Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[Bennie_P]

No, Facism is when you take away the rights of others who don’t believe the same as you (i.e. right to marriage)

If you take the right of the Church to teach, by creating a right for another, what is the difference?

Fascism is the 'gay" gene…

 

[CatholicLeft]

If you take the right of the Church to teach, by creating a right for another, what is the difference?

Fascism is the 'gay" gene…

Say like what? Where is there legistration in any level of government that is trying to take away the right for the church to teach anything?? By giving African-Americans civil rights, did we take away the right for the KKK to teach it’s hate???

 

[Bennie_P]

Say like what? Where is there legistration in any level of government that is trying to take away the right for the church to teach anything?? By giving African-Americans civil rights, did we take away the right for the KKK to teach it’s hate???

You need to quit trying to tie this issue in with the civil rights of blacks and women. You are making a bogus correlation. In Cal. Prop 8 was defeated by the help of a majority of the African American community saying no to gay marriages. So are the majority of African Americans in California bigots?

You are teaching hate, hate of morality, hate of Christians, hate of Muslums, hate of Jews, hate of Blacks, for these groups, at least the majority of them, disagree with you not only on gay marriage but immorality in general, yes you sound more like a white gay skin head, ready to burn priest in front of Churches. Bigot yep that is what you sound like, a self-righteous hater, just like Fred Phelps, who is probably gay too… or at least being financed by the gay rights movement pocket book.

Of course I would not judge you to be a bigot, but you do sound like one.

 

[goofyjim]

No, we cannot call it marriage. But on the heterosexual marriage front a thought just came to mind. Why are annulments granted to those who can afford the costs but not to those who face similar situations but are too poor. Maybe I’m wrong but shouldn’t the Church equally decide the cases based on circumstances and not on the ability to pay the costs. When money becomes part of the decision, it makes the practices questionable. That’s why I feel many annulments are just Church authorized adultery and adulterers are going to the same place as homosexuals according to scripture. So we can either have mercy on them all or admit that heaven these days is turning out to be a lonely place.

 

[NoMoreGames]

You need to quit trying to tie this issue in with the civil rights of blacks and women. You are making a bogus correlation. In Cal. Prop 8 was defeated by the help of a majority of the African American community saying no to gay marriages. So are the majority of African Americans in California bigots?

I think you’re confusing the anology. It doesn’t matter whether or not blacks supported prop 8. With the passing ofthe civil rights movement, race no longer controled rights. The comparason is not gay marraige to african americans, it’s gay marraige to civil rights.

Think of how many people opposed civil rights during the early (and even late) years of the movement… Just because they may be been rejected by a majority at some point does not make it ok for the government to deny people rights because of their race. If you agree with that, replace civil rights with gay marraige, and race with orientation. The argument is still the same. I’m not sure how it is possible to feel it was wroing to deny civil rights, but justite to deny gay marriage.

People involved in the civil rights movement were often blinded by being involved (for or against). Same thing here. We exist time, making it impossible to have a view outside of it.

 

[RyanL]

Why are annulments granted to those who can afford the costs but not to those who face similar situations but are too poor.

Hi, Jim. If you’re truly interested, here’s a Catholic Answers piece entitled Answering Common Questions About Annulments. You’ll be interested in questions 4 & 5, specifically, but I’d really give the whole thing a read – sounds like there may be a few other things needing clarification.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

I think you’re confusing the anology. It doesn’t matter whether or not blacks supported prop 8. With the passing ofthe civil rights movement, race no longer controled rights. The comparason is not gay marraige to african americans, it’s gay marraige to civil rights.

Think of how many people opposed civil rights during the early (and even late) years of the movement… Just because they may be been rejected by a majority at some point does not make it ok for the government to deny people rights because of their race. If you agree with that, replace civil rights with gay marraige, and race with orientation. The argument is still the same. I’m not sure how it is possible to feel it was wroing to deny civil rights, but justite to deny gay marriage.

People involved in the civil rights movement were often blinded by being involved (for or against). Same thing here. We exist time, making it impossible to have a view outside of it.

I’m just gonna’ change a word here and there and we’ll see what shakes loose:

I think you’re confusing the anology. It doesn’t matter whether or not blacks supported prop 888. With the passing ofthe civil rights movement, race no longer controled rights. The comparason is not -]gay/-] incestuous marraige to african americans, it’s -]gay/-] incestuous marraige to civil rights.

Think of how many people opposed civil rights during the early (and even late) years of the movement… Just because they may be been rejected by a majority at some point does not make it ok for the government to deny people rights because of their race. If you agree with that, replace civil rights with -]gay/-] incestuous marraige, and race with -]orientation/-] consanguinity. The argument is still the same. I’m not sure how it is possible to feel it was wroing to deny civil rights, but justite to deny -]gay/-] incestuous marriage.

People involved in the civil rights movement were often blinded by being involved (for or against). Same thing here. We exist time, making it impossible to have a view outside of it.

YUP. Makes the EXACT same amount of sense. Literally, there’s no difference. I’m betting I could do the same thing with polygamy. I’m guessing that wasn’t your intention. Perhaps you should get a better argument?

The thing about the law is that you only get out of it as much sense as you put into it…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[goofyjim]

Hi, Jim. If you’re truly interested, here’s a Catholic Answers piece entitled Answering Common Questions About Annulments. You’ll be interested in questions 4 & 5, specifically, but I’d really give the whole thing a read – sounds like there may be a few other things needing clarification.

God Bless,
RyanL

It still doesn’t answer my question of why there is any cost at all. If one has nothing to pay and is then refused an annulment when there situation matches the one that can pay the money, both should be annulled. The Church shouldn’t be in the money making business in these matters. The only money they should be raising is from charity itself.

 

[royal_archer]

At the constitution, It’s fairly simple:

uweekly.com/newsmag/02-04-2009/10216

I specially like the flow chart

This article was correct in the aspect of the view of the masses not trumping the constitution. What some call a slipery slope is simply applying a set of logic to other areas. Logic does not change because the conditions change. if something is logical in one place it is logical elsewhere. Like wise the miss application of logic in one area runs the risk of the miss application of logic elsewhere. In this case the article did make a correct aplication of logic as it relates to the constitution. Public will can result in an ammendment to the constitution but it can not in it self override the constitution. This logic should apply to the first, second, and fifth ammendments but many liberals would not agree. They feel the popularity of gay culture overrides our freedom of religion. Many liberals also feel that popularity of the stimulus package and other forms of welfare overrules the constitutional protections of our property. In fact these intrusions into our protected rights are all wrong.

This article does fail to recognize that at times rights come in to conflict. For instance you have the right to do with your property as you see fit and I have the right to keep and bear arms. This does not give me the right to bear arms on your property If it is your desire that I do not carry weapons onto your property. At such times it is the role of government to settle such issues in a manner which is least burdensome on the passive party. for instance, if I am the one that wants to come onto your property you have the right to dictate the rules for me to do so. If I live my life in a non intrusive manner then I should not loose my rights in favor of another. However, If I wish to intrude I would have to forfiet rights in conflict where my intrusion onto the rights of others caused the conflict. The referenced article fails to take this into acount. But applying this logic you would have to grant every teenage boy the right to walk into the women’s showers and vice versa because segregated locker rooms are pure discrimination. The reason this discrimination is allowed is to protect the other rights of the individuals.
There is no secular reason a gay or other non traditional couple could not form a legal union. The problem comes when that otherwise private activity comes into conflict with the rights of others. For instance the right of a home owner to determine who they will rent out a room to. Or the right of an employer to determine how they will set up their companies insurance program.

 

[elts1956]

No, we cannot call it marriage. But on the heterosexual marriage front a thought just came to mind. Why are annulments granted to those who can afford the costs but not to those who face similar situations but are too poor. Maybe I’m wrong but shouldn’t the Church equally decide the cases based on circumstances and not on the ability to pay the costs. When money becomes part of the decision, it makes the practices questionable. That’s why I feel many annulments are just Church authorized adultery and adulterers are going to the same place as homosexuals according to scripture. So we can either have mercy on them all or admit that heaven these days is turning out to be a lonely place.

I have heard this “this fuel that fires the flames” before, but have never seen the statistics. So is this just hearsay, like I have heard, or do you have proof?

 

[RyanL]

It still doesn’t answer my question of why there is any cost at all. If one has nothing to pay and is then refused an annulment when there situation matches the one that can pay the money, both should be annulled. The Church shouldn’t be in the money making business in these matters. The only money they should be raising is from charity itself.

Jim,

Here’s what the article said. My comments in red.

It’s a Church rule that divorced people have to receive an annulment before being allowed to marry in the Church. Why should folks have to pay money for one of the Church’s rules? [This is exactly what you asked, no?]

The state requires people to get a civil divorce before it allows them to remarry under its laws. Before they get that divorce, the state requires them to pay certain fees and court costs. Is it unfair of the state to make folks pay for one of its rules?

Technically, of course, one doesn’t pay for a civil divorce as if it is literally for sale; one pays for the legal process by which that divorce is officially effected. Similarly, one does not pay for an annulment; rather, one pays for the canonical process by which an annulment might be granted. (Notice I say *might *be granted.)

Unlike a civil divorce, an annulment is not a more-or-less automatic process in which one has an eventual right to a certain outcome. Because of the Church’s commitment to permanent marriage, the annulment process is concerned with very different-and usually much more complex-types of issues than is a civil divorce court. [This means that while two situations may SEEM to be the same to you, no two cases are alike and the Church must evaluate them on their own terms. There’s no cookie-cutter answer since the issues are very complex and particular to the people. Having read a fair number of annulment cases, I agree with this position entirely.] The ecclesiastical process requires the attention of highly trained officials and supporting staff. [You agree their time would cost you in any other context, right?] Of course, if an individual truly cannot meet his or her share of the cost, procedures for reducing or waiving tribunal fees are available (canons 1464 and 1649). [So if they can’t pay, the Church provides.] No one is ever denied his “day in the tribunal” because of an inability to pay. Even when individuals pay their diocese’s standard tribunal fees, no diocese I know of makes money on annulments.

Given that the fee is typically $200-$1000, your “making money” argument seems a bit silly. Looks like you may need a different stick.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[elts1956]

No, we cannot call it marriage. But on the heterosexual marriage front a thought just came to mind. Why are annulments granted to those who can afford the costs but not to those who face similar situations but are too poor. Maybe I’m wrong but shouldn’t the Church equally decide the cases based on circumstances and not on the ability to pay the costs. When money becomes part of the decision, it makes the practices questionable. That’s why I feel many annulments are just Church authorized adultery and adulterers are going to the same place as homosexuals according to scripture. So we can either have mercy on them all or admit that heaven these days is turning out to be a lonely place.

The social functions of marriage have changed immensely across time, and yet society is still stable after all of these changes. Allowing gay marriage wouldn’t even change the function of it, just the participants. Gay marriage would not bring an end to the family.

not all relationships (romantic or not) in society are male-female, so I’m not sure how this is relevant. Men and women work together for each other’s good? I think it is more accurate to say that humanity works together.

and yet things like divorce and single parenting are supported by the government, so if its allowing some negative things, why not all?

it is not the government’s role to decide morals

So by changing a law to include more people, the initial law becomes weaker? When the right to vote was expanded by allowing more than just property owning men of age, was the concept of voting weakened?

so now justice justifies unequally?

Christinas must, but this conutry is not ruled by Christianity.

This thread has shown me that the legality of gay marriage based on the concept of freedom of religion is not necessarily true. Instead, not affording the same legal rights to gay couples is a violation of the concept of the equality of genders and the role of the government.

The social functions of marriage have changed immensely across time, and yet society is still stable after all of these changes.

Okay where have the functions changed? The female still cleans out the toilet bowl.

Also, a civil union policy for gays may be possible, but such unions can never be entered into in the Carholic Church. It will never be a Sacrament for such. The Catholic Church may be the last holdout in this instance, but hold out it will as it does in other instances of the Natural and Moral Laws.

 

[Bennie_P]

I think you’re confusing the anology. It doesn’t matter whether or not blacks supported prop 8. With the passing ofthe civil rights movement, race no longer controled rights. The comparason is not gay marraige to african americans, it’s gay marraige to civil rights.

Think of how many people opposed civil rights during the early (and even late) years of the movement… Just because they may be been rejected by a majority at some point does not make it ok for the government to deny people rights because of their race. If you agree with that, replace civil rights with gay marraige, and race with orientation. The argument is still the same. I’m not sure how it is possible to feel it was wroing to deny civil rights, but justite to deny gay marriage.

People involved in the civil rights movement were often blinded by being involved (for or against). Same thing here. We exist time, making it impossible to have a view outside of it.

You are confused, you cannot not just change Black with gay marriage. For one being black is not an action or a feeling. You cannot make a choice not to “act out being black”, but ‘even’ if you happen to be born with the feelings or attraction toward one of the same sex, you can make a choice if or if not to act on those feelings, for a homosexual act is choice of morality, being black is not a choice nor immoral, any time or in any way. and I, like many Africa-Americans, many Jews, many Muslums, the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and in fact the majority of Californians refuse to leave it up to you to decide what is just and unjustice by using such illogical comparasons and conclusions.

The only ones confused here are the ones that think they can shove a Louisville Slugger into a buffalo chip and think they can get an Ash tree to grow from it.

Society has suffered from change in laws and standards concderning morility and marriage. Easy divorce creats the same situation of poverty for women and children as becoming widows and orphans. Easy acceptance of no, or lax sexual morality has created a large number of single parent homes, such numbers unknown before the 60s, that are totally dysfuctional which has created a generation of kids without the knowledge of any stability or what the purpose or function of of a father except to have sex withthere mother, then go to some other women and make more kids.

Allowing gay marriage will not solve these problems but give men (and women) more excuses not to be responsible, thus making the problem worse… creating more mixed up kids that will become prey for abuse to step-fathers, their mother’s boy frieinds and older mixed up kids…aka members of the “gay” rights movement.

 

[elts1956]

You are confused, you cannot not just change Black with gay marriage. For one being black is not an action or a feeling. You cannot make a choice not to “act out being black”, but ‘even’ if you happen to be born with the feelings or attraction toward one of the same sex, you can make a choice if or if not to act on those feelings, for a homosexual act is choice of morality, being black is not a choice nor immoral, any time or in any way. and I, like many Africa-Americans, many Jews, many Muslums, the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and in fact the majority of Californians refuse to leave it up to you to decide what is just and unjustice by using such illogical comparasons and conclusions.

The only ones confused here are the ones that think they can shove a Louisville Slugger into a buffalo chip and think they can get an Ash tree to grow from it.

Society has suffered from change in laws and standards concderning morility and marriage. Easy divorce creats the same situation of poverty for women and children as becoming widows and orphans. Easy acceptance of no, or lax sexual morality has created a large number of single parent homes, such numbers unknown before the 60s, that are totally dysfuctional which has created a generation of kids without the knowledge of any stability or what the purpose or function of of a father except to have sex withthere mother, then go to some other women and make more kids.

Allowing gay marriage will not solve these problems but give men (and women) more excuses not to be responsible, thus making the problem worse… creating more mixed up kids that will become prey for abuse to step-fathers, their mother’s boy frieinds and older mixed up kids…aka members of the “gay” rights movement.

And I am just as angry and upset as you are. I agree that being gay is not, in most instances a choice. And for all the problems of those that are, I empathize. But saying something is so, doesn’t make it so. There can be no such thing as “gay marriage”. The words “gay marriage” are only words with no substance and will remain so whether legalized, or not.

 

[goofyjim]

I just wish we could keep the whole topic discussion more civilized. Both sides seem to be getting a little hot under the collar and that’s why I feel the Forum mods, for everyone’s sake, should start putting a moratium on this topic. We all know each others views by now. Upsetting each other more and more doesn’t do anyone any spiritual good.

It cannot be called marriage as has been said elsehwere due to the definition and translation of the word matrimony. Can they have legally protected rights to visit each other in the hospital, take care of their loved ones finances, be a beneficiary, and if necessary call it a civil union to cement these rights? I do believe, yes. But it should never give them the same weight as marriage permitting them to adopt children. Which is what it boils down to. They want influenced control over the future generations. If it is truly genetic and they wan to pass on the gene through immoral sex, bear in mind the consequences, but the ultimate battleground is waging over the children and must be stopped. It’s time we all take a stand and say “Get thou behind me Satan.”

 

[Bennie_P]

And I am just as angry and upset as you are. I agree that being gay is not, in most instances a choice. And for all the problems of those that are, I empathize. But saying something is so, doesn’t make it so. There can be no such thing as “gay marriage”. The words “gay marriage” are only words with no substance and will remain so whether legalized, or not.

I don’t think of myself as angry or upset, maybe a little fustrated. I truly have a great love for those that suffer with SSA. I get frustrated though (once being a left-wing activist and knowing the tatics of left-wing activism) with ‘gay’ appoligist and activist and those that are unable to see how the “gay” rights activist work their politics inorder to fool the general public with lies.

I am willing to allow people to live their lives as they choose, but that doesn’t mean I should not confront them when they try to impose their choice on society at large.

As to the left trying to get hold of our children’s minds, way back in 1969 my freshmen high school civic teacher use to pass out SDS and underground weathermen proganda to me and my classmates, and many of my former left-wing associates from college are currently college professors at several universities continuing their left-wing activism in their classrooms, published papers and books as well being academic advisors to left-wing student groups, including those that currently promote “gay” marriage as a right. I’m not paranoid, nor am I a hater or a fool, but a seeker and promoter of the truth as we see taught by our Holy Mother Church.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron

 

[Bennie_P]

I just wish we could keep the whole topic discussion more civilized. Both sides seem to be getting a little hot under the collar and that’s why I feel the Forum mods, for everyone’s sake, should start putting a moratium on this topic. We all know each others views by now. Upsetting each other more and more doesn’t do anyone any spiritual good.

It cannot be called marriage as has been said elsehwere due to the definition and translation of the word matrimony. Can they have legally protected rights to visit each other in the hospital, take care of their loved ones finances, be a beneficiary, and if necessary call it a civil union to cement these rights? I do believe, yes. But it should never give them the same weight as marriage permitting them to adopt children. Which is what it boils down to. They want influenced control over the future generations. If it is truly genetic and they wan to pass on the gene through immoral sex, bear in mind the consequences, but the ultimate battleground is waging over the children and must be stopped. It’s time we all take a stand and say “Get thou behind me Satan.”

Thank God for you Jim, in your own way you try to be a promoter of peace. But I get frustrated with new posters,( actually I suspect many are the same persons using different user names and calling their freinds to keep the same old, same old going)keep coming back with the same old false arguments trying to mock the Church and wear us down… sometimes it is organized, sometimes it is being lead on by the one that controls evil, even when those being controled don’t know that they are being lead by the murderer of truth…

What I fear the most is the push continues to the point that the back lash will split our country, possibly to a full blown culture civil war, let us pray that doesn’t happen.

Jim, did you get chance to enjoy the day today? Hope so…

 

[The_Rock]

Get ready, adhering to the Church’s teachings on homosexuality is about to become a crime in the USA…

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041714.html

catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/

 

[NoMoreGames]

Get ready, adhering to the Church’s teachings on homosexuality is about to become a crime in the USA…

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041714.html

catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/

Thanks for the articles. Despite what has happened in other countries with similar laws, one passing in the US will not necessarily have the same effect. The wording and purposes of the laws can completely change the outcome, especially in different nations. Hate crime is hate crime, and it is up to all of us to make sure the law is only used on actual crimes. I think everyone in this topic would agree that the misuses of the law abroad and here are unacceptable (both the priests and the photographer)

In the second article, when it asks “is it “hate”” it should be asking “is it “crime””

Here’s some food for thought. Boissoin was trying to silence any “gay” influence in society, but when he was in turn silenced, it’s wrong. Why is it not wrong when he was the one silencing? He is being prevented from sharing his beliefs (which is wrong), yet by silencing others isn’t he doing the same thing? (ok I understand he wasn’t physically silencing any one, but by “challenged the encroachment of homosexualist curricula in schools,” he essentially wants it out, which is dismissing all beliefs but his own, which is an equal violation of the freedom of others)

 

[pathia]

Get ready, adhering to the Church’s teachings on homosexuality is about to become a crime in the USA…

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041714.html

catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/

Do you plan on causing PHYSICAL harm to an individual or their property? If so, then you have nothing to worry. It only applies to crimes where physical violence is directly done to a person, or a person’s property. Speech is not physical violence.