to promote something you felt was highly offensive? What if we were to take other terms that you feel describe you and promote those terms as being descriptive of something you find disgusting? How would you feel if we promoted hate speach against you? The problem is that the gay marriage agenda seeks to push it’s agenda with out regards to the religious freedom of others in society.

You’re talking to me as if I am an anti-Catholic gay pride activist. There were a few pages of honest, non-personal dialogue on the topic i created this thread for while you were absent and I would like it to return to that. I will however respond to your relevant points

I don’t think it’s right to say the gay marriage agenda. Sure there may be those who push certain aspects and are very vocal about it, but not all who support it are disrespectful and obnoxious, or even want the same things. The way those people are going about it is just as wrong as forcing a faith upon someone, although I’m sure both sides would try to justify their actions. Both side need to figure out some sort of compromise where both sides may take minor offense (since that is inevitable) but neither has any rights restricted. I know chances are that will never happen due to the few stereotypical few, but one can hope.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Will do. As there are pages upon pages in this thread, could you tell me which number it is?

I’ll read it and let you know my thoughts later, my friend. For now, I’m gonna call it a night.

“If abortion being legal, yet not sanctioned, means it does not compromise your faith. Is it possible for gay marriage to be the same way? If it was done in a way which was legal, yet paid for by the individuals choosing to be married, or united (terminology is not important in this case, only the action), would that effect your ability to practice your faith?”

And I understand we don’t agree, but I would like to thank you for honest, educated debate on the topic, it’s what I was looking for. Who’s to say I wasn’t looking to have my mind changed but wanted to wait for sound reasoning? Sleep well

 

[royal_archer]

You’re talking to me as if I am an anti-Catholic gay pride activist. There were a few pages of honest, non-personal dialogue on the topic i created this thread for while you were absent and I would like it to return to that. I will however respond to your relevant points

I don’t think it’s right to say the gay marriage agenda. Sure there may be those who push certain aspects and are very vocal about it, but not all who support it are disrespectful and obnoxious, or even want the same things. The way those people are going about it is just as wrong as forcing a faith upon someone, although I’m sure both sides would try to justify their actions. Both side need to figure out some sort of compromise where both sides may take minor offense (since that is inevitable) but neither has any rights restricted. I know chances are that will never happen due to the few stereotypical few, but one can hope.

Other than out of concern for your mortal soul, no one here is suggesting you change your lifestyle. Nor is anyone talking about banning your lifestyle. We are only saying that an institutional and public activitity under the banner of gay marriage is an infringement on our constitutional rights. There are numerous combinations of letters you could use to describe your unions, why do you insist on infringing on our right to use our term ans we have for millenia? Why should we compromise on our religious freedoms?

 

[NoMoreGames]

Sorry this took so long to respond to, but my :twocents: for what they’re worth

Civil marriage does not just allow certain relationships. It protects and encourages those relationships as being beneficial to society. Only a man and a woman can produce a child, every child has a father and a mother, not just “parents”, and there is nothing the law can do to change that. The law also recognizes the fundamental truth that the relationship between biological parents and their offspring is unique, especially from a public health standpoint. Child-rearing is a long-term project. There is a reason for the state to be interested in the long-term relationships of heterosexuals, then.

All of that is true (only a man and a woman can create a child (since is quickly workign to change that ) and that there is a special connection between biological parents and children), but as far as adoption goes, would it be better to have a child raised in a broken home, or an orphanage than by a stable, loving, gay couple? They can not make life, but they can support it.

Keep in mind that gays have rejected civil relationships that do not recognize their sexuality. They don’t want to accept legal arrangements that would also be open to people who don’t have or want a sexual relationship. They would exclude those couples from “gay marriage.” This debate, then, is not about allowing adults who can’t marry the legal support to care for each other properly or to share in the guardianship of children. It is about enshrining homosexuality as being societally equal and the same as heterosexuality, for emotional reasons that have nothing to do with the two kinds of sexuality actually being analogous in terms of the state’s interest in regulating sexual unions.

I’m kind of confused, so they aren’t equal simply because they are different? So for it to be marriage there has to be both emotions and the tradition notion of sex? Sorry, I don’t totally understand.

Also, proponents of gay marriage are opposed to polygamy. So how are they not using their opinions to exclude others? Why can they say “you can’t shove your morals about sex onto us” and then turn around and oppose polygamy? It doesn’t work. Are our morals less relevant because they are rooted in our religion? Why would that be so?

I had a post a few, well many at this point, pages back about the difference between homosexual relationships and polygamy. A relationship, not even romantically speaking, can only exist between two people. Let’s say the counter point is that three people have a single relationship, but that is not necessarily true. With three people there are thee distinct relationships, one between person A & person B, one between B & C, and one between C & A. Until the definition of a relationship changes (and I’m sure it will at some point), polygamy is not the same concept as a monogamous relationship.

The Church doesn’t have a problem with the state allowing adults to contract mutually-supportive relationships that are not marriage, as long as the purpose is not to encourage sexual relationships that the state has no business encouraging. In other words, it is when the sexual relationship seeks to be recognized as having some particular benefit for society that a non-sexual adult relationship doesn’t have where the problem comes in.

The debate isn’t fundamentally a religious debate. It is not about defining right or wrong kinds of love, as people try to make it out to be. It is about defining one kind of sexual relationship to be the same as another when it is not.

So a male to male civil union is not a sin if there is no sex involved and it is not encouraged by the state? I’m not sure I understand this section either. Just because gay sax does not procreate does not mean it doesn’t strengthen the relationship as traditional sex does? If I’m taking this the wrong way please correct me.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Other than out of concern for your mortal soul, no one here is suggesting you change your lifestyle. Nor is anyone talking about banning your lifestyle. We are only saying that an institutional and public activitity under the banner of gay marriage is an infringement on our constitutional rights. There are numerous combinations of letters you could use to describe your unions, why do you insist on infringing on our right to use our term ans we have for millenia? Why should we compromise on our religious freedoms?

You really should stop saying “you” and “we.” Despite what I have said, you really don’t know what side I’m on, I may have just been spurring debate. This is just two different ideas examining eachother. (side note, isn’t mortal soul an oxymoron? )

Let me make sure I have this straight. If gay marriage was called gay [insert word here] you would have no problem with it being part of this country? And I’m not clear how simple terminally infringes on religious freedom. Marriage as it exists today is both religious and social. Should the social aspect have to change it’s term because it can happen without a priest present? Or is it ok because it is still between a man and woman, regardless of religious affiliation?

 

[Highwayhound]

What is the purpose of seeking government approval to a homosexual relationship? If this was gone over please let me know as I read the first page and then the 3 most current pages of posts.

 

[NoMoreGames]

What is the purpose of seeking government approval to a homosexual relationship? If this was gone over please let me know as I read the first page and then the 3 most current pages of posts.

The same as the government approving a traditional relationship? Not necessarily for the financial benefits (though it may be fore some), but more so it gives things a concrete feeling? Makes it feel more legitimate? That’s a difficult question to answer without going into individual specifics.

 

[Bennie_P]

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.

The problem with this statement is you use the word many, but many compared to what?, two gay couples as opposed to the one abusive straight couple? In essence all the legal rights any same sex couple needs to be secure in their relationship are available without the gay rights movement redifining marraige.

The vast majoritiy of gay relationships last only minutes, a large percentage of gays couple up with a new partner with each new gay person they meet. You don’t understand my logic is because you don’t see or refuse to see the physical, mental and spiritual damage cased by how the vast majority of gays live. You are trying to present a picture that is rare within the lifstyle of the majority of “gay” population.

In 2000, public-health officials believed that syphilis was close to being eliminated, but a dramatic jump in infections among gay and bisexual men reversed the downward trend.
Men who engaged in homosexual sex made up 65 percent of the 11,466 cases reported in 2007, roughly the same as in 2006.

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM 1, 2].
The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased during the 1980s and 1990s, but recent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses for this group 3, 4]. Additionally, racial disparities exist with regard to HIV diagnoses within the MSM population. A recent study, conducted in 5 large US cities, found that HIV prevalence among black MSM (46%) was more than twice that among white MSM (21%) 5].

It appears as the general public moves toward accepting “homosexuality” as normal STDs increase. That is a destructive propostion which the gay rights is promoting to our youth.

Gay Marriage is not about rights, it is about silencing the Church and others that oppose normalization of homosexual behavoir.
silencingchristians.com/

The manual of “gay” propaganda

After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s
As a summary of methods to manipulate and control opinion, this book is an example of how to achieve a goal (public opinion modification), without recourse to fact, reason, or fair play. A propagandists dream, it is best summed up in two of its own quotes “Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propoganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned}”… “Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof… the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not” (p. 152-153) Answers questions as to how a group of less then 2% of the population, can attain political and media clout completely out of proportion to their size or condition

 

[cristininha]

Gay Marriage is not about rights, it is about silencing the Church and others that oppose normalization of homosexual behavoir.
silencingchristians.com/

The manual of “gay” propaganda

I’ve watched part of the new infomercial sponsored by the american family association and made to appear on the website mentioned above and a few paid slots in tv networks. It has the same characteristcs of another infomercial made for the german public in the early 40s called “The Eternal Jew”, available for everyone to watch on the internet. They both basically paint their identified target group as made out of people organized around an agenda to destroy the basis of society, a threat to families and all humanity. A few tv companies understandably declined to broadcast it.

 

[cristininha]

The only people who need to be silenced are the ones who misuse the right to freedom of religion and speech. The likes of the KKK, who also tried to defend their speech under the guise of freedom of religion, offering their interpretation of bible verses as justification for their awful behaviour towards fellow human beings. Many people have tried, are trying and will try to justify their misbehaviour towards other human beings by playing the victim whose conscience is being “unjustly” silenced.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The problem with this statement is you use the word many, but many compared to what?, two gay couples as opposed to the one abusive straight couple? In essence all the legal rights any same sex couple needs to be secure in their relationship are available without the gay rights movement redifining marraige.

Many was not being compared to anything. All I meant was that there are gay couples out there who support each other, and there are straight couples who do not. I was making the point that not all gay relationships are negative ones, and not all straight relationships were positive ones.

As far as redefining marriage, look it up. Another poster copied it here, to defend the marriage was only between a man and a woman, but it only said that because it was based of law, hence the logic is circular (marriage is defined by law, yet the law of marriage is based on the definition). Also, the second definition was about same sex marriage.

The vast majoritiy of gay relationships last only minutes, a large percentage of gays couple up with a new partner with each new gay person they meet. You don’t understand my logic is because you don’t see or refuse to see the physical, mental and spiritual damage cased by how the vast majority of gays live. You are trying to present a picture that is rare within the lifstyle of the majority of “gay” population.

But those aren’t the relationships we’ve ben discussing, in fact those were the types of things that were happening in Biblical times, which is what it speaks out against. I know they exist, I never was trying to say they didn’t. The point that was made, however, is that these vocal people should not effect the rights of everyone they say they “represent.” I know promiscuity is damaging, I understand your logic, I just doing this it is sound. Promiscuity exists in the straight world too. Also, it is not accurate to say that the majority of the gay population behaves that way. Sure the ones you know about do, but the reason you know about them is because they do.

It appears as the general public moves toward accepting “homosexuality” as normal STDs increase. That is a destructive propostion which the gay rights is promoting to our youth.

Gay Marriage is not about rights, it is about silencing the Church and others that oppose normalization of homosexual behavoir.
silencingchristians.com/

The manual of “gay” propaganda

I totally agree that this is a direct result of gay promiscuity. But you don’t think that all people who are promiscuous get an STD at some point? Promiscuity is horrible, but it is not unique to the groups of gays who are very vocal about everything (not necessarily the majority of gays.) Not every supporter of gay marriage wants to silence religion, but granted some do. Those few are the ones that are given attention, so perhaps it is the media instead who wants to silence it?

And as for a manual, once again, not every supporter of gay marriage follows that or even knows about that. I could provide links to sites that show the opposite, (that were equally biased) but that does not mean that all people on a particular side follow them.

Side note, why do you use quotes every time you say gay or homosexual? Do you not believe it exists?

 

[pathia]

The problem with this statement is you use the word many, but many compared to what?, two gay couples as opposed to the one abusive straight couple? In essence all the legal rights any same sex couple needs to be secure in their relationship are available without the gay rights movement redifining marraige.

miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html

Really? You really think so? This woman spent the last moments of her life, alone, because people hated her lifestyle. This couple had all the legal rights in place as documents, but that STILL wasn’t enough.

What does it take you to realize that? It’s right here in black and white. This couple had those documents, they were repeatedly ignored. To the point they let this woman spend her last moments on earth, alone. A priest eventually did come, but she was no longer conscious at that point.

They condemned her to die alone, purely because they didn’t want to give any credibility to same sex couples, even legal ones within the scope of current law.

How can you possibly imagine people will be satisfied with this sort of treatment? People tell me I am a liar, but here is another example, in the media, I don’t even have to parrot my own hellish stories anymore.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I know this isn’t totally grammatically correct, but I was typing fast as the movie played so bear with me.

Go from being gay to straight with jesus, but it’s not a sin just to be gay, so why would you need to “switch” your orientation?

Gay’s have special rights? You just notice them more because because they’re not the majority. Count straights in ads, movies, and tv shows, they will equal more than the gays.

of course you are bombarded with messages, that’s what the media is, but most gays (though admittedly some are) are not fighting for special rights, merely equal.

Sexual diversity training does not promote homosexual “lifestyle,” (referring to the promiscuous life of the few) just exposes to the diversity of planet earth, though i agree it was wrong not to opt their children out, or even disagree (as long as they didn’t harass). As far as not objecting on religious grounds, it’s a public school, that has been the case long before gay rights activity.

National religious decline perhaps, but not necessarily social.

As far as kids being perplexed by same sex parents, s it really any more than seeing mommy hit daddy, or spending the week at mommies house and the weekends with daddy?

So gays shouldn’t serve in the military? And equal opportunity employment as been around long before gay activists started up. I don’t agree with the preferential treatment, however.

I don’t have time to finish at this point, but those are my thoughts on the first 12 minutes. This is the most biased video (and a form of propaganda itself) that I have seen in a looong time.

 

[IrishJoe]

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.

Because its an American based site basically. You’ll not see many pacifists here but yet everyone is anti gay. Its so hilarious… how many times in th gospels violence is shunned yet not one word about homosexuality

 

[Elizabeth502]

The reason I believe that threads like this are interminable is that many of us have a fundamental problem believing that sexual behavior is deterministic (fixed in one’s DNA). The literature is not conclusive that both attraction and the physical expression of that attraction (homosexual or heterosexual) is hard-wired before birth as having an inevitable quality, regardless of environment, formation, and personal response.

If anything, the combined literature of the development of sexuality in general points to a fluid and non-deterministic dynamic, such as what I and other posters have mentioned.

Given such skepticism (despite all the anecdotal testimonials about “being born gay” and “always” knowing), it is difficult for many of us to be as embracing of this lifestyle (and thus implied “rights”) as we would about someone who was truly born with cerebral palsy or the marker for paranoid schizophrenia which does not appear at birth but which develops independently later. (In the department of “always knowing,” I’ll remind you that one is not conscious of sexuality per se as an infant or young toddler; one is conscious of a body and physical pleasure; one is open to experience and influence; most importantly one has no long-term memory yet, so to claim an original attraction is to fool only yourself, or to rationalize later susceptibility.)

During a relatively short period in my own lifetime, I have seen theories of behavior swing radically from a heavy, almost exclusive reliance on environment as the cause of absolutely everything (a belief or assumption during the early to mid '70’s) to the opposite extreme today. Massive categories of behavior are now attributed to genes – everything from mildly disruptive classroom behavior (not ADD/ADHD) to drug & alcohol abuse, to all kinds of “incorrigibility,” whether as adults or as children. Why? Because we now worship science. Because of rapid scientific advances & discoveries in the last 20 years, especially in the area of genetics and the brain, the public now assumes that (a) science can know everything; (b) science controls everything. Think about the implications of this. If this is really true – if our brains/genes determine everything, then we have no truly free will, no responsibility for sin of any kind. All of our decision-making is compromised or suspect. Further, such thinking or implied assumptions is the road to despair. Why should we try to change any challenging situation in our life (including but not limited to our relationship with God) if most everything is “determined”?

 

[IrishJoe]

Right in flies homosexuality is hard coded to a gene.

If it is the same in humans then they are not ‘making a choice to be gay’

The church as a black and white view, it doens’t even properly account for chromosomal ‘abnormalities’

 

[AliciaCL]

Haven’t read all the posts but the OP’s comment is puportedly about society imposing its religious belief against gay marriage on persons of same sex attraction. Murder, theft, lying are all societal concepts which originate from religion. Sexual mores derive from religion as well. Because we live in a multicultural society, some religious concepts must yield to the greater society. You can’t be a member of the military and claim you can’t work on a religious holiday. You can’t murder because your religion tells you it is just. You cannot steal or perjure yourself because you belive the circumstances justify it. You can’t disinherit a spouse. You can’t grant a mistress the rights and status of a spouse. These very basic societal concepts originally derived from religion and have been secularly adopted. Our society has yielded culturally to accepting gay relationships. Nobody’s getting thrown out on the street, etc. for being gay. Society isn’t imposing religious belief on gays by opposing gay marriage. The gay movement has tried to claim out of thin air, that a marrige between a man and man or woman and woman is just like a man and woman. Obviously, it is not. It’s simply a wish. There isn’t anything left that a committed gay couple can’t have any more in their relationship than the approval of society in allowing gay marriage. They can will property to each other, get partner benefits, be loving, be treated as a couple culturally, adopt children (which I think they should not be able to do). What the movement wants is to force the rest of us to yield to thier belief that gay marriage is ok. If it changed tomorrow, the general society will never approve of it, no matter what. Gay couples obviously don’t see their behavior as immoral. We get that. But the argument has been twisted into a mantra that is illogical. The society does have a right to impose concepts which originated in religions which have been accepted in all societies for thousands of years. It is not requiring you to believe what society has accepted. If gay marriage is legal, it is the gays who are taking away from society a belief that has been a bedrock for human history. You can’t really make a good argument in favor or gay marriage other than, because YOU want it, therefore, society should give it to you. Sorry to be harsh but that is the bottom line, and it is insufficient justification.