Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[NoMoreGames]

I don’t try to convince anyone of anything. With His help I convey the Truth (documented in the catechism, magestrial teachings, encyclicals, and The Bible) and then let God do his Work.

I give up The point of this thread was to discuss purely social rational about homosexual marriage without religious involvement, not to discuss the morality of said actions or about God’s truth in society.

 

[NoMoreGames]

One more question…if a person is born a female, would you not say that it would be “natural law” that she would feel attracted to males. And vice versa with a born male feeling attracted to femaIes. So, in the “laws of nature,” it seems what is natural for one human being may not be natural for another. I realize that a whole lot of people desperately want to believe the fallacy that homosexuals CHOOSE their sexual orientation - which would probably ONLY be true if heterosexuals could CHOOSE their own gender.

Blessings!
br jim

Thank you for wording things in a way that has eluded me for 15+ pages I think we have very similar opinions.

 

[Jossy]

** In the name of Allah , the Most Gracious , Ever Merciful **

Salaam/ Peace

If people declare openly that they are gay , they are gay couple , they must enjoy the special facilities etc etc , we must not support/ encourage them . In the past , God punished the whole nation ; we can’t take the risk to be punished by God by supporting gays.

These people are sick --they need urgent treatment --physically , mentally , spiritually .

I totally agree with you.
We should not encourage this life style at all. What every
christian should do in every nation should pray to put an
end to this.
Remember Sodom in the old testament when God destroyed
the whole town. If we continue to encourage and support
this gay life style, then I fear the wrath of God.
I begin to question why there are disasters occurring everywhere
in the world today - it is because of our sinful ways.
It is about time, we should all see the errors of our ways and
repent.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I totally agree with you.
We should not encourage this life style at all. What every
christian should do in every nation should pray to put an
end to this.
Remember Sodom in the old testament when God destroyed
the whole town. If we continue to encourage and support
this gay life style, then I fear the wrath of God.
I begin to question why there are disasters occurring everywhere
in the world today - it is because of our sinful ways.
It is about time, we should all see the errors of our ways and
repent.

Once again, the Catholic church does not feel that being homosexual (not acting on it) is a sin. We have already discussed the difference between the gays that live a stereotypical lifestyle and those who do not (this happened in the early pages, feel free to read them). As for Sodom, there is no textual reference to the sins those of the city committed.

By the way, very well said dgoldman

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Couples who may valid marry who are in their 80’s who present no artificial obstical to promoting life are perfectly free to marry. If it be God’s will, then a couple in their 80’s may conceive. There are documented cases of women having children in their late 50’s.

Be careful about the answer you seek. The Truth will find you.

 

[royal_archer]

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?

If you called it “buddiage” then it would not be infringing on my freedom of religion. Now if you think terminology does not matter. write the name of a religous group (associated with objections to pork products) on the side of a pig and walk that pig around town and see if you get any objections. Associating terms that religions use out of respect with offensive acts can be a hate crime

 

[NoMoreGames]

If you called it “buddiage” then it would not be infringing on my freedom of religion. Now if you think terminology does not matter. write the name of a religous group (associated with objections to pork products) on the side of a pig and walk that pig around town and see if you get any objections. Associating terms that religions use out of respect with offensive acts can be a hate crime

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Regardless of what you call it, the same acting is going on, I don’t see how letting gays marry but calling it union doesn’t effect your religion, but calling it marriage does. Marriage also exists in the sate between heterosexual couples. Should the state have to change it’s term because it does not have a religious connection, or is it okay because the provisions of their term matches yours?

As far as writing Jew on a pig an waling about a city, doing things in an obviously disrespectful way is not that same as calling it gay marriage (which would be an honor for the community, not something to disrespect). And yet, even if i did that, it would in no way change the Jewish faith nor alter their ability to practice it. Therefore, it is within my freedom of speech to that, and does not effect their freedom of religion.

if you respond to anything, please respond to the bolded portions.

 

[royal_archer]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Regardless of what you call it, the same acting is going on, I don’t see how letting gays marry but calling it union doesn’t effect your religion, but calling it marriage does. Marriage also exists in the sate between heterosexual couples. Should the state have to change it’s term because it does not have a religious connection, or is it okay because the provisions of their term matches yours?

As far as writing Jew on a pig an waling about a city, doing things in an obviously disrespectful way is not that same as calling it gay marriage (which would be an honor for the community, not something to disrespect). And yet, even if i did that, it would in no way change the Jewish faith nor alter their ability to practice it. Therefore, it is within my freedom of speech to that, and does not effect their freedom of religion.

if you respond to anything, please respond to the bolded portions.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than the state.

If I found a term which represented something that was important to you and used that term to describe an act you found to be disgusting then used that term to describe that disgusting act in a public forum in front of your children whould you be offended and feel it had a negative impact on your ability to practice the act you associate with that term?

 

[NoMoreGames]

Marriage has been around a lot longer than the state.

This is very true, vet irrelevant. Since the state’s aspect of marriage is NOT religious, should the state have to change it’s term since it is not the same thing as religious marriage? Between a man and a woman, yes, but that is essentially the only mutual portion.

If I found a term which represented something that was important to you and used that term to describe an act you found to be disgusting then used that term to describe that disgusting act in a public forum in front of your children whould you be offended and feel it had a negative impact on your ability to practice the act you associate with that term?

Those supporting gay marriage are fronted with this all the time. Religious groups call homosexual marriage disgusting and horrible, but that does not effect what the believe in.

Here’s a personal example from one of my very close friends. When she came out her parents, her parents told her that she was an embarrassment to the family. That took something the girl was proud of, and turned it into something with a disgusting connotation. The first thing she did was go to her girlfriend to talk about it. Did the disgusting connotation effect her ability to love her girlfriend? Not at all. Now that i write this, i realize i may have not correctly applied hte concept of distortion of termonology. let me try again.

I am in the field of biotechnology. More specifically, i play with bacterial genes in order to cause them to produce vital proteins that humans with certain mutations no longer produce. Many lobbyists tell my field that we are playing God and what we do is unnatural. I would never in a million years consider myself a god, no what we do any more unnatural that eyeglasses, polyester or air conditioning… I still do what I do because i know I will some day save a life, even if it is only one. What people against me say have no effect on my ability to experiment and discover. At all.

 

[KindredSoul]

Ah, but this has everything to do wiht the government. Sure they can get married in an accepting church, just as a teen girl could go get a back alley abortion, but that doesnt change hte legality of the action. To clarify, the gay marraige happens ,but not under the law, where as the abortion happens illegally, but that doesnt change the fact it happened. I hope I’m making sense (I have a feeling I’m not )

However, gay marriage is not illegal if the couple gets married in a church that believes in it, without government involvement. The government in no way would seek to punish that. Back alley abortions, if abortion were illegal, would warrant legal consequences. Non-governmental gay marriage as a private thing would not. That’s the difference between something being illegal and something merely being not sanctioned.

Well let’s look at it this way. Athiests too are tax payers, yet ocationaly they have to deal with God in public places. Is that not governmental sanction of religion (which violates their freedom as much as governmental gay marriage would effect yours)?

Again, there is a difference. Dealing with God in public is not the same as the government taking a side. That’s just the government not making it illegal to discuss or profess religion, and even if it’s a government member or official discussing it, that’s still an individual professing his faith, as is his constitutional right, rather than the government in and of itself picking sides. That’s not the government sanctioning one view over the other. Governmental Gay marriage is the government itself (not just a government official who happens to approve of Gay Marriage) taking sides, by actively supporting Gay Marriage.

If a President wants to praise how wholesome Gay Marriage is, that’s his or her freedom of speech; I may not like it, I may thus not vote for such a person, but still, as long as he or she isn’t actively making the government an agent of furthering the cause of gay marriage, he or she is only exercising his Constitutional rights, just as a President who shares his or her Faith and consults it in making choices is exercising his Freedom of Religion. If, however a Government itself tries to actively sanction Gay Marriage, it becomes more than that. It would be like if the Government started outright funding churches with tax dollars as opposed to merely allowing religion to be a public and private influence in our society. That’s the difference.

 

[royal_archer]

This is very true, vet irrelevant. Since the state’s aspect of marriage is NOT religious, should the state have to change it’s term since it is not the same thing as religious marriage? Between a man and a woman, yes, but that is essentially the only mutual portion…

State sponsored marriage between a man and a woman is in many ways following the spirit of marriage and is no way comperable to the deliberate misuse of the term by applying it to a vastly different arangement.

Those supporting gay marriage are fronted with this all the time. Religious groups call homosexual marriage disgusting and horrible, but that does not effect what the believe in.

Here’s a personal example from one of my very close friends. When she came out her parents, her parents told her that she was an embarrassment to the family. That took something the girl was proud of, and turned it into something with a disgusting connotation. The first thing she did was go to her girlfriend to talk about it. Did the disgusting connotation effect her ability to love her girlfriend? Not at all. Now that i write this, i realize i may have not correctly applied hte concept of distortion of termonology. let me try again.

I am in the field of biotechnology. More specifically, i play with bacterial genes in order to cause them to produce vital proteins that humans with certain mutations no longer produce. Many lobbyists tell my field that we are playing God and what we do is unnatural. I would never in a million years consider myself a god, no what we do any more unnatural that eyeglasses, polyester or air conditioning… I still do what I do because i know I will some day save a life, even if it is only one. What people against me say have no effect on my ability to experiment and discover. At all.

If you are causing bacteria to mutate you are endagering society and should be forced to stop. However, I do not see what your practice of manipulating bacteria has to do with the discussion.

 

[NoMoreGames]

okay, I understand that now. Thanks I had an additional though about how it affects one’s freedom to practice. It’s the biotech example in my post about yours, give that a look.

edit: actually i just realized that it was not applicable, since that was discussing the terminology, not just the practice, so never mind. Sorry about that

 

[NoMoreGames]

State sponsored marriage between a man and a woman is in many ways following the spirit of marriage and is no way comperable to the deliberate misuse of the term by applying it to a vastly different arangement.

The differences i was referring to is that religiously, it it a commitment to each other before God, socially, it as a commitment to share assets and gains, not necessarily love. In this way they are very different, sharing only the fact it’s between a male and female.

It was merely an example to show that regardless of what people say about it or how frequently they claim it is evil, it does not effect my ability to practice it as you stated giving terms a negative connotation would. In the same way, other people changing terms would not effect your ability to practice it as you see fit.

 

[royal_archer]

The differences i was referring to is that religiously, it it a commitment to each other before God, socially, it as a commitment to share assets and gains, not necessarily love. In this way they are very different, sharing only the fact it’s between a male and female.

a civil service marriage share a vast many commonalities with tradional marriage and for the most part is indiscernable from a traditional marriage in how the couple lives their lives. What you have been proposing is vastly different.

It was merely an example to show that regardless of what people say about it or how frequently they claim it is evil, it does not effect my ability to practice it as you stated giving terms a negative connotation would. In the same way, other people changing terms would not effect your ability to practice it as you see fit.

Well, I’ll try to work with your annalogy:So If I opened a bio engineering firm down the street from you; and advertised my product as being the same as yours; and tried to get people to take my product in lieu of yours claiming mine was everything your was; but instead sold toilet water by product; and convinced your customers that what you were offering was no better than what I was offering, would you feel I was infringing on your rights?

The gay movement is trying to pass off gay “marriage” as being the same as traditional marriage. They are trying to convince others who use the term marriage to associate that term with the distorted definition. That is undermining our ability to use the term as we have since the begining of Man’s existence.

 

[EasterJoy]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Science is never going to give men wombs or give women the “Y” chromosomes necessary to produce male children. Even if it did, I think Ms. No-Marriage-14-Children has shown the limitations of letting people do whatever science can let them do.

The Church does not oppose civil arrangements in which adults who cannot marry are nevertheless allowed to provide each other with exclusive legal rights, as long as these arrangements are not an enshrinement of an illicit sexual union, such as a union between minors, between siblings or between a parent and child, between members of the same sex, and so on. Now, there are people who don’t think there is anything wrong with having sex with another person of the same sex, with a minor, with several different partners, or with a close relatives. There is not a societal taboo that someone out there doesn’t think ridiculous. Society, though, has decided which of these sexual relationships should and should not be encouraged and others which are so wrong as to be criminal. Some of us make that decision based on faith, others for other reasons. Our faith doesn’t make our reasons less legitimate.

At any rate, two men don’t have to have a sexual relationship in order to provide a home for whatever children have become their wards. That is no reason to extend marriage to homosexuals.

As for sex “strengthening a relationship”, let’s hope that even true marriages are not held up primarily by sex. If that is the basis of a relationship, that relationship doesn’t have a great future. Also, the sexual activities of homosexuals do not reflect the reality of the relationship between their bodies. There is a complementary relationship between male and female bodies that does not exist between males or between females. It is a complementarity that even an atheist can see is ordained by our natures. So no, heterosexual intercourse doesn’t differ from other kinds of sex in an inconsequential manner. The two aren’t “merely different”, as they would be if they differed in an accident such as color. The two kinds of sex are entirely different.

PS A relationship can only exist between two persons? It sounds as if you think the Blessed Trinity is an impossibility.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Well, I’ll try to work with your annalogy:So If I opened a bio engineering firm down the street from you; and advertised my product as being the same as yours; and tried to get people to take my product in lieu of yours claiming mine was everything your was; but instead sold toilet water by product; and convinced your customers that what you were offering was no better than what I was offering, would you feel I was infringing on your rights?

The gay movement is trying to pass off gay “marriage” as being the same as traditional marriage. They are trying to convince others who use the term marriage to associate that term with the distorted definition. That is undermining our ability to use the term as we have since the begining of Man’s existence.

But you woudn’t be infringing on my rights. You could advertise and promote in any way you wanted, as long as you didn’t touch my product. Customers would still be albe to desice if they would go with you product or mine, and they would see which one worked. If people were hoping to receive a useful product, they would come to me, but those totally satisfied with toilet water would probably stick to you.

Just because it’s not exactly the same as traditional marriage, that doesn’t mean it’s an abomination to call it that. Cure:toilet water is not the same as gay marriage:traditional marriage.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Science is never going to give men wombs or give women the “Y” chromosomes necessary to produce male children. Even if it did, I think Ms. No-Marriage-14-Children has shown the limitations of letting people do whatever science can let them do.

The Church does not oppose civil arrangements in which adults who cannot marry are nevertheless allowed to provide each other with exclusive legal rights, as long as these arrangements are not an enshrinement of an illicit sexual union, such as a union between minors, between siblings or between a parent and child, between members of the same sex, and so on. Now, there are people who don’t think there is anything wrong with having sex with another person of the same sex, with a minor, with several different partners, or with a close relatives. There is not a societal taboo that someone out there doesn’t think ridiculous. Society, though, has decided which of these sexual relationships should and should not be encouraged and others which are so wrong as to be criminal. Some of us make that decision based on faith, others for other reasons. Our faith doesn’t make our reasons less legitimate.

At any rate, two men don’t have to have a sexual relationship in order to provide a home for whatever children have become their wards. That is no reason to extend marriage to homosexuals.

As for sex “strengthening a relationship”, let’s hope that even true marriages are not held up primarily by sex. If that is the basis of a relationship, that relationship doesn’t have a great future. Also, the sexual activities of homosexuals do not reflect the reality of the relationship between their bodies. There is a complementary relationship between male and female bodies that does not exist between males or between females. It is a complementarity that even an atheist can see is ordained by our natures. So no, heterosexual intercourse doesn’t differ from other kinds of sex in an inconsequential manner. The two aren’t “merely different”, as they would be if they differed in an accident such as color. The two kinds of sex are entirely different.

PS A relationship can only exist between two persons? It sounds as if you think the Blessed Trinity is an impossibility.

The was supposed to show sarcasm, sorry aobut that. Though there was at one point 3 pregnant men, the embryo was implanted into their tissues through a process which I’m not totally able to understand, but it was done

Thank you for clearing that whole section up.

And I wasn’t suggesting that relationships are built on sex, but it really can’t be denied that it does add a level of strength by creating another for of connecting. Who says things have to be physically complementary to work out? Perhaps the personalities of two men are so close to being perfectly complementary that it overpowers the lack of physical match?

Ah, but how the Trinity works is a mystery where as pologmy is not

 

[royal_archer]

But you woudn’t be infringing on my rights. You could advertise and promote in any way you wanted, as long as you didn’t touch my product. Customers would still be albe to desice if they would go with you product or mine, and they would see which one worked. If people were hoping to receive a useful product, they would come to me, but those totally satisfied with toilet water would probably stick to you.

Just because it’s not exactly the same as traditional marriage, that doesn’t mean it’s an abomination to call it that. Cure:toilet water is not the same as gay marriage:traditional marriage.

However, with governmetn endorsement of the gay union as a marriage it takes choice out of the hands of a consumer. An employer will not be able to provide spousal bennefits for married couples with out providing the same bennefits to gay couples. The same goes for land lords and others who find the gay act as offensive.

 

[NoMoreGames]

However, with governmetn endorsement of the gay union as a marriage it takes choice out of the hands of a consumer. An employer will not be able to provide spousal bennefits for married couples with out providing the same bennefits to gay couples. The same goes for land lords and others who find the gay act as offensive.

Yes, but just because they find it offensive doesn’t mean they should treat the individuals any differently on a social level as employees. Should a feminist boss be permitted to treat male employees differently because she doesn’t support the behavior of men in general? This would still not effect their ability to practice their religion as they see fit.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes, but just because they find it offensive doesn’t mean they should treat the individuals any differently on a social level as employees. Should a feminist boss be permitted to treat male employees differently because she doesn’t support the behavior of men in general? This would still not effect their ability to practice their religion as they see fit.

The governement should not force her to act in a way she feels is immoral.