How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[David_Goliath]

Truth isn’t subjective.

okay

My point wasn’t to dissuade you from your interpretation of G-d’s natural law.
My point was that there are others (and people with no religion, or more deist beliefs, etc) in the USA. I am just proposing (or asking?) that maybe the current legalization of SSM is the best way in our religiously pluralistic society.

I understand that truth is not subjective. I am not exactly saying that my view is right and yours is wrong. By myself accepting my own Jewish interpretation of SSM/G-d i accept that it is the truth as I know it. Same goes for you. If I am wrong, I can only trust in G-d’s mercy and my culpability will be based on what I understand to be true. Same goes for everyone else.

Much of the jewish community (reform, conservative, maybe some orthodox?) gladly accept SSM (we realize humanity progressed to accept it). If it is not legal, does that not infringe on our religious liberties?

 

[JimG]

Religions may be pluralistic, but human beings still come in just two sexes–male and female. That won’t change no matter what is legalized.

Whenever a society refuses to recognize reality, societal decline sets in, or continues.

 

[ahs]

Shalom!

I would just like to know how some of you felt when you found out same sex marriage (“SSM”) was legal.It could be any situation: in your state, when Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional etc.

If you were/are against legalized civil SSM did you experience any sort of “facepalm reaction”? Imagine you really wanted a certain president to win and he/she did not. Was your reaction to SSM being legalized similar to that if that president didn’t win? Was like facepalm “oh no!!!”?

I’m just trying to get a sense of how people FELT/FEEL.

As for me: I was happy, but more like happy for others because I myself am a heterosexual man.

As for my beliefs, they, like for lots of Jews (even “religious” ones), fluid:
Here’s a starting point:
myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality.shtml

I was first disappointed that our nation was trying to make people “feel” better about themselves by condoning and promoting sin. Then I started writing about it.

My first was a response to Senator Diane Savino’s pro-gay “marriage” argument to the Senate:
Refuting Senator Diane Savino on same-sex Marriage Rights

Then a friend of mine responded that the Church was insincere in claiming the “best interest of the children” while fighting SSM, so I wrote:
Is the Church Insincere in Her Stand Against SSM while Promoting the Best Interest of Children?

Then a few friends said my concerns were in the wrong place and I should be more concerned about people’s happiness and not worry about “sin”. So, I responded with this:
Are we more concerned with earthly happiness and rights, or with eternal destination?

A Priest friend of mine then wrote a great article, and I posted it on my blog for all my friends to read. It’s called, Gay “Marriage” Won’t Affect Me, so What’s the Big Deal? .

It wasn’t long after that, that [former] Australian Prime Minister Rudd tried to shame a pastor with a non-answer to the pastor’s concern about the Prime Minister’s position on homosexuality: Shaming the Pastor with a Same-Sex “Marriage” Argument?

And finally I wrote the very simple basics of what the Church teaches in this regard [no argumentation, just the Church teaching], which is probably where I should have started.
Marriage and Homosexuality: What Does the Church Say?

 

[Midwest88]

Sad because it is a sign of the fallen culture we have.

A tiny bitter as well since many of the LGBT supporters I came across are very childlike, bitter (ironic) and tend to gloat and troll on those who did not support their relationship and so called “marriage.” They also tend to be non-believers so I find their butt hurt nature a bit perplexing. One religious conservative said it this way “The LGBT community is probably the most sensitive community I’ve ever dealt with.” I tend to agree.

So, I was/am sad with a tinge of bitterness. LGBT community, the way it has transformed, is poison. One of my family members is a homosexual; within a couple of years of having his own place in the city, he practically adopted all of the talking points in terms of being a victim of society, and as we drove to his place he said - out of the blue - in a semi-joking manner “Society hates gay people” in a ‘poor me’ tone. I was like “You live in a very ‘gay friendly’ neighborhood’, in America, and any lynchings of the LGBT are either non-existence or mostly made up.”

 

[Midwest88]

Then a few friends said my concerns were in the wrong place and I should be more concerned about people’s happiness and not worry about “sin”. So, I responded with this:
Are we more concerned with earthly happiness and rights, or with eternal destination?

I’m irritated when people pull the “just focus on the happiness” since it’s such a cop out, brain-dead answer. As a person who once strongly supported same-sex “marriage” and relationships I find this “just be happy for them” to be innately vacuous.

 

[protestantinca]

In my state, voters decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman but an activist federal judge thought otherwise. So it is not really that the state decided to adopt same sex marriage, rather, a federal judge rammed through same sex marriage upon us with, in my opinion, very poor arguments.

We are headed for the SCOTUS to impose gay marriage nationwide (that, in my opinion is a given since Roberts and Kennedy are more worried about invitation to DC cocktail parties than about the law), so we, Christians who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, should strategize about what to do next.

When Roe v Wade was approved many in the liberal elite thought that it would put an end to the issue. Instead, abortion today is as controversial as it has ever been. I think that 10-20 years from now, our allies will be children like Heather Barwick,

thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

Gay marriage hurts, above all, the children who are purportedly denied a father or a mother with the sole purpose of satisfying the sinful and egotistical instincts of gay people who refuse to accept God’s plan for humanity in the form of having made us male and female.

Our hope for the future is the stigmatization of same sex marriage. In a way, a similar phenomenon happens in many Muslim countries with polygamy like Iran. It is legal, but it is heavily stigmatized.

So the answer to anti traditional family policies will have to be the celebration of traditional families with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[epan]

My faith shapes my beliefs .The Catholic Church embraces those with SSA as deserving of the same dignity that is afforded all of God’s children.Again,one man one women He created them.This with the express purpose of uniting in marriage,opening themselves up as a married couple ,to new life.Cooperating with Him. Catholic Charities have already been forced to close their doors due to noncompliance re allowing SS couples to adopt. This is just the beginning.It is a disordered lifestyle and as such cannot and should not be normalized.Tolerance and acceptance are not one in the same.

So, your response is to avoid the question? How is that supposed to address the issue?

 

[Clinias]

When I objected to homo magazines in our local public library, the director of the library got real close, pointed a finger in my face and said, “You can’t impose your morality on other people”. Yet, what federal judges are doing, is imposing their liberal secularism upon us.

All of this points to the fallacy of America. There is no such thing as Live and let live. The Left and liberals are intent ON imposing their non-morality or their amorality upon us.

Homosexuality is an evil and it is extremely obscene that there is even a discussion on homos marrying. The Homosexual community is forcing Christians to bow down to their views. This is the same situation of the Roman Empire where Christians were forced to worship and bow down to the Emperor’s icon. We are made to do the same thing.

It is all very evil. I became sick to my stomach over this.

 

[epan]

When I objected to homo magazines in our local public library, the director of the library got real close, pointed a finger in my face and said, “You can’t impose your morality on other people”. Yet, what federal judges are doing, is imposing their liberal secularism upon us.

All of this points to the fallacy of America. There is no such thing as Live and let live. The Left and liberals are intent ON imposing their non-morality or their amorality upon us.

Homosexuality is an evil and it is extremely obscene that there is even a discussion on homos marrying. The Homosexual community is forcing Christians to bow down to their views. This is the same situation of the Roman Empire where Christians were forced to worship and bow down to the Emperor’s icon. We are made to do the same thing.

It is all very evil. I became sick to my stomach over this.

Hmmm… I can’t say that I quite understand your point. Perhaps I am dense.

So, if the library stocked the Quran, would that impose the Muslim religion on you?

If the library stocked Mein Kampf, would that make you a Nazi?

If the library stocked Betty Crocker’s Cookbook, would that force you to use Betty Crocker’s cake mix?

In a more general sense, if nudists have a designated nude beach, must you be a nudist?

Are your belief that fragile that you must be a puppet to influences which you disagree with?

 

[Clinias]

Hmmm… I can’t say that I quite understand your point. Perhaps I am dense.

So, if the library stocked the Quran, would that impose the Muslim religion on you?

That is a funny response. You use the “Quran” as an example that calls homosexuality an evil and calls for the death penalty for homos. If you go anywhere in a Muslim country, would you find homosexual magazines in their public libraries?

No.

So you’re first example shows the fallacy of your own reasoning. It is hypocritical and proves my point rather than yours.

In earlier America, let’s say from the 1900s to about 1960, you couldn’t put a homosexual magazine in a library for that material would be considered obscene. The definition of obscene is

1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved:
   “obscene language.”
2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.
3. abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

There were once laws against showing, exhibiting obscene art or literature in America. Homosexuality is obscene. Homosexuality is offensive not only to God but to a great many men and women. The Bible teaches that we are NOT to look at obscene material, to guard the eyes. Putting a homosexual magazine in a public library is to PROMOTE it. Even Socrates and Plato both said that the poets need to be censored for they stated in the public sphere, nothing but The Good is to be promoted and taught. Aberration in human character or human depravity has no business in the public sphere. The public library is also a place for children. Western Culture and Civilization is about promoting the Ideal, the Normal of human behavior.

As late as 1967, gay bars were closed if found out and the cops used to beat up homosexual gatherings. Also I point to Victorian England as a Christian culture and an example of how to conduct a Christian society.

A man of Virtue does not promote what is obscene but what is Kaloskagathia, the Good and the Beautiful. To be “The Good and The Beautiful”, Virtuous, is the epitomee of being a human.

 

[on_the_hill]

1. Public libraries are not Christian reading rooms.
2. Allowing gay marriage is not an assault on religious liberty. It widens the boundary between religion and government.
3. No one has made a convincing argument as to why gay marriage is a threat to my marriage. If every single gay person in America got married today–all 2 percent of them–nothing would change. The wedding planning industry (most of whom, let’s face it, are gay men anyway ) would see an uptick in business.
4. I don’t like gay marriage. I made it clear to a few family members that I would not attend a gay cousin’s gay wedding. I see it as a make-believe situation.

 

[Clinias]

As to the charge that “libraries aren’t Christian reading rooms”, just shows up the fallacy of Americanism. Atheists/Secularists/Materialists and Christians can not live together. St. Paul says, “Don’t be unequally yoked”. Who writes the rules? Atheists/Secularists/Materialists or Christians? That the first part thinks it is alright to present obscene material where children are present shows their total lack of sense, of righteousness, of prudence, and of leadership.

It is nonsensical that two of the same kind “marry”. It is not a part of Western Culture or Western Civilization or a part of Christianity. It doesn’t make sense. Who rules this country–Secularists/Marxists or Christians? Christendom is not based on religious liberty. In Classical Antiquity thru the Middle Ages Church and State went together. It is a modern invention of liberalism, satanic and perverse, that wants to separate religion from government.

What gay marriage is all about is just thumbing one’s nose at God. Plutarch, a priest at the Temple of Delphi, said,

"We are not in this world to give the laws, but…in order to obey the commands of the gods".

We do not make the Laws. God does. A Christian’s responsibility is to God, first and foremost. What God wants–is what a Christian does. It is “Thy Will be done”.

It has nothing to do with being a “threat” but everything to do with Righteousness. It is abnormal that two people of the same sex marry. It is unnatural. It is abhorrent to the senses. The Natural Law is “The combination of two different but related pieces”. You can’t “join” two of the same thing nor can they reproduce.

The question is Do we uphold our traditions and culture of Christendom or adhere to Cultural Marxism, of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism? That is the question.

 

[David_Goliath]

As to the charge that “libraries aren’t Christian reading rooms”, just shows up the fallacy of Americanism. Atheists/Secularists/Materialists and Christians can not live together. St. Paul says, “Don’t be unequally yoked”. Who writes the rules? Atheists/Secularists/Materialists or Christians? That the first part thinks it is alright to present obscene material where children are present shows their total lack of sense, of righteousness, of prudence, and of leadership.

It is nonsensical that two of the same kind “marry”. It is not a part of Western Culture or Western Civilization or a part of Christianity. It doesn’t make sense. Who rules this country–Secularists/Marxists or Christians? Christendom is not based on religious liberty. In Classical Antiquity thru the Middle Ages Church and State went together. It is a modern invention of liberalism, satanic and perverse, that wants to separate religion from government.

What gay marriage is all about is just thumbing one’s nose at God. Plutarch, a priest at the Temple of Delphi, said,

We do not make the Laws. God does. A Christian’s responsibility is to God, first and foremost. What God wants–is what a Christian does. It is “Thy Will be done”.

It has nothing to do with being a “threat” but everything to do with Righteousness. It is abnormal that two people of the same sex marry. It is unnatural. It is abhorrent to the senses. The Natural Law is “The combination of two different but related pieces”. You can’t “join” two of the same thing nor can they reproduce.

The question is Do we uphold our traditions and culture of Christendom or adhere to Cultural Marxism, of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism? That is the question.

Are you advocating a return to a union of Church and State akin the the Middle Ages you mention? Does living in a secular state where your religion is not put above other religions (or no religion) bother you?

If the USA (or whatever country you live in) turned into some sort of Middle Ages status (Church with State, as mentioned), what would be OK? Consider the following for the hypothetical state:​

During the “middle ages” (as well as before and after), the Church did influence (and in some cases acted directly, like a Latern Council in 1215?) the active separation of Jews from society in Europe. This included putting them in ghettos and wearing special badges (not the Star of David, the Nazis did that in the 20th century). Pope Paul 2 in particular endorsed a practice of force feeding Jews and forcing them to run naked in Rome while he and others laughed. This was during a festival called Saturnalia. Just an extreme example. This of course was not the Pope under ex-cathedra (of course at that time, Papal Infallibility was not “officially” declared).

If the USA turned into a Church/State like the Middle Ages, would you be happy with Catholicism having special status and other religions “tolerated” like second class citizens? During some periods in Europe, Jewish children were expected to listen to Christian sermons after Shabbat services, would you approve of a return to this practice ? Would it be illegal to engage in religious dialogue because that could “lead Catholics away from the Church”? What about my Jewish community? If we have a different interpretation of G-d’s natural law and accept committed/monogamous SSM (such a small population of people anyway), how can we coexist in such a society?

Would we be a threat to the way you think society should be for everyone? Would public libraries contain books on Judaism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc–all for academic study?

---

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Emotionally my reaction would probably be about the same as when some of the blue laws were revoked (such as the prohibition of alcohol sales on Sundays, something I agreed with but didn’t have strong emotional ties to). The poster from south Africa complained that the change in 2008 in their laws resulted in higher toleration of gays. I myself would refer to higher toleration of gas as a better condition. As a child I remember that someone being suspected to be gay or feminine would be a motivation for horible treatment (ex:being beaten or socially cast out) and at times put someone in a position in which sympathies were not extended And the treatment would be seen as justified by some. Such treatment seems to be less frequent now. And I suspect it is because of the higher visibility that gays now have.

 

[Jeanne_S]

So, your response is to avoid the question? How is that supposed to address the issue?

I didn’t avoid the question.I answered to the best of my ability.Perhaps you should take the time to read other responses as they back up my assertions and maybe articulate the position for one man one woman,better then I was able to convey.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In earlier America, let’s say from the 1900s to about 1960, you couldn’t put a homosexual magazine in a library for that material would be considered obscene.

There were some other things considered visually obscene and objectionable during that time period too, such as a black person and a white person kissing (or getting married). I don’t think that a viewpoint having been popular then translates to it being seen as justified now.

 

[David_Goliath]

Emotionally my reaction would probably be about the same as when some of the blue laws were revoked (such as the prohibition of alcohol sales on Sundays, something I agreed with but didn’t have strong emotional ties to). The poster from south Africa complained that the change in 2008 in their laws resulted in higher toleration of gays. I myself would refer to higher toleration of gas as a better condition. As a child I remember that someone being suspected to be gay or feminine would be a motivation for horible treatment (ex:being beaten or socially cast out) and at times put someone in a position in which sympathies were not extended And the treatment would be seen as justified by some. Such treatment seems to be less frequent now. And I suspect it is because of the higher visibility that gays now have.

Software engineer! Cool religion.

 

[David_Goliath]

As to the charge that “libraries aren’t Christian reading rooms”, just shows up the fallacy of Americanism. Atheists/Secularists/Materialists and Christians can not live together. St. Paul says, “Don’t be unequally yoked”. Who writes the rules? Atheists/Secularists/Materialists or Christians? That the first part thinks it is alright to present obscene material where children are present shows their total lack of sense, of righteousness, of prudence, and of leadership.

It is nonsensical that two of the same kind “marry”. It is not a part of Western Culture or Western Civilization or a part of Christianity. It doesn’t make sense. Who rules this country–Secularists/Marxists or Christians? Christendom is not based on religious liberty. In Classical Antiquity thru the Middle Ages Church and State went together. It is a modern invention of liberalism, satanic and perverse, that wants to separate religion from government.

What gay marriage is all about is just thumbing one’s nose at God. Plutarch, a priest at the Temple of Delphi, said,

We do not make the Laws. God does. A Christian’s responsibility is to God, first and foremost. What God wants–is what a Christian does. It is “Thy Will be done”.

It has nothing to do with being a “threat” but everything to do with Righteousness. It is abnormal that two people of the same sex marry. It is unnatural. It is abhorrent to the senses. The Natural Law is “The combination of two different but related pieces”. You can’t “join” two of the same thing nor can they reproduce.

The question is Do we uphold our traditions and culture of Christendom or adhere to Cultural Marxism, of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism? That is the question.

Jewish-masonic conspiracy theory?
I hope you aren’t referring to the propganda in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. I’m not saying you are, I just hope you aren’t. It’s junk literature that blames the ills of the world on “the Jews” and how “the Jews” are secretly scheming to control the world.

 

[Clinias]

In answer to all, as Aristotle points out, The Natural Law is “All things are in authority or in subjection”. Only One thing rules.

America has a Masonic foundation. Its ideology is founded on Spinoza, Locke, Alexander Pope and other deists and atheists. Matthew Stewart, in his book, Nature’s God, The Heretical Foundation of America’s Republic, (which I suggest all people to read) writes that

In America’s various founding documents, to be clear, the Protestant language concerning freedom of conscience often sits side by side with the philosophical language associated with the freedom of thought and religious right…The blend of vocabularies was present no doubt because it brought together two very different constituencies whose immediate political objectives overlapped to an important degree. (pg 362)

There is a problem in the text. What he means by “philosophical language” is really sophism of Atheists and Deists who partnered with Protestants to create this country. The Sophism is really Deism. The cornerstone of Protestantism melded with the toleration of Spinoza and his intellectual heirs which trace back to Epicurus and Lucretius, pagan atheists of antiquity.

But Toleration is a fallacy as you can all plainly see. Atheists and Deists, Marxists and Socialists are all telling the Christians to shut up and sit in the back of the bus. Well, someone has to rule, either the Christians or the Marxists, Atheists/Deists, Socialist camp. The Natural Law is One rules. There can not be “Live and Let live”. It doesn’t work. Christian action, teaching and preaching offends the Marxist/Atheist/Deist/Liberal camp. And the Marxist/Atheist/Deist/Liberal’s action, teaching and preaching offends Christians.

God in Genesis said “I will put enmity between good and evil”. What this means is that God will not tolerate Good and Evil living together peaceably. They can not! God ordained that it can’t. Hate is put between the two camps. Either Christians acquiesce to the perversity of Liberals and Marxists or they need to separate from them and go their own way.

And Maybe, David Golaith can consider the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil War where groups inspired by Jewish ideology of communism murdered priests, nuns and monks and burned churches down. What about Jewish agitation to destroy Christendom? Where Leon Trotsky incited hatred among the Young Bosnians to attack the Habsburg Empire and assassinate kings?

St. Paul counseled “Don’t be unevenly yoked”. The godly and the ungodly can not live together. That is reality.

 

[on_the_hill]

Who rules this country–Secularists/Marxists or Christians? Christendom is not based on religious liberty.

I can tell you that the U.S. is not a theocracy. Which country are you asking about?

I’m glad the U.S. isn’t ruled by Christendom. Otherwise, we Catholics might not be here in the U.S. at all.