Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[royal_archer]

To start of, I offer my sincereiest apologies. You response ot hte other factoes was on hte bottom of a page and almost complete crossed out and I never saw it, sorry aoub that. I’ll respond to that later.

As far as this goes, it’s not an argue, it’s a debate I would like you to respond however. I don’t deny that God’s word is law. But we, as humans, are not able to force that upon all the other citizens of this country. I would really like to know if you honestly believe that things like hurricanes, tornados and tidal waves (all natural occurrences) as well as shootings and terrorists attacks (all of which happen everywhere, reguarldes of religious affiliation) really happen because of homosexual marriage (or anything religiously negative thought socially fine).

Lets run with your train of thought…You seem to think that 51% of the people can not force their view of morality down the throats of the other 49% (as long as they do not cause them direct physical harm) is that a safe summary of your possition???

 

[NoMoreGames]

Lets run with your train of thought…You seem to think that 51% of the people can not force their view of morality down the throats of the other 49% (as long as they do not cause them direct physical harm) is that a safe summary of your possition???

I’m not arguing of the truth of the word of God. I’m saying that not everyone believes in it. If they have the right to not believe in it in this country, why don’t they have the right to not follow it’s teaching?

There is a main difference between forbidding gay marriage and allowing it, and that is choice. At this point, those who do not believe in the Catholic church are not able to marry someone of the same sex because of the churches teaching. If was allowed, however, those who believe in the church would not be forced to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[royal_archer]

I’m not arguing of the truth of the word of God. I’m saying that not everyone believes in it. If they have the right to not believe in it in this country, why don’t they have the right to not follow it’s teaching?

There is a main difference between forbidding gay marriage and allowing it, and that is choice. At this point, those who do not believe in the Catholic church are not able to marry someone of the same sex because of the churches teaching. If was allowed, however, those who believe in the church would not be forced to marry someone of the same sex.

But you ignored my question "You seem to think that 51% of the people can not force their view of morality down the throats of the other 49% (as long as they do not cause them direct physical harm) is that a safe summary of your possition??? "

Are you saying that the majority do not have a right to force their view of morality on the minority??

 

[The_Smiter]

I think you are another who missed the point of this topic. It was questioning the social debate on gay marriage. SOCIAL, not religious.

By capitalizing “Freedom of Religion” )Which I still have no ideas as to how that somehow guarantees free practice of homosexual rights), you have made the debate a GOVERNM<ENTAL one and not simply social. Religious tradition formed and influenced both of those aspects of coming together as a society so once again I must state that asking people to divorce their religious beliefs from something that is against their religion is a straw man argument or proposition.

 

[NoMoreGames]

But you ignored my question "You seem to think that 51% of the people can not force their view of morality down the throats of the other 49% (as long as they do not cause them direct physical harm) is that a safe summary of your possition??? "

Are you saying that the majority do not have a right to force their view of morality on the minority??

I did not ignore it. I’m not going to answer a question that will make assumptions about my logic without making sure my logic is explained more thoroughly than a yes or no

My answer is here: I’m saying that not everyone believes in the word of God. If they have the right to not believe in it in this country, why don’t they have the right to not follow it’s teaching?

In more general terms: the majority does not have the right to force it’s beliefs upon the minority, but giving the freedom to the minority does not effect the majority.

 

[NoMoreGames]

By capitalizing “Freedom of Religion” )Which I still have no ideas as to how that somehow guarantees free practice of homosexual rights), you have made the debate a GOVERNM<ENTAL one and not simply social. Religious tradition formed and influenced both of those aspects of coming together as a society so once again I must state that asking people to divorce their religious beliefs from something that is against their religion is a straw man argument or proposition.

I have been using governmental and social integrally, and for that i am sorry. I’ll be more specific from here on out.

You haven’t seen my explanation of why marriage as a governmental institution and marriage as a religious institution are two separate things, have you? Summary: The church does not support divorce, yet it happens in governmental marriage all the time. This is a prime example of how the two things that were once the same, and still share the same term, now have different roles in society.

 

[royal_archer]

I did not ignore it. I’m not going to answer a question that will make assumptions about my logic without making sure my logic is explained more thoroughly than a yes or no

My answer is here: I’m saying that not everyone believes in the word of God. If they have the right to not believe in it in this country, why don’t they have the right to not follow it’s teaching?

In more general terms: the majority does not have the right to force it’s beliefs upon the minority, but giving the freedom to the minority does not effect the majority.

Then I take it you are also against Obama’s and the other liberals attempts to force their views of morality on the rest of us through programs like his so called stimulus package right? After all, his welfare programs are essentially forcing his socialist view of morality on the rest of us.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Then I take it you are also against Obama’s and the other liberals attempts to force their views of morality on the rest of us through programs like his so called stimulus package right? After all, his welfare programs are essentially forcing his socialist view of morality on the rest of us.

So one’s morality now includes one’s economic views?

 

[NoMoreGames]

I wrongly assumed that you meant belief in terms of religious belief (as that how it has been clearly defined in this topic), but I agreed to the terms so let’s go with it.

Forcing a belief upon a minority will never make the truly believe in it. Governmental law is not the same as a belief. Sure one can align with a certain political party, or one’s economic view can be labels a multitude of things. Passing a law is not the same as forcing a belief system. A law may contain ideas from a certain party of economic stance, but the law in itself is not a belief.

I’ll ask you a similar question. Do you believe that the majority has the right to assert its will upon the minority?

 

[royal_archer]

So one’s morality now includes one’s economic views?

not an economic view, welfare as a morale view. Some feel it is a moral obligation to move (by force) money from some one who earned it to someone who did not. If you do not feel the majority should have the right to force their idea of morality as it relates to gay unions, why should another group be able to force their view of morality as it comes to welfare, or any other leftist ideology for that matter?

 

[royal_archer]

I’ll ask you a similar question. Do you believe that the majority has the right to assert its will upon the minority?

Nope as long as you keep it in the clossett and do not attempt to expose young children to it.

 

[NoMoreGames]

not an economic view, welfare as a morale view. Some feel it is a moral obligation to move (by force) money from some one who earned it to someone who did not. If you do not feel the majority should have the right to force their idea of morality as it relates to gay unions, why should another group be able to force their view of morality as it comes to welfare, or any other leftist ideology for that matter?

The welfare state has changed from its religious basis, just like the governmental version of marriage. The welfare systems exist to uphold the structure of society and its economy (meaning keeping all people spending so all companies can stay afloat), that is to prevent another depression. This is different from it’s roots of doing it out of moral obligation. Yet the church doesn’t what the government to change the term welfare…

 

[NoMoreGames]

Nope as long as you keep it in the clossett and do not attempt to expose young children to it.

So the majority does not have the right to impose it’s will upon the minority as long as you keep it in the closet and don’t expose children to it? I don’t follow.

 

[royal_archer]

So the majority does not have the right to impose it’s will upon the minority as long as you keep it in the closet and don’t expose children to it? I don’t follow.

i guess you don’t. It seems that when it is an issue you want, it is OK for the majority to force their will on the minority but when the majority disagree with you then they shouldn’t be able to force their will.

 

[NoMoreGames]

i guess you don’t. It seems that when it is an issue you want, it is OK for the majority to force their will on the minority but when the majority disagree with you then they shouldn’t be able to force their will.

Of course I don’t understand. I stated that.

What I meant was that the statement i typed (essentially your statement) wasn’t even logically sensible.

“So the majority does not have the right to impose it’s will upon the minority as long as you keep it in the closet and don’t expose children to it?”

So they majority does not have the right to force their beliefs that gay marriage is wrong as long as they keep it in the closet? See what i mean? That doesn’t make sense.

And where do you get of saying that the majority can force their will if I agree, but they can’t if I don’t? I never said anything like that. (This isn’t about me by the way)

 

[royal_archer]

Of course I don’t understand. I stated that.

What I meant was that the statement i typed (essentially your statement) wasn’t even logically sensible.

“So the majority does not have the right to impose it’s will upon the minority as long as you keep it in the closet and don’t expose children to it?”

So they majority does not have the right to force their beliefs that gay marriage is wrong as long as they keep it in the closet? See what i mean? That doesn’t make sense.

And where do you get of saying that the majority can force their will if I agree, but they can’t if I don’t? I never said anything like that. (This isn’t about me by the way)

you pick the option you support:

1. Majority can not impose morality: You can insult christians by flaunting your immorality and using the religious communities terms to describe your vulgar relationships because we can not force our morality on you. Plus we do away with FORCED (through taxation) welfare, affirmative action, animal rights, and all of the other leftist agenda items.
2. Majority can impose morality: If the majority want the fore mentioned array of social issues they can but we can decide to surpress any public(or private for that matter) gay activity as long as 51% of the voting public feel like it.

You can only choose one option. which is it?

 

[AngelAshley]

“Bottom line is, father is is male and mother is still female - that is how it is and that is how it should be.”

So “father” is defined by what is between his legs? What’s that really got to do with bringing up a child? (Unless you’re a catholic preist LOL)
Also what about hermaphrodites? Intersex people? Where do they stand? And transexuals? Gender and sex are not black and white concepts you know. There are variables right across the board.

It sounds to me like you’re saying “A child needs to be bought up by one person with a penis between their legs and one person with a vagina.” Which is really a pretty stupid statement since, as I said, the genetalia of the parents should have no bearing on the upbringing of a child - but the social roles of the parents does, and this is variable and switchable.

 

[AngelAshley]

I don’t know who you are “Ash” but I hope I never meet you in an alley — you are a very scary person.

As NMG Stated, biography at the bottom of the page.
I’m interested, what makes me scary? Oh sorry, have I just scared you into questioning your faith?

After reading your “Special Report” I must confess that I have NEVER seen such a compilation of lies, inuendos, smoke screens, circular references, unsubstantiated “facts” and conclusions.

Neither had I! That special report by the catholic church is quite astounding isn’t it?! Quoting discredited scientists, using questionable psycological tactics to steer the reader, misquoting statistics… good job someone had the spare time it took to explain it all to someone who might not know better

What moral make-up lets you couch such trash in the disguise of concern that the Catholic Church may not treat gays fairly. I assure you, the Roman Catholic Church has treated homosexuality with more honesty and respect that you have.

I’d like to know why you think it’s “trash”. I don’t care how the Catholic Church sees homosexuals… as NMG stated, it’s the state I’m concerned about, since I don’t follow the Church and (with proper seperation of Church and State, which is what I’m aiming for) the Church can never impose it’s narrow minded views on me.
Question - how is denying the right to marriage “respect”?

Please do not expect me to cite samples of what I say - the entire “Special Report” IS the example.

That’s a cop-out if ever I saw one! Surely you can come up with one small example and explain it to the good people of this forum?!

 

[Elizabeth502]

So “father” is defined by what is between his legs?

Yes. (What a concept.)

What’s that really got to do with bringing up a child? Gender and sex are not black and white concepts you know. There are variables right across the board.

No, there are manipulated gender constructs distorting actual biology in favor of both a redefined society and a redefined natural order (made neither in the image of science nor in the image of God, but in the image of self-divinized humans). The variables are not the genders. The variables are the roles within the genders. Big difference. There’s a spectrum of identifiably “feminine” and identifying “masculine” reference points, but ultimately manhood (the prerequisite for fatherhood) and womanhood (prerequisite for motherhood) cannot be achieved by the substitution of roles, or the denial of the primacy of gender.

It sounds to me like you’re saying “A child needs to be bought up by one person with a penis between their legs and one person with a vagina.” Which is really a pretty stupid statement since, as I said, the genetalia of the parents should have no bearing on the upbringing of a child - but the social roles of the parents does, and this is variable and switchable.

Yep: black is white and white is black. Up is down; down is up. Welcome to the post-positivistic world, without consistency of any kind, a world defined by subjective, fluid, sensory experience.

 

[AngelAshley]

No, there are manipulated gender constructs distorting actual biology in favor of both a redefined society and a redefined natural order (made neither in the image of science nor in the image of God, but in the image of self-divinized humans).

So… what can you tell me about biology and sex that clearly defines that all living people are clearly seperated into two distinct categories?

The variables are not the genders. The variables are the roles within the genders. Big difference. There’s a spectrum of identifiably “feminine” and identifying “masculine” reference points, but ultimately manhood (the prerequisite for fatherhood) and womanhood (prerequisite for motherhood) cannot be achieved by the substitution of roles, or the denial of the primacy of gender.

If anything is manipulated by society, it is these gender “roles” you speak of. What, scientifically, prevents a person of one sex from fulfilling the “roles” normally associated with the other sex?
Can you explain these concepts of “manhood” and “womanhood” in more detail? I’d like to know what these prerequisites are, exactly. And what exactly does “fatherhood” and “motherhood” have to do with marriage? Do children have to be produced in order for a marriage to exist? (Socially/legally speaking here, not religious)

Also I’m interested to hear your argument on what links sex to gender, are you saying that all people born with a penis have to have the social gender of male? What about transexuals?

Yep: black is white and white is black. Up is down; down is up. Welcome to the post-positivistic world, without consistency of any kind, a world defined by subjective, fluid, sensory experience.

Agreed - black is black and white is white. What about shades of grey? Do they not exist? And up is up and down is down. What about sideways? 32 degree angles?