B
Bill_Martin
Guest
Voting for people who will limit its ability to abuse its power and advocating the reduction of it, not simply trying to out-force my beliefs onto others.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
What do you want me to do about it?Bill,
You’re only offering an opinion and not doing anything about it. The government has defined marriage. What we are discussing here is an attack against the institution of marriage which is the basic building block of any society.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Please provide a credible reference that explains what American law is based on.This is not correct, IMO. Criminal law is about protecting the rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Jesus Christ told us when someone tries to take our coat, give him our shirt, also. This is the moral imperative. The law says when someone tries to take your coat, he goes to jail. Law isn’t about morality. Or shouldn’t be.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Bill,Gay marriage doesn’t lead to dead people, so it’s not an equal comparison.
If the government is going to attach privileges and recognition to married couples, then they do need some way of defining who these people are.
Those statements were nonsensical. The government defines who can and cannot get a marriage license, and grants the associated rights.
Peace,
Ed
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
There’s a history of the DSM on Amazon, you can buy that and read it. While things may have changed today historically, the APA had a convention and changes and inclusions were voted on by what members showed up. There was never anything about being gay that fit any criteria for “mental disorder.”In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed Homosexuality through a non-science based vote from the Diagnostic ans Statistical Manual.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
Which is the point I was trying to make. The government has to define it somehow, which is where their ability to get it wrong and impose gay marriage onto society comes about.Bill,
Those statements were nonsensical. The government defines who can and cannot get a marriage license, and grants the associated rights.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
It is in the interest of logic that everybody understand exactly what marriage is.You said this:
This is exactly the way the government, after the Supreme Court ruled it illegal to discriminate, forces us to treat black folks. I never said word one about you at all. I responded to you saying the government was forcing you to do something, you said it as if that were wrong. It isn’t wrong. It isn’t right. The government is not moral or immoral in this case, it is doing exactly what rule of law requires, as it did in the past in an almost exactly similar situation.
BTW, keep in mind that there were, and are, people on the side of black/white separation and discrimination who believe, sincerely, that God mandates this. They had endless Bible quotes to support their position: a matter of faith and morals.
The law disagreed. They too, claimed a government conspiracy against Christian values. And there are many today who hold this same view. It is in the interest of justice that we must vigorously separate Church and state.
Peace,
Ed
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
Everybody in this thread so far agrees about what marriage is.It is in the interest of logic that everybody understand exactly what marriage is.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Please provide a credible source that supports your last statement.There’s no evidence of this. All we’ve gotten from a subculture of persons denied the right to form the families that keep society stable is a lot of grief. AIDS alone should convince you of that. There is no reason to think that gay people marrying won’t increase the stability of society.
Peace,
Ed
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Here ya go.Please provide a credible reference that explains what American law is based on.
Peace,
Ed
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
No, they don’t. They may agree on what Sacramental Marriage is.Everybody in this thread so far agrees about what marriage is.
E
edwest2
Guest
Then what about the pagans in the voting booth that want to force their beliefs on society? Or the humanists/freethinkers/nontheists?Which is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are not to be forced on society at large. That would be immoral.
You’re not thinking this through.
Peace,
Ed
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
And what is the constitution based on?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Please provide a credible source that refutes it.There is no reason to think that gay people marrying won’t increase the stability of society
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
What about them and what does it have to do with the topic?Then what about the pagans in the voting booth that want to force their beliefs on society? Or the humanists/freethinkers/nontheists?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I think there are rather a lot of books about that you can read if you are interested.And what is the constitution based on?
E
edwest2
Guest
No, we cannot. I know of no responsibilities involved in gay marriage. None. It’s just like having a roommate except for the sex. You go to work, come home, have sex, or not, and go to sleep. And repeat.Good thing I never said that, then. I said what is above: that the government is not trying to force beliefs on people, they are just enforcing the law. If you think the law is wrong, try to change it. If people agree, enough people, you will. If the Court upholds on challenge.
“Let people?” No one is stopping you. This is my point. No one is stopping the Church, or you as a private Catholic citizen, from creating a Catholic Adoption service that doesn’t give children to gay people.
And “doing a good job” with Federal money requires complying with Federal regulations.
I think spreading the Word and trying to convince people are fine things. I think trying to legally block people from accessing the same rights as others is both immoral and unAmerican.
As Catholic Christians, we MUST make the choices and take the actions that most reflect the love of our Savior, Jesus Christ, including integrating gay persons into our culture as accepted members with the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as others, which includes the right to form civil unions, often called marriage.
- Marriage as defined by our faith requires two genders.
- It does exist as a part of our culture, in some places, pretending it doesn’t makes no sense to me.
- I think it would be a positive thing for society and charity, justice and morality of our Faith demands we support it. .
Gay people are integrated into our culture. I’ve worked with them. One of my favorite Industrial Designers is gay. BUT THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE HERE. The topic is gay marriage. We can’t support it.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Once again Bill, your statements are not making sense. Voters aren’t all Catholics, right? So for all the pagan/freethinker/nontheist voters who want to impose their beliefs on us - what about them?And anytime we vote for imposing our belief on them through the force of law, it is just as wrong.
You’re not thinking this through.
Peace,
Ed
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
Then basically you just never answered the question about what our law is based on either.I think there are rather a lot of books about [what the constitution is based on] that you can read if you are interested.
Let me make it easy for you: all law is based, fundamentally, on moral concerns.
You say it exists to protect our rights? The fact that rights should be protected is a moral statement.
You say it exists for the well ordering of society? The fact that society should be well ordered is a moral statement.
If there is no moral root, then law is morally arbitrary. If law is morally arbitrary, then it can never be criticized. All laws are acceptable, from ours to those in Germany during WWII.
If this is true then you have no reason to argue that a specific law should or should not be passed at all.
E
edwest2
Guest
Nice try at diversion. I suggest you contact the Vatican directly since I did not write that. If you don’t like Church teaching then just say so.Did they place children with single persons? Do you think institutionalization os preferable for children over single parents? Do you advocate removing children from homes a where a parent has left or died? I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove. Children need n models of behavior from a variety of adults and situations. Biological parents are only one way they get that and not always the best way, depending on the people.
I know two gay men who adopted two children who taken away from drug-addicted parents. You want to send them back? One was born in prison. They don’t know any other parents. You want to take them from suburban/rural Connecticut and send them back to the slums? This seems the more moral choice to you?
Peace,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.