Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter NoMoreGames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is my opinion that the state may NOT say anything about marriage. They have no authority over it. The state should say nothing about gay marriage. It should be a personal desicion. It is the church’s mission to not allow it within her boundries and discourage it in people’s lives. The state should have no authority on this matter.
If you look back at past pages you will see how there is a difference between religious marriage and governmental marriage. Granted, the latter did begin in the former, but they are no longer directly connected (the is, one can be married in the church or state without involvement by the other).
as for blacks they simply wouldn’t opt to live there. In the case of blacks in the U.S. They didn’t get much of a choice.
So gay couples should move away instead of trying to end discrimination?
I haven’t read the whole thread, so please excuse me if you’ve already addressed this…but…

…how, exactly, does the government “promote love” with so-called gay marriage? Would the people not love each other without it?

It’s just that the way you put it, it just seems like one of those trite platitudes that people use to bludgeon others with…

Obama supports what’s politically expedient. If you think otherwise, you’ve put too much trust in princes.
how is promoting marriage promoting love? Look at that statement and you tell me 😛 Of course love eachother without it, but that doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t support it?

Of course obama supports what is politically expedient, but people knew what he supported and still voted him in, no?
 
how is promoting marriage promoting love? Look at that statement and you tell me 😛
No, you tell me. Marriage = lovey-dovey gooey eyes is one of the big lies of modernity, and one of the prime explanations of the current divorce rates.

Again, how does the government providing tax incentives promote “love”?

You made the statement. You justify it. That’s your job.
Of course love eachother without it, but that doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t support it?
You’re missing the point of why the government has an interest in marriage. Hint: it’s not about affection.
Of course obama supports what is politically expedient, but people knew what he supported and still voted him in, no?
No. People didn’t know what he supported and voted for him anyway…and not based on the content of his character.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
No, you tell me. Marriage = lovey-dovey gooey eyes is one of the big lies of modernity, and one of the prime explanations of the current divorce rates.

Again, how does the government providing tax incentives promote “love”?

You made the statement. You justify it. That’s your job.
I never once stated that marriage = lovey-dovey gooey eyes. And yes, that is one of the direct causes of divorce rates, but is irrelevant.

How does the government support love? By supporting equality. By not discriminating on the basis of color, gender, creed, orientation or any quality. Supporting marriage, straight or gay, the government is supporting equality and not judging the individual (and even Jesus warned not to judge).
You’re missing the point of why the government has an interest in marriage. Hint: it’s not about affection.
You’re right. It’s about protection. Protection of the freedom of choice, protection from the discrimination from others that stems only from their fear or something they don’t understand because they are too quick to judge.
No. People didn’t know what he supported and voted for him anyway…and not based on the content of his character.

God Bless,
RyanL
It could just as easily be said that his opponent’s basis of being a maverick was just as vague. It’s the voter’s responsibility to inform themselves on the candidate. If they still vote without doing that first, well, that’s one of the weaknesses (and yet strengths) of the system. You’d be surprised, there are probably a similar number of people who vote republican simply because the church tells them, not even bother to deeply research the candidate.
 
Why is so much effort and money going into the topic of Gay Marriage? Forget the battle. Concentrate on the war… Freedom of Religion - There shouldn’t be any. Everyone should worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where are all the amendments to abolish Freedom of Religion?
 
But it’s the catholic position that homosexuality is immoral, not society. All of your arguments to prevent it in this country are still religious, no matter how much you try to make it seem like they are not. It might crumble your perception of society, but not necessarily society itself, since that society is based, in part, on freedom.

And to say that gay marriages are not rooted in family and are therefore chiefly for pleasure is a rash generalization. Gay couples can be long term just like any others.
Why do you call being against homosexual unions a “catholic position”? Although it is the Catholic position, it is also the position of other citizens of the U.S. whether they belong to an organized religion, or not. I don’t think it was only Catholics who voted for Prop. 8. Wasn’t something also mentioned about some members of the Mormon Church?
 
Why is so much effort and money going into the topic of Gay Marriage? Forget the battle. Concentrate on the war… Freedom of Religion - There shouldn’t be any. Everyone should worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where are all the amendments to abolish Freedom of Religion?
Is this serious or sarcastic?
Why do you call being against homosexual unions a “catholic position”? Although it is the Catholic position, it is also the position of other citizens of the U.S. whether they belong to an organized religion, or not. I don’t think it was only Catholics who voted for Prop. 8. Wasn’t something also mentioned about some members of the Mormon Church?
I did not say it was a Catholic position to be against gay marriage. I said it was a Catholic position that homosexuality was immoral. That doesn’t mean you have to be catholic to believe it, and it can also mean you are against gay marriage for reasons other then its morality. And I’m guess a majority of the people who voted no on 8 were christian from on denomination or another.
 
Is this serious or sarcastic?

I did not say it was a Catholic position to be against gay marriage. I said it was a Catholic position that homosexuality was immoral. That doesn’t mean you have to be catholic to believe it, and it can also mean you are against gay marriage for reasons other then its morality. And I’m guess a majority of the people who voted no on 8 were christian from on denomination or another.
Okay, so I shouldn’t have said “unions”. What I was trying to say it isn’t “only” the Catholic Church who teaches that homsexuality (actions) is immoral.
 
Okay, so I shouldn’t have said “unions”. What I was trying to say it isn’t “only” the Catholic Church who teaches that homsexuality (actions) is immoral.
Fair enough. But it can’t be argued that it is mostly religious people that believe it is immoral. Not all, but most.
 
2cents worth:

Gay “equality” laws in Massachusetts and in Great Britain have forced Catholic adoption agencies to close. Why? Because the law refused to allow them to follow their religion, refused to let them restrict adoption to married heterosexual couples. The children that could have been adopted in loving families suffer as a direct result of the gay movement which tries to force compliance with gays’ rejection of specifically Catholic religious beliefs.

Also, on the racial front, there is a ridiculous law which operates to prevent white parents from adopting black children. mixedheritagecenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1525&Itemid=29 This is more of the nonsense that perpetuates racism and hurts children. There’s more minority children who need adoptive homes but because of this twisted liberal Groupthink, children will suffer.

What gay adoption steals from children is nature. It takes from them the experience of growing up with a mother and father by choice. Gay parents having 1/2 biological children and straight singles doing the same, also perverts nature. Their actions CAUSE children to suffer lack of a natural mother and father. Adoption of orphans is NOT analogous; there, the parent(s) did not choose to make the child suffer the lack of a natural parent. Big difference.

I reiterate that the only real support for gay marriage is that some people want it. Still waiting for that religious argument that gay sex acts are not immoral. The claim that there is some confusion about biblical wording and interpretation hardly is an argument which supports gay sexual conduct as moral. I’ve been waiting about 30 yrs. to hear an articulated religiously-based argument that gay sexual conduct is moral and OK. Still waiting.
 
Still waiting for that religious argument that gay sex acts are not immoral. The claim that there is some confusion about biblical wording and interpretation hardly is an argument which supports gay sexual conduct as moral. I’ve been waiting about 30 yrs. to hear an articulated religiously-based argument that gay sexual conduct is moral and OK. Still waiting.
Don’t forget that some people still believe in the articulated religiously-based argument that it’s immoral to mix different races… If people are only prepared to accept the argument that makes sense to them, they could wait forever …
 
That’s not an answer. Still waiting.
I gave a very well researched explanation of the Biblical references to homosexuality on the previous pages. if you want, i can write it all out again but what it really comes down to is this: I was told i rejected valid arguments because i didn’t agree with them (which is not necessarily true, i was just bringing up counter points). Similarly, you are rejecting a logical and well explained reason simply because you don’t agree with it.
 
To nomoregames - why are attacking everyone who are trying
to answer your original comments relating to the above. It
seems as if you are at war here.
Why don’t you accept what reasons are given here, rather than
trying to counter-attack very angle of a question or answer.
Don’t try to paint a bad picture of the Catholic Church regarding
this because the Church teaches the truth and will NEVER
BOW DOWN TO ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST ITS
TEACHINGS.
Just stop being a pain…
 
I gave a very well researched explanation of the Biblical references to homosexuality on the previous pages. if you want, i can write it all out again but what it really comes down to is this: I was told i rejected valid arguments because i didn’t agree with them (which is not necessarily true, i was just bringing up counter points). Similarly, you are rejecting a logical and well explained reason simply because you don’t agree with it.
NoMoreGames-

You are presenting intelligent arguments against prejudice (clocked in religion) and shaking folks up! Keep it up. I am enjoying your posts.

Keep being a pain!!!👍
 
Don’t forget that some people still believe in the articulated religiously-based argument that it’s immoral to mix different races… If people are only prepared to accept the argument that makes sense to them, they could wait forever …
Do you think that view is religiously based, or culturally based? Possibly some of the churches of the same denomination of one area would have that view, while the same denomination in another area would have a more tolerant view. It would be difficult to know which came first, religion, or culture, in this instance.
 
NoMoreGames-

You are presenting intelligent arguments against prejudice (clocked in religion) and shaking folks up! Keep it up. I am enjoying your posts.

Keep being a pain!!!👍
Go ahead egg him. What you are calling intelligent is an example of what true bigotry is…

Gay appoligist come to Catholic answers and insult the Church, our Pope, the teachings of our Church and God himself. Totally ignoring the fact we are people of belief, which part of that belief is follow the teachings of our Church. They call us hateful, bigots, stupid and just plane dumb.

In other words they think they are smarter then us, our bishops, our Popes and Christ himself, declaring their misunderstood feelings (by themselves) and misplaced sexual urges (toward others) trump the 21 centuries of what the Church Teaches.

They show how they are truly the ones that have a prejudice topped off with a purity of hate, so self assured they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Would it be intelligent, or an act of hate if one of us would show up at your local “gay” bar start ranting about how stupid you are, how hateful you are, how dumb you are, etc, etc,?

Go ahead and cheer on the hateful rants, but be assured it is far from being initellgent, it is more like a NAZI showing up at Temple berating the rabbi just before he leads the assembly off to be shot.

Here is what the Churchs teaches on SSM.

usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexunions2z.shtml
Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate either from the church or the state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.
Marriage, whose nature and purposes were established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children. The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be treasured and protected.
Debate over go home… or shoot us. :cool:
 
Do you think that view is religiously based, or culturally based? Possibly some of the churches of the same denomination of one area would have that view, while the same denomination in another area would have a more tolerant view. It would be difficult to know which came first, religion, or culture, in this instance.
Culturally based
 
NoMoreGames,

Please forgive me – I haven’t read all your posts on this thread. I started to, but there are just so many things you get wrong that I had to stop.

Back to what I was saying before…

You’ve tried to club us with the ol’ saw about us being against laws that promote love. I called you on it. You responded with the following vague platitudes:
How does the government support love? By supporting equality. By not discriminating on the basis of color, gender, creed, orientation or any quality. Supporting marriage, straight or gay, the government is supporting equality and not judging the individual (and even Jesus warned not to judge).
So here are some things you get wrong. First, the government does not “support equality” as a general rule. In fact, every law works to discriminate between people – those who obey and those who don’t. That’s not equality.

Second, the government discriminates on the basis of gender all the time. Try putting a woman on a submarine or house a man in a woman’s barracks. Creed? How many atheist organizations are tax exempt? Color/ethnicity? Try to open a casino in Oklahoma sometime – then try it as a member of the Osage tribe. Need I go on?

Next, the government doesn’t support marriage equally. Try marrying your parent. Can ya’? No. Why not? Aren’t you in love? Well…yeah…BUT… See? Discrimination. That’s pretty much the SOLE function of the government.

And why is it that the only Scripture you liberals can quote is the “judge not” verse? Jesus was talking about subjective intentions, not objective acts, and only someone with an agenda would disagree. See, e.g., John 7:24.
You’re right. It’s about protection. Protection of the freedom of choice, protection from the discrimination from others that stems only from their fear or something they don’t understand because they are too quick to judge.
Quack quack. Why not protect my right not to support so-called gay marriage with my tax dollars? Why not protect that choice?

Here’s the thing…

It’s not the government’s job to “promote love” any more than it’s the government’s job to “promote nice,” and I think we should all be scared of the Nice Police.

Rather, the government’s job is (or at least, should be) to promote physical security (police, fire, military, etc.), manage the infrastructure (taxes, roads, power, etc.) and otherwise stay out of things. Marriage falls into under both categories, as we need future citizens for either categories to last long. That’s the government’s ONLY interest in marriage – making more citizens. It’s not about “promoting love” or “promoting nice” or even “promoting equality,” or pretty much any other platitude you’re liable to come up with. The old and the infertile are allowed to marry because (1) the fertile octogenarian (google it) is a longstanding legal concept that (with modern science) makes more and more sense (if you call it that) and (2) performing fertility tests has historically been impossible and is otherwise highly invasive.

So wanna’ try again?

Also, your Biblical exegesis and historical (hysterical?) critical methodology needs serious work.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
I never once stated that marriage = lovey-dovey gooey eyes. And yes, that is one of the direct causes of divorce rates, but is irrelevant.

How does the government support love? By supporting equality. By not discriminating on the basis of color, gender, creed, orientation or any quality. Supporting marriage, straight or gay, the government is supporting equality and not judging the individual (and even Jesus warned not to judge).

The statement Jesus used concerning judgement came with a qualifier, that is not to judge for you will be judged by the same standard. That is: be careful how you judge and by what standards you judge by as well your intent of the judgement. And right now that standard is being turned on you. For you are a making a false judgement not only against those that oppose you on the issue of gay marriage, but also a false judgement on the purpose of marriage, sexuality and sexual orientation.

In fact you are being judgemental against the Church, Her members, many non-Catholics and non-Christians by making a claim that it is wrong to be judgemental concerning your illogical idea of a right for which you think trumps the good of society as whole. But we must make judgements each and every day concerning many issues and if you and I try to live life without making any judgement over many of life’s situations we put ourselves, our families and society in danger. Judgement is not an evil, but a necessity of life.

You try to use the words of our God for the defense of your argument, when in fact you reject Him. You use His words out of context and throw many of them away when they contradict your prejudice and misconceptions.

You’re right. It’s about protection. Protection of the freedom of choice, protection from the discrimination from others that stems only from their fear or something they don’t understand because they are too quick to judge.

It is society in which we must protect, and the first line of defense is protecting the concept of family. Accepting “Gay” marriage is corrupting the idea of what a familiy is thus putting all of society in danger. Even putting your basic rights you share with each and everyone else in society into danger.

It could just as easily be said that his opponent’s basis of being a maverick was just as vague. It’s the voter’s responsibility to inform themselves on the candidate. If they still vote without doing that first, well, that’s one of the weaknesses (and yet strengths) of the system. You’d be surprised, there are probably a similar number of people who vote republican simply because the church tells them, not even bother to deeply research the candidate.

The Church doesn’t tell anyone which party to vote for, but it does tell which issues to defend and which to oppose. And it is very clear what the Church teachings concerning marriage are. Catholics are to defend traditional marriage, not just within the concept of their own marriages, but in the voting booth and with other politcal actions.

The Church does not promote hate of homosexuals, but what you call discrimination against same-sex couples is just that, but discriminition is not an intrinsic evil. In many cases, and this is one, it is a necessary defense mechanism to protect your family, your community and society as a whole.

You think many of us don’t have proper understand of homosexuality, but many of us we know very well the danger one puts themselves, their love ones and society in when they act out on thier same-sex attraction, (as well as others that act outside of the marriage bed) for it takes detached observers to see the problems and make sound judgements on its instinisic worth or danger to society as a whole.

Personally, I trust that celibate old man in Rome and his fellow Bishops a whole lot more then persons that define and identify themselves mainly by their sexual urges or by their supporters that are afraid to hurt other’s feelings, or afraid of being accused falsely as being hateful by telling them the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top