Gay marriage is a civil right

[Sophia86]

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.

If only brothers and sisters of your opinion could drop their (name removed by moderator)ut on this matter so easily in the real world, then perhaps those struggling to be treated as equals in the gay movement would actually attain some sort of progression and get somewhere…

I never cast mud (or judgement for that matter), only my opinions and reasoning for them. This is sadly more than can be said for others

 

[Sophia86]

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?

I look at your post and I feel like I’m reading a mysterious novel whereby I still cannot quite fathom what is being said before me… “Butterfly effects” aside, what exactly are you getting at my friend?

 

[Sophia86]

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.

“The offence is to anyone with an ounce of common sense?” What a whimsical quote! So is that why Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family? (Steven Colberts words - not mine). Also, I would like to point out that history’s taught us no other cause has brought more death than the word of god. Where can I ask is your “common sense” in that??

You say, “Most people feel they don’t have to invent a law that offends common sense and the natural law.” Then please tell me how “religion” reflects this common sense philosophy you swear by? “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.” (-Robert Pirsig words). In short, what can be asserted without proof surely can be dismissed without proof, no?

You then go on to aptly say, “The parts don’t fit. It ain’t sanitary. People have died from it.” I did not realise we were talking about jigsaws and smoking here. Nonetheless in truth, what a silly, childish retort that was! And “whorehouses” and “anal canals?” I do think someone needs their mouth washing out! Back on topic…

You have said it yourself, “promiscuous sex is the cause of STD’s” not gay men and women. And “people that frequent whorehouses are free of common sense”. Indeed, and like Sigmund Frued said, “When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life.” You are clearly on your way to achieving common sense.

Also you did not respond to my other reply to you. Is this because you realise that you were wrong by any chance? “He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not to reason is a slave.” – William Drummond - I too can quote my ideas of common sense.

I end with “A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.” – David Stevens. So please, before you go preaching “common sense” to us, perhaps you should take a look at yourself. Gay Marriage should be a civil right, just like the ones that you seem to take for granted. Like freedom of speech, and people of colour being civilly equal. That is common sense.

"You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate." – Richard A. Weatherwax

 

[surritter]

I look at your post and I feel like I’m reading a mysterious novel whereby I still cannot quite fathom what is being said before me… “Butterfly effects” aside, what exactly are you getting at my friend?

Sorry if I sounded esoteric. The point is that sometimes there are bad effects of an action that impact other things besides the present, immediate, physical comfort of the individual(s) involved.

 

[Sophia86]

surritter:

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?

First off, a quote, for your own entertainment, “I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’.” – Mike Fuhrman.

Secondly, when YOU are called to repentance for “not loving thy neighbour”, and “judging and treating him not as an equal”, and you yourself are “judged” for such crimes against your fellow man, then what do you expect for your actions? You yourself seem to be going the extra mile in stopping your fellow man’s freedom. Where is the compassion in that? And why? Ruining the lives of millions… for some mistranslated fables? What proof is there that any of what you are saying is true? “Man has always required an explanation for all of those things in the world he did not understand. If an explanation one was not available, he created one.” – Jim Crawford. …Looking at things objectively, it is definitely not common sense.

And noone is trying to be coined as “praiseworthy”. Perhaps bigots like yourself who for no reason discriminate against his fellow man. But certificates are not the issue here. Equality - on the other hand is. Now do YOU see the difference?

 

[Sophia86]

Sorry if I sounded esoteric. The point is that sometimes there are bad effects of an action that impact other things besides the present, immediate, physical comfort of the individual(s) involved.

…bad effects? Such as…?

 

[surritter]

First off, a quote, for your own entertainment, “I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’.” – Mike Fuhrman.

Secondly, when YOU are called to repentance for “not loving thy neighbour”, and “judging and treating him not as an equal”, and you yourself are “judged” for such crimes against your fellow man, then what do you expect for your actions? You yourself seem to be going the extra mile in stopping your fellow man’s freedom. Where is the compassion in that? And why? Ruining the lives of millions… for some mistranslated fables? What proof is there that any of what you are saying is true? “Man has always required an explanation for all of those things in the world he did not understand. If an explanation one was not available, he created one.” – Jim Crawford. …Looking at things objectively, it is definitely not common sense.

And noone is trying to be coined as “praiseworthy”. Perhaps bigots like yourself who for no reason discriminate against his fellow man. But certificates are not the issue here. Equality - on the other hand is. Now do YOU see the difference?

I have no idea what this means relative to my post… You were trying to equate adulterers with homosexual behavior (in the minds of Christians) and I was showing you the difference.

My goodness… I’m a bigot? I thought you just posted to Charlemagne how you are never one to sling mud. Have I ever disparaged you on this thread? I thought we were talking about the morality of certain actions.

 

[surritter]

…bad effects? Such as…?

I am asking you whether you believe it is possible.

 

[Sophia86]

I have no idea what this means relative to my post… You were trying to equate adulterers with homosexual behavior (in the minds of Christians) and I was showing you the difference.

My goodness… I’m a bigot? I thought you just posted to Charlemagne how you are never one to sling mud. Have I ever disparaged you on this thread? I thought we were talking about the morality of certain actions.

I am sad it was misinterpreted as equating one with the other so literally. I was merely using both “alleged sins” as an example to ask how one can be ignored when the other is not. No further comparison necessary.

Also Surritter, you are a speaking with prejudice in these threads. And in acting as a prejudiced person, is that not the definition of a bigot? Subsequently how am I slinging mud in telling the truth? And yes you have disparaged me. I myself am a lesbian. Where is your morality now?

 

[Sophia86]

I am asking you whether you believe it is possible.

You still have not made yourself clear. Please just say whatever it is that you are getting at. If - indeed you are getting at anything - or just clutching at straws for an argument? Which by the way, would not be very catholic of you now would it.

 

[Sophia86]

Please people, how can you not believe that Gay Marriage should be a civil right? I have spoken to many that believe it could and should be, but why can you not all agree? Have times not moved forward for people of colour? Was the passing of equality for them not for the better? Why do some of you express such prejudiced, outmoded opinions that make you unwilling to move forward or re-examine?

“He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not to reason is a slave.” – William Drummond.

Why segregate your fellow man? Why can’t it be that the people of the world live equally and in harmony? It is so very saddening

 

[surritter]

We are showing you why it is not a civil right, but you don’t get it. The reason is that it is not a right in any sense. That conclusion is drawn from natural law. I know you joined this thread late, but you really need to go back and read all the posts, since it was clearly explained. And while one is free to perform homosexual activities in the legal sense (no one while barge in and arrest you), it is not a right in the sense of the human person.

I am not prejudiced against individuals, but actions. And you need to mind your manners on a Catholic forum in that respect. To charitably tell you that you are doing something harmful is a moral action called fraternal correction. Perhaps you are lashing out due to hurt feelings, but I suggest you be charitable in return.

As for my line of questioning, forget the homosexual stuff, Sophia. Think in terms of a general, bigger picture for a moment.
Is it possible for an action to have effects that aren’t immediately apparent to the individuals involved? You keep dancing around that question, as if you don’t comprehend the words.

If you REALLY need me to spell it out for you, I will give you an example:

Suppose I don’t know a thing about pyrotechnics. I find a small cylindrical object on the sidewalk with a piece of string sticking out of it. I am goofing around with it, and while lighting my cigarette I also light the string for fun.

After throwing the object aside, I continue to walk home. Now, Sophia, I enjoyed my moment with the object and walked away unharmed. Is it possible that my action of lighting the string could cause harm in some way that I don’t know about?

 

[Cominghome89]

Please people, how can you not believe that Gay Marriage should be a civil right? I have spoken to many that believe it could and should be, but why can you not all agree? Have times not moved forward for people of colour? Was the passing of equality for them not for the better? Why do some of you express such prejudiced, outmoded opinions that make you unwilling to move forward or re-examine?

“He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not to reason is a slave.” – William Drummond.

Why segregate your fellow man? Why can’t it be that the people of the world live equally and in harmony? It is so very saddening

Certainly, between the historical, faith-based, philosophical, even scientific reasons we have given for our legitimate opposition to same-sex unions as “marriage”, you can see that we are indeed using reason, even if it does not coincide with your own. Certainly the word segregate, and in fact the comparison to the civil rights movement is completely inappropriate (I haven’t seen any separate “heterosexual only” water fountains or restaurants, at least not where I’m from).

The problem with your argument is the fundamental issue of what is being fought for. In the civil rights movement of America, what was the issue being addressed? The humanity of black people was in question! Because of the color of their skin, it was denied that they deserved to vote, to sit among white people, to go to school! They were being denied ACTUAL civil rights, it was being denied that they were human!

No intelligent defender of the faith will tell you that a homosexual is not a human being. Indeed homosexuals, and all men and women, are entitled to vote, to go to school, to be treated with respect. I would never deny the basic rights of any human. What you are trying to do is introduce a new concept, and call it a civil right. No homosexual or heterosexual may marry anyone who is not a single member of the opposite sex. The law holds that the marriage of one man and one woman is a right open to ALL people. There is NO current difference in rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homosexuals simply want to change what marriage IS, which would be an expanding right for all. It would not include them in any previously existing right that they were not formally entitled to. This is an important distinction. Whichever way you feel, this is the introduction of a NEW right, homosexual marriage, it is not a simple leveling of the playing field for equality.

The Merrian-Webster dictionary defines civil rights as follows: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

Read the 13th and 14th amendments, read the Constitution carefully. When you show us where it says that any consensual union as a “marriage” is a civil right, then we can re-examine gay marriage as an undeniable right. However, it is not in there, no matter how you twist the language. Equal rights for some and expanding new rights for all are COMPLETELY different subjects.

You call us bigots for not “re-examining” gay “marriage”? When I see an argument that makes sense, something with fact rather than passions and the feelings of individuals, then I would be glad to hear you out. But I have heard nothing of substance, only angry responses, thus far.

Also, if you would like to express you personal feelings that same-sex union is a valid marriage, that’s your own choice. But do not try to make it seem as if Christian doctrine supports what you say. It doesn’t. You have been given abundant Scripture and Church teaching throughout our long history. You claim that billions have misinterpreted Scripture for all these centuries, when it is you who choose to misinterpret Scripture to align with your own.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[Sophia86]

Surritter:

I am not prejudiced against individuals, but actions. And you need to mind your manners on a Catholic forum in that respect. To charitably tell you that you are doing something harmful is a moral action called fraternal correction. Perhaps you are lashing out due to hurt feelings, but I suggest you be charitable in return.

Okay, Okay, I was raised through a Catholic school environment. I know you say you are not prejudiced against individuals, only their actions. And by that same token, I am not prejudiced against you and your religion, only your opinions and subsequent disparaging actions towards me in this forum. Your fraternal correction is understood, but not necessary for me - thank you for your concern. And by no means am I lashing out owing to “hurt feelings”. I am a very happy 20-something, in a wonderful relationship with my partner, we have our own home, our own pets, two lovely cars, a very very large friendship base, and two wonderful families that love us and accept us without question.

Never in my life have I come across anyone who has issues with my sexuality or me. Most people cannot tell I am even gay as I do not tattoo it on my forehead nor go around bragging about it from the rooftops, this is not because I feel I should hide anything, I am literally just a regular person like you and your own friends. Quite the contrary to the viewpoint of various outmoded people who seem to incorrectly think of gay people as “lashing out”.

This is me : img689.imageshack.us/img689/6899/sophiaf.jpg

Am I any different from you and your friends? I think not

Furthermore I am always charitable. I am one of the most upbeat souls I know. I am always there for my friends, and even people whom I don’t know. I have travelled lots and done lots of voluntary aid work, and have tried my best to understand every culture I have met with an open and charitable nature. However, if people patronise my actions, or the way I live, without founded evidentual reasoning, then I take offence. I correct their incorrect judgements, and explain the truth of the situation. This is not to be confused with “lashing out” my friend.

I have read the threads thank you, and a few good points have been made that back my discussion. Please refer back to the post between myself and the friendly Charlemange ||, the ones which I might add, he never replied too, as I feel he did not know what to say any more.

surritter:

…If you REALLY need me to spell it out for you, I will give you an example: Suppose I don’t know a thing about pyrotechnics. I find a small cylindrical object on the sidewalk with a piece of string sticking out of it. I am goofing around with it, and while lighting my cigarette I also light the string for fun.

After throwing the object aside, I continue to walk home. Now, Sophia, I enjoyed my moment with the object and walked away unharmed. Is it possible that my action of lighting the string could cause harm in some way that I don’t know about?

Lastly, your “string” scenario has many flaws in its logic:

#1 The person in your scenario (i think you said it was you) is rather dense to goof around with such an object without knowing what they are doing, or using “protection” whilst doing it.

#2 The person is foolish for randomly throwing the object away without any thought.

#3 Smoking is bad for you. It is both harmful, dangerous to others around you, and downright damaging to society.

#4 How do I know if the string is still alight? What if it starts raining? What if it is laid in a puddle?

There are so many factors that ruin this analogy. And comparing two sensible consenting gay men who use protection, to a piece of string, is as immature as comparing smoking to an apple. One thing is not the other. Far from it. Can you give me an example of something negative that you see as a direct result of homosexuality? Not absent mindedly playing with unknown objects. Also if the gay couple were to practice safe-sex, then as I have stated before, no I cannot fathom further harm coming to them. Perhaps if they smoke as you mentioned, then they might get respitory, cardiovascular or even cancerous diseases. Alongside Periodontal disease, brittle bones, Eye cataracts, Stomach ulcers, Erectile dysfunction etc…

In short, your wavering string theory is not applicable to just homosexuals. It can loosely fit to anything, men and women, anti-social behaviour, spontaneous marital violence, copyrighted Disney films… Even with this said, I’m sure you’ll persist in discomending everything… But does this at least answer your flawed rhetoric? Gay men and women should be allowed the fundamentally equal, civil right to marry one another as you do.

 

[surritter]

Thanks for your reply. Obviously every analogy will have areas that don’t translate perfectly, but you can’t use those areas to undercut the basic idea being presented. Specifically, you have tried to find faults in the analogy that have nothing to do with the premise:

1. You claim that the person is dense. (I warned you that he knew nothing of pyrotechnics!) Could it be said that those who engage in homosexual actions are dense? I am not saying that, but you are bringing subjective criteria into a situation that was meant to illustrate a factual premise: namely that an individual can perform an action that does not cause him any direct harm. “Density” does not prevent him from doing an action that causes no direct harm, so the analogy is fine in this regard.
2. The person is foolish for tossing it aside? Too nitpicky. Alright, I’ll have him gently set it back down on the ground. (Remember that he doesn’t know what it’s capable of!)
3. Oh, brother. Talk about grasping at anything. What does this have to do with the exercise in logic that is being presented in this analogy?
4. Perhaps – but does that justify the potentially dangerous action?

Although your points are mere smokescreens which have nothing to do with the logic of the question about direct vs. indirect harm, I will accept them and again ask you to answer the main question point-blank:

Is it possible for an action to have bad effects that aren’t immediately apparent to the individual(s) involved? Yes or no? (From there we can lay the question onto homosexual actions specifically.)

FYI – I don’t think I have been uncharitable in any way. I have consistently presented you with logic, Church teaching, and simple questions. I do really care about you!