Gay Marriage in America

[Flyingg]

Who says he doesn’t get offended by major things as wars, diseases, starvation, injustice and cruelties?
Man has created war, diseases, starvation, injustice and cruelties. The man leaves God out the more war, diseases, starvation, injustice and cruelties happen. If we all would follow his word, we would be in a better place. Man chooses to know more than God.

If he truly does, you won’t see such things at the first place, unless nobody is there.
In fact you are right, those things are a part of man behavior and nature.

 

[davidv]

Why do you think that a God gets offended so quickly about two homosexuals having a relation?

Why do you think He doesn’t?

Maybe it would be better if he gets offended more on major things as wars, diseases, starvation, injustice and cruelties.

What makes you think He isn’t offended by these also?

 

[lna419]

I think preventing two persons from loving each other or expressing this love is in somehow ‘evil’ , immorality is measured by how much harm you cause to others and homosexuels are not harming anyone, if you consider that they destroy the family, I see that accepting them and their rights might be a good lesson to our children of what love and acceptance truly are. Even homosexuality is not a choice, so why would God create them the way they are, then forbid them from expressing their love?!

God did not create anyone as a homosexual. He created Man and Woman. He forbids the act of homosexuality and he even goes as far as to destroy a city for their sins. One being homosexuality.

Our society has fallen under the realm of moral relativism. We are taught to tolerate even if we don’t agree.

Moral Relativism
First published Thu Feb 19, 2004; substantive revision Tue Dec 9, 2008
Moral relativism has the unusual distinction—both within philosophy and outside it—of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone. Nonetheless, moral relativism is a standard topic in metaethics, and there are contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it: The most prominent are Gilbert Harman and David B. Wong. The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

As far as your definition of immorality, please identify below were you see the definition you posted for immorality. I don’t see anything on harming anyone.

**mo·ral·i·ties **

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

**im·mor·al·i·ties **

1. The quality or condition of being immoral.
2. An immoral act or practice.

**mor·al **adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
   n.
7. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
8. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
9. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference

 

[lna419]

If he truly does, you won’t see such things at the first place, unless nobody is there.
In fact you are right, those things are a part of man behavior and nature.

So your saying God is the reason everything is in diseray for all the decisions man has made?

 

[Flyingg]

Why do you think He doesn’t?

What makes you think He isn’t offended by these also?

Just look around, do you see him getting offended by homosexuels behavior? No, I see only people getting offended by it and people who are being less offended about major violent things. It’s all about the people.

 

[lna419]

This has been tried before, by the Catholic Church no less. Do I need to remind you how it worked last time?

It sounds to me like your priorities are First country then self then God. Am I wrong. Please explain.
If your priorities are God first before self and country, then you are obligated as a cathyolic christian to follow Gods word. My friend, that starts with following the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ instituted.

 

[davidv]

Just look around, do you see him getting offended by homosexuels behavior? No, I see only people getting offended by it and people who are being less offended about major violent things. It’s all about the people.

So, the only things that are true are the things you can see? I think you are doing some very selective looking in order to draw the above conclusions.

 

[lna419]

Just look around, do you see him getting offended by homosexuels behavior? No, I see only people getting offended by it and people who are being less offended about major violent things. It’s all about the people.

So your telling me you’ve seen God before and know his thoughts?

 

[Catholicguy100]

While I can appreciate where this sentiment is coming from, this is very dangerous.

What you are saying in essence is that your duty to God (which includes not only not sinning but also not endorsing the sins of others) cannot be reconciled with your duties as an American citizen – and, moreover, that you value your duties as an American above your duties as a subject of God.

It is America and our status as American citizens that gives us the privilege to debate religion and freely practice the religion of our choosing. I am not putting country before God, I believe that is in God’s best interest to have a freedom of religion and the bill of rights. I think that attempting to remove these rights for others will result in them being restricted for us as well. This is not in the best interest of America or the church.

There are no such things as perspectival truths. What is true is NECESSARILY true for everyone. And anyone who doesn’t accept such a truth is NECESSARILY promulgating a falsehood.

There is a right and a wrong way to accomplish a goal however. You have to first be right and then to convince others the merit of your argument. Forcing others accomplishes nothing.

Now are Catholic moral theological teachings true, or not?

They are true.

Our “opinion” is objective truth, that’s what makes it more valid than their vapid, self-serving emoting.

I’d be willing to bet that every preacher out there says the same thing, and believes it too.

I’m curious as to what it is you’re referring to here, so please, do remind me.

I was referring to the roman empire and the perversions of our beliefs that happened during that time becuase of greed and corruption. We had a “state” church that mandated religion and behavior. They owned all the land too, and the religion was nothing but a hollow shell of what it is today. We are worse today for this experience, and the church will be similarly worse off tomorrow if you achieve your agenda here.

 

[Catholicguy100]

It sounds to me like your priorities are First country then self then God. Am I wrong. Please explain.
If your priorities are God first before self and country, then you are obligated as a cathyolic christian to follow Gods word. My friend, that starts with following the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ instituted.

I view our country and rights as a “tool” given to us by God to spread his message. I think you’re using the tool the wrong way.

 

[Flyingg]

God did not create anyone as a homosexual. He created Man and Woman. He forbids the act of homosexuality and he even goes as far as to destroy a city for their sins. One being homosexuality.

Homosexuality isn’t a choice, even homosexual behaviors exist in animals, you are giving me a lesson in morality, still you think it’s ok for a god who is supposed to be intelligent and all loving to destroy a whole city for some homosexuals in it! STRANGE!

 

[davidv]

It is America and our status as American citizens that gives us the privilege to debate religion and freely practice the religion of our choosing. I am not putting country before God, I believe that is in God’s best interest to have a freedom of religion and the bill of rights. I think that attempting to remove these rights for others will result in them being restricted for us as well. This is not in the best interest of America or the church.

There is a right and a wrong way to accomplish a goal however. You have to first be right and then to convince others the merit of your argument. Forcing others accomplishes nothing.

They are true.

I’d be willing to bet that every preacher out there says the same thing, and believes it too.

I was referring to the roman empire and the perversions of our beliefs that happened during that time becuase of greed and corruption. We had a “state” church that mandated religion and behavior. They owned all the land too, and the religion was nothing but a hollow shell of what it is today. We are worse today for this experience, and the church will be similarly worse off tomorrow if you achieve your agenda here.

Please explain how retaining the restriction of marriage to an arrangement between one man and one woman is a violation of the bill of rights.

 

[Flyingg]

So your telling me you’ve seen God before and know his thoughts?

No, but some think they do.

 

[Catholicguy100]

Please explain how retaining the restriction of marriage to an arrangement between one man and one woman is a violation of the bill of rights.

I believe it restricts a person the freedom to choose a religion, or not practice one at all.

I also believe that the state shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all. They should give everyone civil unions. If you want to get married you go visit a church. Some of you are so hung up on a word that you are willing to forfeit your freedom to practice religion to get what you want.

Gays marrying doesn’t change a thing. They will still do the same things and lead the same life.

 

[lna419]

I view our country and rights as a “tool” given to us by God to spread his message. I think you’re using the tool the wrong way.

Bottom line:

Ther are 2 trains of thought here.

**Secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations **

and

Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

again i tell you, you can’t pick and choose what to believe and when. You either believe and follow everything Jesus says or not.

picking and chosing is a secularist way of thinking. right now your picking and chosing whats good for you instead of chosing whats good for the glory of God. Its called a cafeteria catholic and its everywhere. whats the point of going to mass if you don’t believe in everything it stands for. remember he would rather have hot or cold not luke warm.

Not all the laws and ideas of america coincides with Gods plan. If God has shown us the way why then create an alternate way. our laws should coincide with Gods laws, even if we don’t like it.

 

[lna419]

Homosexuality isn’t a choice, even homosexual behaviors exist in animals, you are giving me a lesson in morality, still you think it’s ok for a god who is supposed to be intelligent and all loving to destroy a whole city for some homosexuals in it! STRANGE!

What i find strange is that you would compare yourself and your sexual behaviors to an animal. Last I checked animals couldn’t think for themselves.

 

[lna419]

No, but some think they do.

Have you ever read the bible?

 

[Catholicguy100]

Bottom line:

Ther are 2 trains of thought here.

**Secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations **

and

Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

again i tell you, you can’t pick and choose what to believe and when. You either believe and follow everything Jesus says or not.

picking and chosing is a secularist way of thinking. right now your picking and chosing whats good for you instead of chosing whats good for the glory of God. Its called a cafeteria catholic and its everywhere. whats the point of going to mass if you don’t believe in everything it stands for. remember he would rather have hot or cold not luke warm.

Not all the laws and ideas of america coincides with Gods plan. If God has shown us the way why then create an alternate way. our laws should coincide with Gods laws, even if we don’t like it.

Muslims say the same thing, and want to pass the same sort of laws you do. How do you feel about that. There are more of them than us.

I’ll say it again - If you enjoy the right to debate religion and practice religion freely you should support the rights of everyone to do so without using the law to push their beliefs on others.

 

[Flyingg]

What i find strange is that you would compare yourself and your sexual behaviors to an animal. Last I checked animals couldn’t think for themselves.

We share most of our behaviors with animals, the common is way more than the differences and I was talking about your wrong claims about homosexuality, even I don’t consider comparing me to an animal as a humiliation.
Yes, I read the bible why?

 

[RosaryFan]

Muslims say the same thing, and want to pass the same sort of laws you do. How do you feel about that. There are more of them than us.

I’ll say it again - If you enjoy the right to debate religion and practice religion freely you should support the rights of everyone to do so without using the law to push their beliefs on others.

Homosexuality is not a religion. It is a perversion of nature.