Homosexuality and marriage

[buffalo]

It is so easy to label someone a bigot or racist. This is not about equal rights. I do not see signs that say “heterosexual toilets” or “homosexuals sit at the back of the bus”. This is about redefining the definition of marriage.

I have nothing against laws that allow people to grant legal rights to anyone they want; and anyone can freely choose to love who they what, but civil unions just encourage (or gives a cultural acceptance) to sin. We should not encourage people to live a sinful lifestyle, regardless if those people have different religious beliefs then us – because God is still the God who does not want sin in the world. Encouraging sinful acts is in itself a sin.

A country falling into the downward spiral of immorality won’t be able to recognize this.

 

[aprilfloyd]

It is so easy to label someone a bigot or racist. This is not about equal rights. I do not see signs that say “heterosexual toilets” or “homosexuals sit at the back of the bus”. This is about redefining the definition of marriage.

I have nothing against laws that allow people to grant legal rights to anyone they want; and anyone can freely choose to love who they what, but civil unions just encourage (or gives a cultural acceptance) to sin. We should not encourage people to live a sinful lifestyle, regardless if those people have different religious beliefs then us – because God is still the God who does not want sin in the world. Encouraging sinful acts is in itself a sin.

Hi Joe, but that is your religious position. You can call it a sin, but why should that be an issue for the wider world who may follow different gods or no god.

I think you will find that laws banning homosexual behaviour and society making them outcasts and forcing them ‘underground’ and to meet in secret is very much ’ homosexuals sit at the back of the bus’ type inequality.

 

[aprilfloyd]

No it isn’t - it is an issue of equal promotion. It is not a rights issue at all. And you never answered - where do our rights come from?

I did answer, we derive them from our laws, which gives people rights’ duties and obligations.

In the UK it is a rights issue and the legalisation was based on affording equal rights to homosexuals and lesbians - You can look up the legislation if you like which outlines the various equal rights.

 

[buffalo]

I did answer, we derive them from our laws, which gives people rights’ duties and obligations.

In the UK it is a rights issue and the legalisation was based on affording equal rights to homosexuals and lesbians - You can look up the legislation if you like which outlines the various equal rights.

And what are these based on?

Who gives these legislators the right to decide on rights?

 

[Publisher]

Where do these rights come from?

Source for the condition being illegal?

The Supreme Court has ruled from what I’ve read no less than 14t imes that marriage is a civil right…civil marrige is a civil right…according to the Supreme Court…the battle going on now is should those same civil rights be afforded to same sex couples.

 

[aprilfloyd]

And what are these based on?

Who gives these legislators the right to decide on rights?

Buffalo - you will just go round in circles.

We give the legislators the right to decide, it’s called democracy and we all get vote. You know all this It’s the best system we have come up with yet. So what is really on your mind?

 

[buffalo]

The Supreme Court has ruled from what I’ve read no less than 14t imes that marriage is a civil right…civil marrige is a civil right…according to the Supreme Court…the battle going on now is should those same civil rights be afforded to same sex couples.

"Civil Marriage Is a Civil Right"?

Homosexual activists have begun using the slogan “Civil Marriage Is a Civil Right.”
At first glance, this might be seen as a meaningless truism.
Yes, any given single person has a civil right to get married.
That was established in the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision, Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws preventing people of different races from getting married.
But the idea of the slogan is that homosexuals have a civil right to civil marriage.
Do they?

Civil Rights
In some places, they do.
In some places—either because the courts have imposed it, the legislature has passed it, or through other means—the local civil law grants homosexual couples the ability to go through a procedure that will result in them being viewed as married in terms of the civil law.
They won’t be actually married. That’s only possible between a man and a woman.

…The historic understanding—and the understanding at the time of *Loving v. Virginia—*is that marriage is the permanent union of a man and a woman oriented to the good of the partners and the procreation and education of offspring.
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/civil-marriage-is-a-civil-right

more…

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo - you will just go round in circles.

We give the legislators the right to decide, it’s called democracy and we all get vote. You know all this It’s the best system we have come up with yet. So what is really on your mind?

Your view is our rights come from other humans?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Your view is our rights come from other humans?

What is your view? Where do yo think they come from?

 

[buffalo]

What is your view? Where do yo think they come from?

From our Creator.

and this from our Declaration of Independence

**We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ** — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

 

[aprilfloyd]

From our Creator.

and this from our Declaration of Independence

**We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ** — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

I think your legislation gives you rights, but not a Catholic Creator. You were not ‘created’ Buffalo by a supernatural entity - but I respect your right to believe that.

 

[buffalo]

I think your legislation gives you rights, but not a Catholic Creator. You were not ‘created’ Buffalo by a supernatural entity - but I respect your right to believe that.

That is foundational to our rule of law.

See where this goes. If a human being ceded his rights to another human it becomes an issue of power. Guess who loses? We are then caught in a trap. If a human or group of humans decide that you aprilfloyd should be killed then you have no recourse. Or what if they decide to enslave you?

 

[aprilfloyd]

That is foundational to our rule of law.

See where this goes. If a human being ceded his rights to another human it becomes an issue of power. Guess who loses? We are then caught in a trap. If a human or group of humans decide that you aprilfloyd should be killed then you have no recourse. Or what if they decide to enslave you?

I think that still happens in the US and other countries, but we have abolished the death penalty long ago.

I would suggest it is better to be judged under the laws of the land than by a religious fundamentalism that justifies all manner of atrocity. Our legal systems are not perfect but are still the best system we have come up - Hard cases make bad law.

 

[Publisher]

From our Creator.

and this from our Declaration of Independence

**We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ** — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

The “Creator” espoused by the framers of the Declaration of Independence would be foreign to most conservative Christians and Catholics. The DoI is framed from a deist point of view, not a Christian point of view. Deism states that there is a Creator…but once the Creator set the universe in motion the Creator does not interfer in it’s working and management.

 

[Apolojez]

The institution of marriage itself is promoted by a government for the benefit of the common good, not for “equality” reasons. It also protects children who are being forgotten in this adult argument as in abortion.

The common good? Prohibition was for “the common good” and all it did was create the mob. The Embargo Act of 1807 helped start a depression and was one of the first steps toward the War of 1812. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was done to create a transcontinental railroad for America but it started the Civil War.

We tell the government what is good for us, not vice versa. It is possible to be morally against something and yet recognize every free individual has the right to choose their destiny. God doesn’t force us to love him does he? Who are we to force others to do our will?

 

[buffalo]

The “Creator” espoused by the framers of the Declaration of Independence would be foreign to most conservative Christians and Catholics. The DoI is framed from a deist point of view, not a Christian point of view. Deism states that there is a Creator…but once the Creator set the universe in motion the Creator does not interfer in it’s working and management.

Not willing to get into this particular argument right now. But I can show you that that is not entirely true.

 

[Publisher]

Not willing to get into this particular argument right now. But I can show you that that is not entirely true.

The Great Experiment was deist. John Locke, who’s ideas of democracy Washington, Jefferson, Adams and a host of others embraced were deists. While all were members of a faith tradition…they embraced deism.

The “not entirely true” is not “absoluely not true”.

 

[buffalo]

The common good? Prohibition was for “the common good” and all it did was create the mob. The Embargo Act of 1807 helped start a depression and was one of the first steps toward the War of 1812. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was done to create a transcontinental railroad for America but it started the Civil War.

We tell the government what is good for us, not vice versa. It is possible to be morally against something and yet recognize every free individual has the right to choose their destiny. God doesn’t force us to love him does he? Who are we to force others to do our will?

Bingo. And that is exactly why religion should inform government. Catholicism is a proposition and a great one at that. Government should not impose religion, but citizens should propose it to government. Man by himself is not capable of deciding these important questions and why Revelation is so important.

Homosexuals can exercise their free will choice. But to try and change basic definitions to do it?

 

[buffalo]

The Great Experiment was deist. John Locke, who’s ideas of democracy Washington, Jefferson, Adams and a host of others embraced were deists. While all were members of a faith tradition…they embraced deism.

The “not entirely true” is not “absoluely not true”.

Another thread…

Are we in agreement that they understood our rights came from this creator?

 

[Publisher]

Bingo. And that is exactly why religion should inform government. Catholicism is a proposition and a great one at that. Government should not impose religion, but citizens should propose it to government. Man by himself is not capable of deciding these important questions and why Revelation is so important.

Homosexuals can exercise their free will choice. But to try and change basic definitions to do it?

Whose 'revelations" should be embraced by the government and imposed upon it’s citizens?