Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[erigby27]

What exactly do you mean by unnatural? I’d argue that things like polyester, air conditioning and eye glasses are far more unnatural. If your definition is unnatural is “has been happening since the beging of time but has only gained attention recently” then I agree.

You don’t think that abolitionists met with obstacles? Looking back I’m willing to bet you’d agree denying blacks any civil rights was a horrible thing to do. Same situation here. In the future, those who oppose equal rights for homosexuals will be seen in the same light as those who supported slavery.

Natural law does not change, but man’s understand of this natural law (which has still never been clearly defined in the topic) does change. I point to the slavery example again. In the time of slavery, those who owned slaves probably felt it was natural law that the more dominant could own the more submissive. We now know that attitude to be wrong.

The percentage of the population is not relevant. People should not be not accepted just because they do not exist in large numbers. As far as being converted to homosexuality, that’s just absurd. Just as if one is straight they could not be honestly attracted to the same sex even if they tried, gays can’t be attracted to the opposite. There is no conversion going on by either side. Those who say they were converted from homosexuality were simply confused in the first place, but it is now clear to them.

Forgive my word choice. I meant to say “abnormal” and “against Natural Law”. Unfortunately when I use the word abnormal, I’m asked what “normal” is.

Equating sexual “orientation” with race is unreasonable and fallacious. Same Sex Attraction is something that people can’t change, but something that people can gain control over. People suffering from SSA have a difficult cross to bear, but, as they are human, are perfectly capable of remaining chaste and celibate.

Also, Natural Law is different than “This is something we’ve done for a while so let’s keep doing it”. Natural Law is dictated by nature, and is defined by behaviors that perpetuate the growth and survival of a species. Homosexuality goes against the Natural Law. While slavery would go under the latter category, it has nothing to do with Natural Law.

I also think that the percentage of people suffering from SSA is very relevant. Major Depressive Disorder has a 1 year prevalence of 6.7. Does that mean that MDD is normal? It accounts for most suicides. Does that mean suicide is normal or acceptable? I don’t think we should provide people with this disorder with the tools they need to be self-destructive.

I really don’t think it is your place to say that people who have experienced conversion experiences (though I would never expect someone to feel obligated to experience such a thing) were “just confused before”. I can tell you that you are wrong.

I don’t think homosexual people “should not be accepted”. I love everybody. I accept everybody. I don’t, however, love sin. I love people so much that I know they are better than sin. They are so much more than that.

 

[JuneBug72]

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.

I think we need to return to the topic which I believe was a question of US federal and/or state law which is clearly separate from ones personal religious beliefs (although there may be some similarities). The U.S. government is not controlled by Rome or by any particular religious faith.

 

[c659smith]

I think we need to return to the topic which I believe was a question of US federal and/or state law which is clearly separate from ones personal religious beliefs (although there may be some similarities). The U.S. government is not controlled by Rome or by any particular religious faith.

You are correct but remember the federal goverment may make no laws in regards to Religion. Therefore marriage which clearly is defined as a Religous act between a man and woman may not be changed by the goverment and would be a violation of our constitution.

Our constituion does not state seperation between church and state. That is part of a letter from Thomas Jefferson.

 

[JuneBug72]

You are correct but remember the federal goverment may make no laws in regards to Religion. Therefore marriage which clearly is defined as a Religous act between a man and woman may not be changed by the goverment and would be a violation of our constitution.

Our Constitution does not state separation between church and state. That is part of a letter from Thomas Jefferson.

Maybe however still not relevant. The founding fathers were deists at best not Catholic. Rome’s positron on US law is besides the point. There are also branches of Christianity who endorse same sex marriage. Not that it matters.

The US government is considered secular not Christian.

 

[GreenLantern]

No one’s saying a Unitarian Universalist congregation can’t hold a gay marriage ceremony. The controversy is over whether the government should recognize gay marriage.

 

[fix]

It is interesting that it says man exists in a culture, but is not defined by it. That means that gay marriage could be allowed in this nation without effecting personal religion at all, doesn’t it?

Certainly there is a need to seek out and to discover *the most adequate formulation *for universal and permanent moral norms in the light of different cultural contexts, a formulation most capable of ceaselessly expressing their historical relevance, of making them understood and of authentically interpreting their truth. This truth of the moral law — like that of the “deposit of faith” — unfolds down the centuries: the norms expressing that truth remain valid in their substance, but must be specified and determined "eodem sensu eademque sententia" 99 in the light of historical circumstances by the Church’s Magisterium, whose decision is preceded and accompanied by the work of interpretation and formulation characteristic of the reason of individual believers and of theological reflection.100

“The latter (natural law) is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided.”

Don’t you think it is possible this light has been twisted by corrupt men over time?

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

 

[fix]

I think we need to return to the topic which I believe was a question of US federal and/or state law which is clearly separate from ones personal religious beliefs (although there may be some similarities). The U.S. government is not controlled by Rome or by any particular religious faith.

Laws should be based in reason. The truth of Catholic teaching is reasonable. Why must truth be excluded?

 

[NoMoreGames]

For those who say marriage is a religious institution and cannot be changed by the goverment, I pose this question. It cannot be denied that marraige indeed has its roots (that is to say it began) in religion. In the modern day, however, religious marraige and governmentl marraige are two divverent processes. One can hapen without the other. In fact, when the state began to allow divorce, the church later adapted to allow them as well (which was unheard of before the state allowed).
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v41/ai_7600933 “the history of divorce is essentially the story of the progressive rejection of Catholic marriage doctrine. Since there wasn’t any divorce before the sixteenth century and there wasn’t much until very recently, this history in practice covers a rather short span”

And yet now the church says it is allowed under necessary circumstances. Interesting…

It is easy to say that the church MUST be right because it is immutable. One should consider what kinds of people have handled and twisted this infallible truth. If one was a corrupt individual who wanted people to align with their views, wouldn’t it be easy in infiltrate a group of people who blindly follow teaching without question to their legitimacy as infallible?

Using religious quotes and citing religious writings can only work so far, as they have been handled by humans since their inspiration.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Laws should be based in reason. The truth of Catholic teaching is reasonable. Why must truth be excluded?

Catholic teaching is NOT always reasonable. Take the real presence. You and I believe that it is the Real Body, and the Real Blood on the alter, but that is not exactly reasonable.

I think it is more appropriate to say laws are based on logic, which does not always apply to Catholic teachings.

 

[fix]

Catholic teaching is NOT always reasonable. Take the real presence. You and I believe that it is the Real Body, and the Real Blood on the alter, but that is not exactly reasonable.

I think it is more appropriate to say laws are based on logic, which does not always apply to Catholic teachings.

The truth of Catholic teaching on the moral law is logical and reasonable. The problem is some people refuse to accept that for certain reasons.

Reason and experience not only confirm the weakness of human freedom; they also confirm its tragic aspects. Man comes to realize that his freedom is in some mysterious way inclined to betray this openness to the True and the Good, and that all too often he actually prefers to choose finite, limited and ephemeral goods. What is more, within his errors and negative decisions, man glimpses the source of a deep rebellion, which leads him to reject the Truth and the Good in order to set himself up as an absolute principle unto himself: “You will be like God” (Gen 3:5). Consequently, *freedom itself needs to be set free. It is Christ who sets it free: *he “has set us free for freedom” (cf. Gal 5:1)…

Veritatis splendor

 

[fix]

Using religious quotes and citing religious writings can only work so far, as they have been handled by humans since their inspiration.

Does this mean we should reject non religious writings as they, too, are handled by humans? Who is your authority?

 

[NoMoreGames]

Does this mean we should reject non religious writings as they, too, are handled by humans? Who is your authority?

I didn’t say reject. I said question. If you’re basing your life on a non-religious writing, you probably should question that as well.

 

[friarjamesosf]

I believe you are confusing voluntary giving with compulsory redistribution of resources.

Not in terms of Jubilee - that was a compulsatory re-distribution of wealth. It was based on what some consider the eternal, unchangeable truth that all things are God’s. So, if some people have been given an abundance, (defined as anything beyond their needs) the abundance is to be given to those who have less…

Do you recall the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus? Luke 16:19-31. I’m not sure, but I think Jesus really meant that.

 

[fix]

I didn’t say reject. I said question. If you’re basing your life on a non-religious writing, you probably should question that as well.

Who is your authority?

 

[NoMoreGames]

Who is your authority?

are you asking who gives the authority to question things?

 

[fix]

are you asking who gives the authority to question things?

I am asking who the authority is regarding the moral law.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I am asking who the authority is regarding the moral law.

God, who is love. Only those on the outside of a loving relationship who did not understand a type of love different from what they experience would be ignorant enough to say it isn’t love. That is not to say relationships don’t exist that are not based on love, but it is not accurate to say that a certain kind of love is inherently wrong.

 

[royal_archer]

…and he completed them by not doing what the traditional written law said to do. He virtually denounced that part of the law.

good discussion but I got home late and will have to comment later.

 

[royal_archer]

Not in terms of Jubilee - that was a compulsatory re-distribution of wealth. It was based on what some consider the eternal, unchangeable truth that all things are God’s. So, if some people have been given an abundance, (defined as anything beyond their needs) the abundance is to be given to those who have less…

Do you recall the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus? Luke 16:19-31. I’m not sure, but I think Jesus really meant that.

Once again this reference is related to giving voluntarily. Had the Roman soldiers taken all of the worldly goods from the rich man and given them to Lazurus, I feel his fate would have been the same although I fear that Lazarus’s fate may not have been so favorable.

 

[fix]

God, who is love. Only those on the outside of a loving relationship who did not understand a type of love different from what they experience would be ignorant enough to say it isn’t love. That is not to say relationships don’t exist that are not based on love, but it is not accurate to say that a certain kind of love is inherently wrong.

Then you know God founded a Church and has a living authority to teach in this area.