Gay Marriage in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glennonite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sw85 said:
The difference is whether or not they do so WITH THE TACIT APPROVAL OF SOCIETY or without it. They OUGHT to do without it – since after all homosexuality is grossly disordered. I for one am not content to sell my soul to a godless democratic welfare state just so I can reduce (marginally) the risk of martyrdom.
Click to expand...
This is your view. We inhabit a secular and pluralistic society, in which not everyone agrees with your claim about homosexuality being “grossly disordered.”

Whose morality do you think should be imposed on the body politic in a pluralistic society? Islamic Shariah? Christian fundamentalist? Native American? Chinese Taoist?
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they wouldn’t place children in same sex partner homes.
A Christian pastor in Europe was prosecuted for teaching that homosexuality was a sin according to scripture.
Catholic publications have been sued by gay groups in Canada for teaching Catholic morality.
Teachers have been fired for voicing opposition to gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Links, please.
 
Nate13 said:
I think Wardog’s post shows that he has two Bibles: the Bible and the Constitution of the United States. For him the difference between being an American Catholic and a Catholic American is all about whether the Bible sits above the Constitution or if the Constitution sits above the Bible.
Click to expand...
Interesting way to put it. Let me try this. If you are in a military unit in Iraq, and the soldier next to you is Muslim. Do you want him to be loyal more to his religion or to America?
Then ask yourself the same question as a Catholic in a hostile Catholic dominated country.
 
Catholicguy100 said:
I find it interesting that everything is so cut and dry for so many of you. As was correctly pointed out above, you don’t need the constitution to be catholic. I’ll agree with that. But let’s look at the saints and martyrs that were mentioned above. Don’t you think our constitution could have assisted them in their quest to bring more people to the faith?

You see, I do. This seems to be the main cause for disagreement here. The constitution is a tool that allows us to be publicly Catholic and practice our faith in the way we choose.

Right not, the constitution allows everybody of all faiths and atheists to practice whatever they want. Attempts to change this will work in your favor as long as you are in the MAJORITY. As I pointed out above, there are more Muslims than Catholics in our world. Why would you want to change the thing that lets us practice our faith in the way we choose?
Click to expand...
You understand what I was trying to say, but only in a more coherent way. Thank you. If any disagree, they should look at American History. Between 1840 and the Civil War, there were virulently anti Catholic feelings, with riots, burnings, killings and the a lot worse. Even today, Google anti Catholid and see the sites that call the Pope the Anti-Christ and worse.
 
Catholicguy100 said:
I find it interesting that everything is so cut and dry for so many of you. As was correctly pointed out above, you don’t need the constitution to be catholic. I’ll agree with that. But let’s look at the saints and martyrs that were mentioned above. Don’t you think our constitution could have assisted them in their quest to bring more people to the faith?

You see, I do. This seems to be the main cause for disagreement here. The constitution is a tool that allows us to be publicly Catholic and practice our faith in the way we choose.

Right not, the constitution allows everybody of all faiths and atheists to practice whatever they want. Attempts to change this will work in your favor as long as you are in the MAJORITY. As I pointed out above, there are more Muslims than Catholics in our world. Why would you want to change the thing that lets us practice our faith in the way we choose?
Click to expand...
You understand what I was trying to say, but only in a more coherent way. Thank you. If any disagree, they should look at American History. Between 1840 and the Civil War, there were virulently anti Catholic feelings, with riots, burnings, killings and the a lot worse. Even today, Google <> and see the sites that call the Pope the Anti-Christ and worse.
 
StAnastasia said:
What is your evidence to support this claim?
Click to expand...
You’re right to ask this because there is no evidence to support it. There is no evidence that Catholic employers are being pressured into including abortion coverage in their employees’ health care plans. There is no evidence that Catholic adoption agencies were forced to adopt kids out to homosexual couples or close their doors, and they elected to close their doors. There is no evidence that Catholic pharmacists are pressured into selling contraceptives, including the “morning after” pill. There is no evidence that the Boy Scouts had to fight a 25-year legal battle to keep from having to include homosexuals as leaders. There is no evidence that the United Methodist Church was sued because it wouldn’t rent its park out for a SS"M" ceremony. There is no evidence that a psychiatrist was sued for refusing to counsel a homosexual on her “lifestyle”. There is no evidence that Christian student clubs on university campuses are being forced into accepting members who do not profess to believe in Christianity, or lose school recognition. Finally [because of space limits], there was no evidence that a wedding photographer was ordered by a court to pay $5,000 in “damages” to a SS"M" couple because she refused to photograph their wedding.

Nope. There is no evidence at all to come to the conclusion that CHESTERTONRULES did. None whatsoever.
 
Wardog said:
Interesting way to put it. Let me try this. If you are in a military unit in Iraq, and the soldier next to you is Muslim. Do you want him to be loyal more to his religion or to America?
Then ask yourself the same question as a Catholic in a hostile Catholic dominated country.
Click to expand...
Haha your question assumes that our political structure is always more reasonable then our religious structure. Depending on what brand of Islam that man next to me subscribes to I may rather he follows his religion or the constitution. This however is not about subscribing to religion vs. the constitution/secular laws. Its about subscribing to the Truth. So in other words the best way to state my position would be that I would like the Islamic man next to me to follow whichever ideal led him the closest to the full Truth. I have a question for you though. Lets say your the soldier now and the man next to you is a Christian. Under the constitution and our system of laws there is nothing that impels that man to jump in at any time and risk his life to save yours if such a situation occurred. Would you rather the man next to you exercised his rights as written in the constitution or would you rather he followed the Truth that he had found in the Bible?
 
@ChestertonRules

I love your Chesterton quote btw 😉

I think Catholicguy100 could take something from that quote. The beauty of Catholicism is not that it takes two ideals, white and red, and turns them into pink. The beauty is that it takes white and red and shows how they can exist together harmoniously. For example with Catholicism we can both celebrate the celibacy of priest at the same time as we celebrate the sacredness of marriage. We can celebrate the Trappist monk who lives his life apart from the World and the Pope who communicates with millions of people.
 
Nate13 said:
Haha your question assumes that our political structure is always more reasonable then our religious structure. Depending on what brand of Islam that man next to me subscribes to I may rather he follows his religion or the constitution. This however is not about subscribing to religion vs. the constitution/secular laws. Its about subscribing to the Truth. So in other words the best way to state my position would be that I would like the Islamic man next to me to follow whichever ideal led him the closest to the full Truth. I have a question for you though. Lets say your the soldier now and the man next to you is a Christian. Under the constitution and our system of laws there is nothing that impels that man to jump in at any time and risk his life to save yours if such a situation occurred. Would you rather the man next to you exercised his rights as written in the constitution or would you rather he followed the Truth that he had found in the Bible?
Click to expand...
I expect him to be a soldier upon whom I can rely. I don’t care if he is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, druid, pagan or atheist. Or if he is gay or straight. Or if the soldier is a male or female. The first loyalty is to the unit, which is then a straight line to the Constitution, not the Bible. Does that answer your question?

Your answer is that you are willing to accept the Muslim soldier next to you is more interested in following the Koran, which can be and is interperted by radical Muslims to include killing you. I am not willing to accept that.
 
Wardog said:
I expect him to be a soldier upon whom I can rely. I don’t care if he is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, druid, pagan or atheist. Or if he is gay or straight. Or if the soldier is a male or female. The first loyalty is to the unit, which is then a straight line to the Constitution, not the Bible. Does that answer your question?

Your answer is that you are willing to accept the Muslim soldier next to you is more interested in following the Koran, which can be and is interpreted by radical Muslims to include killing you. I am not willing to accept that.
Click to expand...
No I said I want him to follow whatever is more likely to lead him to the Truth in the given situation haha. But forgive me if I ask as is necessary in this day and age, did you take the time to ask the soldier next to you what “loyalty” meant to him 😉 Being “loyal” in and of itself means nothing. Loyal to what end is what matters. Its like saying you want the soldier next to you to be for the “progress” of the unit. Progress to what end though? The radical Islamic might see progress or loyalty as finding a way to get you all killed. Do you really believe that “loyalty” means the same thing to a Christian, Jew, Muslim, druid, pagan, and atheist haha?
 
Catholicguy100 said:
I find it interesting that everything is so cut and dry for so many of you. As was correctly pointed out above, you don’t need the constitution to be catholic. I’ll agree with that. But let’s look at the saints and martyrs that were mentioned above. Don’t you think our constitution could have assisted them in their quest to bring more people to the faith?

You see, I do. This seems to be the main cause for disagreement here. The constitution is a tool that allows us to be publicly Catholic and practice our faith in the way we choose.

Right not, the constitution allows everybody of all faiths and atheists to practice whatever they want. Attempts to change this will work in your favor as long as you are in the MAJORITY. As I pointed out above, there are more Muslims than Catholics in our world. Why would you want to change the thing that lets us practice our faith in the way we choose?
Click to expand...
The political situation has very little to do with spreading Christianity. The Jewish people succeeded in spreading the Word of God much more successfully when they were being held captive and being enslaved than when they were ruling.
 
Wardog said:
I expect him to be a soldier upon whom I can rely. I don’t care if he is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, druid, pagan or atheist. Or if he is gay or straight. Or if the soldier is a male or female. The first loyalty is to the unit, which is then a straight line to the Constitution, not the Bible. Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...
I thought it was interesting that at a recent recruitment event targeting the LGBT community, the macho marines were the only ones to show up!
 
Nate13 said:
StAnastasia;8393296:
Catholic adoption agencies shut down when they become required by law to let homosexual couples adopt kids and have no conscientious way of opting out. The opinions of the source should be ample proof of its unbias to this regard haha.
Click to expand...
So the adoption agencies chose to shut down?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top