Gay marriage is a civil right

[free2pray]

Of course that’s what they say, but you only ahve to look around you (on this very forum!) to see that hatred.

I see your hatred for God, the Church, and those who follow those teachings… that’s about it. Why does having a moral discussion on a Catholic apologetic website somehow equal us hating on Homosexuals? Your the only one i have seen who has resorted to profanity and name calling. Why is voting to keep marriage defined as a Man and a Woman hatred? Is having an opinion and voting on it and participating in the democratic process, hatred? Come on…

That’s because you are too narrow minded to comprehend my arguments. My logic is based on simple facts - people should be free to do as they wish provided no harm arises because of it. You call homosexuality illogical because you don’t understand it. You have a narrow view of the world - men, women and 2.4 children and fail to accept that the world is a little more complicated than that - Nature didn’t just make men and wome, she made intersex people and hermaphrodites, and people with chromosomes that differ from the XX/XY notion that we commonly accept as “normal”. Nature has a vast array of things that go against the grain of normality. Does it mean that it’s wrong, disordered, sinful? No. Nature has a funny way of doing things, who are you to question it?

Things go wrong with nature, my son had a birth defect and died because of it, but that doesn’t mean that the intent of nature is for us to be born with birth defects. I guess i shouldn’t have seconded guessed “Nature” by letting doctors treat my son.

I contend that it does. Can you imagine the suffering that homosexuals go through because of the discrimination they face on a daily basis? You just have to look at DOMA. Loving couples refused legal recognition of their partnership which causes all sorts of ills. Put yourself in the shoes of the gay women who falls in love with a lady from a different country. Because of laws enacted by people who say that “homosexuality is wrong and is a sin”, this women cannot sponser her lovers citizenship like a heterosexual couple could. They are forced apart, or forced to find some alternative to live their lives together. Can you honestly say a law that does this to people does so out of love?

Is it we who are being contentious about this? you are the one trying to redefine things, you are the contentious one, the one chaffing against society did you think it wouldn’t burn at all? the pain you may or may not be experiencing is coming from your actions and your choices. Don’t rob us of our rights we are not hurting anyone by saying that we think this is wrong.

looks around Where? I can only see you making assumptions about nature and comparing it to them.

I wish you would actually try responding to my post instead of just saying na’uh na’uh

Not when those moral issues breach the freedom of those who do not follow your faith. If my faith was the majority, and my aincent holy book said that it is immoral to be a Catholic and therefore Catholics can’t get married, would you just sit back and accept that? I think not. This is why law should be free from religion.

-sigh- we have the right to say that this is wrong and to stand against it, would you deny us our freedom and civil rights?

Because that’s just what Religion is - brainwashing. Why else would people believe such nonsense? When you understand why you think that the notion of an Invisible Pink Unicorn creating the earth is absurd, then you will also understand why we athiests think that the notion of your god creating the earth is equally absurd.

As absurd as spontaneous generation? something from nothing? The proof is in the pudding. When you see a house how do you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was a builder? Or when you see a painting, how do you know there was a painter? Arguments for God’s existence are incredibly numerous perhaps a new thread on that topic?

 

[spn82756]

Exactly, he didn’t put an end to these outlandish laws which declared ‘no eating rare meat, and no wearing such and such together…’ So if this is the case, why are people not citing this passage word for word and condemning all adulterers to a harsh death and subsequent eternity in hell? Why just attack homosexuality and overlook the other alleged facts you have been brainwashed with?

Jesus did say that it is not what goes into our mouths that dirty us with sin…it’s what comes out of our mouth. In other words…our sinful deeds. That is why we can eat what we want and don’t follow Jewish dietary laws.

 

[free2pray]

Please let me set the record straight, I do not hate homosexuals. I never will, and if i do ever in the future, by some chance, may God judge me! I was raised in a very liberal house hold. We thought that Christians were SO stupid and we definitely believed that homosexuality was okay. My step mother’s best friend, Eve was Gay and my brother and i called him Uncle Eve and i still love this man, he was a very special part of our family. He even let us live with him for awhile when we were moving and looking for a place. I have worked with Life Long AIDS Alliance and have worked with many homosexuals many of which had AIDS. PLEASE PLEASE do not think that Christians like I or any one following Christ hates homosexuals, May it never be! The entirety of scripture demands that Christians show the love that Christ showed us when we were still in our sins. Christ died for us because he loved us, If someone died for you on this forum to save your life would you say that that person hates you?

 

[Sophia86]

Charelmagne ||:

This is a recipe for moral chaos and the spreading of disease through promiscuous sex…

Have you looked at the statistics lately for promiscuously transmitted diseases resulting from sex between consulting adults?..

Well first off, these problems are foremost the result of promiscuity and unsafe sex - not homosexuality. Poor comparison.

Secondly, to say that “the church shows the way” by “discouraging the use of protection during sex” is sheer madness. How is this at all helping the escalating rise in STD’s and “spreading of diseases” as you so aptly put it? Surprisingly enough, people want to express themselves and have sex with one another, and teaching abstinence is clearly not conducive to the harsh reality of the situation. It is a natural instinct and always has been since the times from which we have evolved. We would not be here otherwise.

Moreover, there is no tenable link between gay people and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Gay people are just as capable of practicing safe sex as their heterosexual counterparts. Why the unfounded prejudice? Furthermore, looking at the statistics, they only show the “what” - not the “why”? Most people are taught this from a very young age. (check your Statistics 101 book.) In essence the reason these rates occur has no direct link to homosexulity at all.

The figures may correlate in part to the fact that as we live in a society that discriminates against homosexuals it is more difficult for gay people to access medical care and get beneficial education on the subject. (The further back you go, the more relevant this fact is. It was only as recently as the 70’s that homosexuality was decriminalised). And it is society as a whole, that has become more promiscuous over the years. All the while the catholic church does not condone of safe sex… The stats only show the what, not the why.

Perhaps we could revisit the statistics once homosexuals are widely accepted? Maybe then you will get a clearer picture, and gay men & women will get an apology.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ashley42

*History is something we need to learn from - we made mistakes in the past, condemming homosexuality. *

History is indeed something we need to learn from. And history tells us that no civilization has officially condoned civil marriages between homosexuals. You apparently haven’t learned that, or don’t want to learn it.

It’s become a little tiresome to debate these issues with you because you have no moral framework from which to argue except the demand that homosexual unions achieve the status of civil marriage. By that logic, anyone can demand that any desires exchanged between any two “consenting adults” be given civil recognition, a certificate of recognition by the State. Then why shouldn’t an incestuous adult mother and her adult son be given a marriage certificate? (at least the parts fit) Why shouldn’t incestuous adult brothers and sisters be given a marriage certificate? (at least the parts fit) Why shouldn’t one man be given ten certificates to be married to ten adult women? (at least the parts fit).

*Reductio ad absurdum. *

Also, there has been a lot of selective biblical quoting here from your side affirming the beauty of Christ’s teachings, and then again a lot of selective denial that Christ and Paul spoke against the sins of Sodom & Gomorrah. This is dishonest reasoning, which fools no one but you.

 

[Sophia86]

free2pray:

We could debate what the scriptures say concerning homosexuality, but I can assure you that you will lose IF this is the road you will take.

For a compassionate Christian, you come across quite narrow-minded, and threatening in your retorts. For someone sharing such teachings and casting so much judgement about and onto others whom you have not even met that are homosexual, (and worse-still admitting that you have been in contact with, and even lived with), how can you still insist that they are immoral and quote passages that outline who they are perverted and will be damned to hell for their “sinnish behaviour”? Can you not see what a barrier this hypocricy is putting between you and your fellow man? What has he ever done to you except take you in and look after you whilst you looked for your own lodgings? You say you love him. Yet you speak of his lifestyle as though he is evil…

I sincerely respect all the aid work and help that you say you have given the causes that you outlined. I’ve done much charity work all over the world myself, and often give to charity too… We are all the same my friend. I wish we could be treated so.

 

[surritter]

My US Law 101 book tells me that civil marriage is not based on Anatomy.

Does that law book say, in regard to marriage, the words “man” or “woman” anywhere? (Or “male” or “female”)

If so, do you believe that those terms are related to anatomy?

If not, may I have the ISBN of the book to verify? That would be a pretty recent (and radical) book of US law…

 

[surritter]

I am prepared to defend the right that what happens between two consenting adults and them only, is not harmful to anyone else yes. However “that anything goes” could cover a whole spectrum of random unrelated ideas that you might try and irrelevantly throw into the mix…

No, there are no tricks here. Let’s move on to step 2…

Can you agree that something may be harmful in a larger picture beyond a potential immediate harm to the two consenting individuals?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For a compassionate Christian, you come across quite narrow-minded, and threatening in your retorts.

Getting a little tired of your constant retort that because we hate the sin, we must also hate the sinner. You need to get off that mantra. It ain’t Christian!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ashley42

My US Law 101 book tells me that civil marriage is not based on Anatomy.

I too would like to see the title and author of your U.S. Law 101 book. I would like to examine the table of contents and the index pages on amazon.com.

I’d also like to see if it mentions marriage certificates for members of the same sex.

 

[Sophia86]

spn82756:

Jesus did say that it is not what goes into our mouths that dirty us with sin…it’s what comes out of our mouth. In other words…our sinful deeds. That is why we can eat what we want and don’t follow Jewish dietary laws

Thank you for teaching me about Jewish dietary laws.

However I still do not see why adulterers are not being persecuted when homosexuality is so clearly deprecated in comparison.

I mean, why is it fair to persecute one and overlook another? I am not saying I wish for adulterers to be killed as it suggests in old scriptures… That would be inhumane and I am not for hurting anyone. I am clearly illustrating how the Catholic faith has chosen to attack one allegedly “sinful deed” and ignore the other, which strikes me as slightly prejudice and hypocritical.

If we look at this example from an unbiased point of view, it is clear that ‘adultery’ is more damaging and hurtful than two consensual homosexuals in love. Come to think of it, how is it hurtful or damaging for two consenting gay people to be in love anyway? Why cannot they be accepted? And moreover, why cannot they marry one another? This is the original discussion after all… (People keep veering from it.) Please explain why you are not a believer of Gay Marriage…

I wait with open ears.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sophia

*Please explain why you are not a believer of Gay Marriage…

I wait with open ears. *

The notion offends common sense. It always has and always will. I reiterate, the offense is not just to Christians. It is to anyone with an ounce of common sense. It doesn’t take a Plato or a Thomas Jefferson to figure it out.

Homosexuals are not persecuted. They are far more tolerated today than they ever were. But most people feel they don’t have to invent a law that offends common sense and the natural law.

The parts don’t fit. It ain’t sanitary. People have died from it.

Yes, heterosexuals die from syphillis. But that generally is because of promiscuous sex, which also offends common sense. Only in a whorehouse would you expect to see somebody carrying a certificate that authorizes promiscuous sex. But anybody who frequents a whorehouse also does not have common sense.

Protected sex doesn’t always work! Especially in the anal canal.

 

[surritter]

Thank you for teaching me about Jewish dietary laws.

However I still do not see why adulterers are not being persecuted when homosexuality is so clearly deprecated in comparison.

I mean, why is it fair to persecute one and overlook another? I am not saying I wish for adulterers to be killed as it suggests in old scriptures… That would be inhumane and I am not for hurting anyone. I am clearly illustrating how the Catholic faith has chosen to attack one allegedly “sinful deed” and ignore the other, which strikes me as slightly prejudice and hypocritical.

If we look at this example from an unbiased point of view, it is clear that ‘adultery’ is more damaging and hurtful than two consensual homosexuals in love. Come to think of it, how is it hurtful or damaging for two consenting gay people to be in love anyway? Why cannot they be accepted? And moreover, why cannot they marry one another? This is the original discussion after all… (People keep veering from it.) Please explain why you are not a believer of Gay Marriage…

I wait with open ears.

Adulterers are not seeking a CERTIFICATE that says that their actions are prasieworthy and normal. You’re right in that they are wrong in their actions, and for that they are called to repentance like everyone else on the planet.

People who engage in homosexual relations are called to repentance. But they are going the extra mile to actually seek endorsement of their activities. Now do you see the difference?

 

[Sophia86]

No, there are no tricks here. Let’s move on to step 2…

Can you agree that something may be harmful in a larger picture beyond a potential immediate harm to the two consenting individuals?

If they are two sensible adults, practicing safe-sex, then no, i am afraid I cannot agree that they will come to harm. It is just like it would be with a man and woman, if they practiced safe sex and were both consenting, then they too should hope to avoid immediate harm as two consenting individuals both in and beyond the larger picture…

Please elaborate if you feel there is more to add to this. I think I have answered your question now. I am very open minded and enjoy hearing other peoples opinions nevertheless.

 

[surritter]

If they are two sensible adults, practicing safe-sex, then no, i am afraid I cannot agree that they will come to harm. It is just like it would be with a man and woman, if they practiced safe sex and were both consenting, then they too should hope to avoid immediate harm as two consenting individuals both in and beyond the larger picture…

Please elaborate if you feel there is more to add to this. I think I have answered your question now. I am very open minded and enjoy hearing other peoples opinions nevertheless.

Glad you like to hear opinions. I hope you are open to truth, also…

But you didn’t really answer the question. I am not talking about what you perceive as happening in a homosexual relationship. I am asking in a broad sense: If an action is taking place that appears to do no harm to the people engaging in the activity, is it possible that there may be some unseen harm done – perhaps at a different time or to different people?

And I’m not referring to some miniscule “butterfly effect.” But couldn’t it at least be possible that there are some harmful effects on a different plane which you might not know about?

 

[Sophia86]

For a compassionate Christian, you come across quite narrow-minded, and threatening in your retorts.

Getting a little tired of your constant retort that because we hate the sin, we must also hate the sinner. You need to get off that mantra. It ain’t Christian!

Lol, come on, play nice. I am trying to be friendly but at the same time honest here. I don’t judge people, I like everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, colour, race, age… I was just shocked by how threatening your last post to me sounded at the beginning… I don’t want to start having silly arguments with people. What good will come from that?

You sounded very sincere in your other posts, so did “free2pray”… He sounds lovely but stuck in his own beliefs. And yes, I have heard the adage that “Christians hate the sin” but “love the sinner”. I know that one before you tell me it

All I am wondering of the people in this thread is as the title says; "Are you for the idea that “Gay Marriage is a civil right?” Or opposed? And if so, why?

I hope you can see where I am coming from

 

[peary]

…so we are continually told today by some. Or, more often, it’s just taken for granted though no one’s arguing for it. In the recent threads on gay marriage within this sub-forum, it is often asserted, but I’ve yet to hear the argument, that gay marriage is a civil right. It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court of the US has (rightly, I think) upheld that marriage itself is a civil right. But, whether we can apply that right to this or that particular “expansion” of marriage (eg, gay, polygamous, etc) is an altogether separate issue.

Given that there is such an overwhelming lack of historical support for attempts to redefine marriage (and hence, the family) to include homosexual unions, even among States which were much more friendly to homosexuality than ours (eg, the Greeks), the general public needs to know what has changed in the course of human history. Why today is gay marriage considered a civil right when it never has been considered such previously?

So, let’s have it now. We’ve got a thread entirely devoted to the most crucial aspect of the overall arguments put forward by advocates of gay marriage. After all, if proponents of gay marriage cannot convince the American public that this novel way of looking at marriage actually is a civil right, they will likely never win the argument here in the US.

Rousseau said, “The most basic of all human institutions, and the only one that is natural, is the family.” (The Social Contract)

I guess one could say that sex is a “civil right” then.

 

[Jermosh]

In any case, homosexual relations are unnatural. We don’t have to rely only on Church authority either to say it is so. Thomas Jefferson, who was hardly a churchgoer, authored his own bill in the Virginia Assembly:

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.” - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and “Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779”

While this penalty, especially in the case of sodomy, seems extreme by today’s standards, it shows that even so liberal a thinker as Jefferson could lump sodomy in with other serious crimes.

Jefferson had a special aversion to the Catholic Church, yet in this instance he agrees that sodomy is certainly unnatural and not to be condoned. This issue is as related to common sense as it is related to any church teaching.

Certainly Jefferson, like Plato, would view such relations as shameful and not to be countenanced or encouraged by civil regulations.

Jefferson is not a very good candidate, he was also an avid racist and slaveholder, even when presented ingenious work from black man name Banneker, he still felt the African race was mentally inferior after reading it. So I would be careful of attempting to use his work in this type of argument since he was quite ignorant on many social issues.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jermosh

*Jefferson is not a very good candidate, he was also an avid racist and slaveholder, even when presented ingenious work from black man name Banneker, he still felt the African race was mentally inferior after reading it. So I would be careful of attempting to use his work in this type of argument since he was quite ignorant on many social issues. *

Jefferson was one of the most educated and brilliant men of his time. His censure of rape and sodomy was not his own judgment alone, but the judgment of many of his peers as well.

You know, we can always find areas where people fall down in their judgment. But Jefferson had no reason **at that time **to believe that blacks were mentally equal to whites. Where was the evidence then? Jefferson also believed that the lot of the slaves would considerably improve when they were taught to read and write, and in that power would reside their future prospects for freedom. He judged rightly there. And that insight is as true today as it was then, if not more so for blacks.

His own fault lay mainly in not living up to his own high standards for intellect and character. As Hamilton rightly pointed out, Jefferson was sometimes a hypocrite of the worst type. But I don’t think he was a hater. If that were so, there would be plenty of evidence of hate in his writings.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sophia

*All I am wondering of the people in this thread is as the title says; "Are you for the idea that “Gay Marriage is a civil right?” Or opposed? And if so, why? *

I have made my case. No need to repeat every point. Am moving on to other threads.

Y’all play nice and don’t throw mud.