Gay marriage OK because homosexuals born that way and deserve to have romantic relationships too?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
court14 said:
Traditional marriage? Polygamy has been the historical standard for marriage not monogamy and from its onset Judaism was just guilty as any other pagan cult. Women were treated as property who belonged first to their father until ownership was transferred to their husband. Adultery was considered a form of theft…Are these the traditional values people want to instill in their children?

The idea that someone Else’s marriage might be detrimental to another couples marriage is completely illogical. If a couple wants to strenghten their marriage then logically they work on strengthening their marriage. (This is besides the point because marriages have been falling apart way before same sex marriage was even an issue)

The same logic was used a century ago to oppose women’s rights and more recently the rights of racial minorities. Will our children look back in disbelief at this debate like we look back at slavery and mixed marriages? The arguments are quite similar.
Click to expand...
court14, this is a Catholic forum. In the language of such, “traditional marriage” does not imply polygamy. Furthermore, in the context of American cultural history “traditional marriage” does not imply polygamy.

I am not interested in your anthropologetic interpretations of states of “matrimony” regarding primeval peoples, gorillas in the mist or fruit flies. Such has no meaning in a Christian or Jewish context, you are kind of half right on that, accidentally.
 
court14 said:
Traditional marriage? Polygamy has been the historical standard for marriage not monogamy and from its onset Judaism was just guilty as any other pagan cult. Women were treated as property who belonged first to their father until ownership was transferred to their husband. Adultery was considered a form of theft…Are these the traditional values people want to instill in their children?

The idea that someone Else’s marriage might be detrimental to another couples marriage is completely illogical. If a couple wants to strenghten their marriage then logically they work on strengthening their marriage. (This is besides the point because marriages have been falling apart way before same sex marriage was even an issue)

The same logic was used a century ago to oppose women’s rights and more recently the rights of racial minorities. Will our children look back in disbelief at this debate like we look back at slavery and mixed marriages? The arguments are quite similar.
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, Judaism did not commonly practice polygamy, at least not after the Exile. There is certainly no evidence of this in the Judaism of Jesus’ time, atleast in the New Testament. Women were very subordinate, but if the women mentioned in the New Testament are typical, they had a great deal of personal freedom. But under the Law, the rights of women are defined, and this is no small matter, because anyone who has rights has a claim that they be enforced.

And of course a Lesbian “marriage” is detrimental to other marriages, because like an adulteress, she is claiming a right that belongs to another and by successfully doing so diminished
that right. By present or “traditional” law, only men and women not cloesly related may marry. If we strike down that barrier, where does it stop? Why not strike down “incest,” where father and daughter, or son and mother choose to cohabitat?
 
court14 said:
Our system of government is set up to protect the fundamental rights of all its citizens. One of the primary purposes of the judicial system protect minorities basic rights. Brown vs. Board of Education is a primary example of the judicial branch stepping in against the majority to protect the minority’s basic freedoms/liberties.

.Actually the system is pretty amazing if you enjoy history and philosophy. The fact that it is still so effective 200+ years after its inception is fascinating.
Click to expand...
If you are truly so impressed by a system that has survived for 200 years, why not take it up an order of magnitude? Try 2000 years.
 
RobbyS said:
As a matter of fact, Judaism did not commonly practice polygamy, at least not after the Exile. There is certainly no evidence of this in the Judaism of Jesus’ time, atleast in the New Testament. Women were very subordinate, but if the women mentioned in the New Testament are typical, they had a great deal of personal freedom. But under the Law, the rights of women are defined, and this is no small matter, because anyone who has rights has a claim that they be enforced.

And of course a Lesbian “marriage” is detrimental to other marriages, because like an adulteress, she is claiming a right that belongs to another and by successfully doing so diminished
that right. By present or “traditional” law, only men and women not cloesly related may marry. If we strike down that barrier, where does it stop? Why not strike down “incest,” where father and daughter, or son and mother choose to cohabitat?
Click to expand...
You may be correct about polygamy after the exile but it would have been a matter of economics not a question of morality.

Anther’s claim? On another individuals life?You have got to be kidding. These presuppositions belong in the stone age (actually the bronze age).
 
court14 said:
Our system of government is set up to protect the fundamental rights of all its citizens. One of the primary purposes of the judicial system protect minorities basic rights. Brown vs. Board of Education is a primary example of the judicial branch stepping in against the majority to protect the minority’s basic freedoms/liberties.

.Actually the system is pretty amazing if you enjoy history and philosophy. The fact that it is still so effective 200+ years after its inception is fascinating.
Click to expand...
In Brown the Court reversed itself. In Plessy vs. Ferguson the Court had allowed the states to establish racial segrehation. This was not a matter of unalienable rights but of the rights of citizens under the Federal Constitution. Now the Court, in effect, said that the earlier court has erred in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, the Court has during a period of almost sixty years continued to affirm its earlier ruling, which is why Warren’s Opinion is so clumsy… In effect, the Court had taken upon itself the duty that Congress had neglected since the ratification of the 14th Amendment to pass statutes that fully implemented the 14th Amendment, and which it would not do until --pushed by President Johnson–1964.
 
mystagogia said:
If you are truly so impressed by a system that has survived for 200 years, why not take it up an order of magnitude? Try 2000 years.
Click to expand...
The 200 yr old system actually functions. Which 2000 yr old system? The 2000 yr old system hasn’t been in any way unified since it’s inception.
 
RobbyS said:
In Brown the Court reversed itself. In Plessy vs. Ferguson the Court had allowed the states to establish racial segrehation. This was not a matter of unalienable rights but of the rights of citizens under the Federal Constitution. Now the Court, in effect, said that the earlier court has erred in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, the Court has during a period of almost sixty years continued to affirm its earlier ruling, which is why Warren’s Opinion is so clumsy… In effect, the Court had taken upon itself the duty that Congress had neglected since the ratification of the 14th Amendment to pass statutes that fully implemented the 14th Amendment, and which it would not do until --pushed by President Johnson–1964.
Click to expand...
Equal protection under the law( I think) is what the courts are taking up where the leg branch has been lax.

Bedtime. Later Guys. To be continued…
 
court14 said:
You may be correct about polygamy after the exile but it would have been a matter of economics not a question of morality.

Anther’s claim? On another individuals life?You have got to be kidding. These presuppositions belong in the stone age (actually the bronze age).
Click to expand...
Since when does economics not enter into morality? If a man can afford only one wife, then that becomes part of the fact situation, and if that becomes normal, people, even the wealthy, as a matter of convention will have only one wife. Gays right now are turning heaven and earth to create a new fact situation and demanding that public morality conform to it. It has earlier happened in the case of adultery, which has become acceptable
to a large degree.

As for the stone age stuff. new moralities are not necessarily more “liberating” than older ones.
 
This is a matter of public opinion… Which means we all have them so you’ll have people saying yes and other people saying no - frankly, if you are born that way, you can’t help the way you feel so you shouldn’t be sanctioned …
 
Just because one is wired that way does not mean that they have the freedom to practice that way. Some people are wired as alcholics, drug abusers, gay, straight, suicidal, whatever. It’s part of God’s plan for us for reasons only He knows. It’s what one does with these plans with free will that determines our life for eternity. It all goes back to The Cross. If one is wired to be an alcoholic does that mean they have freedom to abuse alcohol? No. If one is “gay” does that mean they have the freedom to practice homosexuality? No. The Liar knows all about these things and is much smarter than mere humans. The Liar knows your weaknesses and everyone has something. Everyone. One might try to hide it but God and The Liar knows it. The Liar would like nothing better than to watch us moan, groan or revel in our maladies instead of thanking God for the Cross and carrying it.

Lifestyle one’s way straight to The Liar? Lifestyle in hell, forever.

Have a problem, an addiction, a stubborn doubt about church doctrine? Take it to Mary, take it to Jesus. Go to daily mass. Say the rosary. No help yet? Join a church ministry, do hospice work, feed the poor. Still nothing? Fast. Make a holy hour. Read the Bible. Sacrament of healing. Fall down? Sacrament of reconciliation. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and keep going. Do it! Do it all.

No suffering goes unnoticed by our Lord. Do it for Him, do it for others and in the end the leaden shackles of sin and lies will fall away and the joy of freedom and Truth will be yours in Heaven.
 
court14 said:
Actually scientific progress and understanding fact is crucial when we discuss laws and civil liberties. The fact that Christianity has served to supress scientific fact needs to be discussed because it is still occurring.
Click to expand...
Supress scientific facts?
  1. Where didi we get the University system from?
  2. Where was the first planetarium and one of the largest telescopes for hundreds of years.
  3. The only fact liberals have to go to is Galaleo and then distort the facts.
He was given numerous awards by the church prior.

He was paid by the Catholic Church for his research

He was asked to wait to publish his findings till his theory could be made fact.

That purely was the churches propertry as again they paid him to come up with findings concerning this research.

I am sure today as a pharmaceutical scientist working for company A and coming up with a cure for a desease you could go public with that info… before your employer says yes… ha ha ha

he refused his employers request to protect their rightful property and wait until his findings were fact rather than theory.
He was then placed on house arrest where he was paid to continue his research and prove his theory to fact.

You really should read a book called how the Catholic Church built Western Civilization.

It would really surprise you how much the Church was and is involved in science.

By the way Christopher Columbus – a Catholic discovered America–World not flat after all.
 
court14 said:
Define Objective Moral evil and natural moral law? In what way is sexual orientation objectively evil? You are throwing out these terms without any foundation.

It sounds like you are saying it is evil because it is evil.
Click to expand...
Certain actions are always evil. The natural moral law is the law of God written on the human heart. Basically the 10 commandments. These can be known by reason.
 
court14 said:
We had the church in control of the west for over a thousand years. This is the era called “The dark ages.” A 500 yr inquisition, persecution of Jew, burning of witches and you believe looking to the church for moral instruction is the way to go. Common sense?
Click to expand...
You are a bit confused. If you want to start a new thread please do so and I will be there to refute each point.
 
court14 said:
But you have yet to give any reasons why it is not healthy and 10% of the population would be considered normal and fairly common place within the science and math (stats) community.
Click to expand...
How is acting contrary to our nature healthy?
 
You are approaching this from a purely human standpoint on a human timetable. I do not know why God creates the way He does. People have all sorts of natures, some that are positive, some that are negative.

This is a battle for souls not “feelings” or personal gratification. We all have our battles to fight. For some, it’s homosexuality. It’s heathy to fight it because to do so will help the person save souls, others (by carrying the cross) and their own.

I would gladly accept a lifetime of grief for eternity in Heaven.

Eternity is a very long time.
 
GodLovesTheSpek said:
You are approaching this from a purely human standpoint on a human timetable. I do not know why God creates the way He does. People have all sorts of natures, some that are positive, some that are negative.

This is a battle for souls not “feelings” or personal gratification. We all have our battles to fight. For some, it’s homosexuality. It’s heathy to fight it because to do so will help the person save souls, others (by carrying the cross) and their own.

I would gladly accept a lifetime of grief for eternity in Heaven.

Eternity is a very long time.
Click to expand...
Actually we are both coming from “human standpoints” The difference is I am calling a spade a spade.

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms – in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all…
Friedrich Nietzsche

Well said:D
 
A spade a spade? Yet you propose there is no truth? By your logic you don’t know what a spade is.

God is Truth.
 
GodLovesTheSpek said:
A spade a spade? Yet you propose there is no truth? By your logic you don’t know what a spade is.

God is Truth.
Click to expand...
Language itself is abstract. A word is a symbol allowing a common point of reference based upon common experience. I don’t propose their is no truth. You propose there is truth and it is God. How do you justify this? Simply stating “god is truth” is utterly meaningless.
 
I think if you’re going to argue against gay marriage, you must also be prepared to explain why half the Catholics in America admit to ignoring the Vaticans rules against artificial birth control.

Not to mention why Jacob, from the Old Testament, had twelve wives, at least two of which were his cousins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top