Illinois passes same sex marriage bill

[Deus_tecum]

lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-gay-marriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy/

This explains a lot about the marriage “equality” agenda.

“Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.” -Pope Francis

lifesitenews.com/news/detroit-archbishop-defends-his-stance-that-gay-marriage-supporters-should-n

hopefully more leaders take this stance.

Amen.

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

Also what about marriage between a human and an animal?:rolleyes

If you are truly pro marriage “equality”, than this would be supported as well. It does sound sort of crazy, which it is, but the same thing would have been said about same sex “marriage” 10-15 years ago. I am not surprised at anything this country allows anymore.

 

[LegoGE1947]

If you are truly pro marriage “equality”, than this would be supported as well. It does sound sort of crazy, which it is, but the same thing would have been said about same sex “marriage” 10-15 years ago. I am not surprised at anything this country allows anymore.

But public prayer or shows of affection for Jesus Christ or His Church, THAT might surprise me!

 

[rmc593]

So good to see all you lovely people here, so disgusted by something that has nothing to do with you. when I was at school i’m pretty sure my teacher - a nun - told me that God said we shoul love everyone. even if you cant love the gays, why dont you just ignore it? it doesnt affect your life, no one is saying you have too be gay are they?

 

[Monkey1976]

So good to see all you lovely people here, so disgusted by something that has nothing to do with you. when I was at school i’m pretty sure my teacher - a nun - told me that God said we shoul love everyone. even if you cant love the gays, why dont you just ignore it? it doesnt affect your life, no one is saying you have too be gay are they?

It is the opposite of love to endorse same-sex “marriage”.

From a purely non-religious perspective, it is something that has never existed in any civilization going back to its beginning - even in societies that required men to enter into homosexual relationships as part of the military training mandatory for all citizens (I’m looking at you, Sparta). Biologically, it is obvious that the genitals of men and women are uniquely suited for each other in a way that same-sex couples can never duplicate. Sociologically, any society requires children to be born at a rate of at least 2 per couple to survive, and more than 2 per couple to thrive - a function impossible for same-sex couples.

As you brought God into the discussion, I’ll continue with that theme: Scripture and Tradition are crystal clear on the point of sexual activity between members of the same sex - it is a grievous sin. Scripture and Tradition are also clear on the point that if one dies in a state of unrepentant grievous sin, one is going to Hell. If one is a believer in God and a supporter of same-sex “marriage”, then one is saying that they want people to go to Hell. It’s the equivalent of giving them a first-class ticket to the pit - the ride might be nice, but the destination is what matters.

 

[josh987654321]

Praise be to God for this great news!!!

You are delusional to believe this.

Jesus spoke directly of marriage in the New Testament.
Gospels:

**Matthew 19:4-6

4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Mark 10:6-9

6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman. 7 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. 9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”**

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sodomy, love the Sinner but not the Sin, the Church teaches, a man’s private parts were not designed to go up into another man anatomy - can this man have children -no.

Don’t forget, this impacts females pairs too that wish to engage the civil contract of marriage, not just males. Though whether the law was passed or not I’m not sure it would have an impact on whether people engage in sexual activity. You might find that a lot of sexual acts are performed by unmarried people.

‘Deep disappointment’ over vote to redefine marriage in Illinois

“During floor debate, lawmakers threw out words such as ‘equality’ and ‘fairness,’ said Gilligan. “But one important term was glossed over – religious freedom.”

Asking as an outsider, but how does this impact religious freedom?

Also what about marriage between a human and an animal?:rolleyes

I asked a law professional about this. It’s a non-issue. Animals cannot engage in contracts, thus they cannot engage in the contract of civil marriage.

As for the civil contract of marriage, in the western world animals don’t meet the requirements for being contractible (some adult humans don’t meet these requirements either). Entities not meeting these requirements cannot engage in binding contracts. It’s not just specifically that animals can’t marry humans, it’s that animals can’t engage in contracts.

The terms of a contract would need to be some how communicated. Also acceptance of the contract must be expressed. Once you get passed that some of the other requirements that would need to be satisfied include

• Person-hood status (instead of property status)
• Demonstration of mental capacity for understanding the terms of a contract
• Eligibility for other laws on which the contract is dependent
• Citizenship (in some cases)

 

[BellsMom]

Don’t forget, this impacts females pairs too that wish to engage the civil contract of marriage, not just males.

Any topic touching on homosexuality is almost always focused on men. Male gay sex. Always. For some reason women having sex together just isn’t as offensive. Go figure.

It’s interesting that this thread is so quiet. There was a time that any thread about a state approving gay marriage would be on fire.

There seems to be some truth that the more people are exposed to gay people in their everyday lives and the idea of gay marriage, the more accepting (or resigned) they become to it.

 

[marymary1975]

.

I asked a law professional about this. It’s a non-issue. Animals cannot engage in contracts, thus they cannot engage in the contract of civil marriage.

The terms of a contract would need to be some how communicated. Also acceptance of the contract must be expressed. Once you get passed that some of the other requirements that would need to be satisfied include

Whoever so called law “professional” told you this needs to go back to first year of law school and needs to take the bar again. Civil marriage is not even part of contracts! You were given inorrect information, did that person took the bar like seventy years ago?

 

[josh987654321]

Don’t forget, this impacts females pairs too that wish to engage the civil contract of marriage, not just males. Though whether the law was passed or not I’m not sure it would have an impact on whether people engage in sexual activity. You might find that a lot of sexual acts are performed by unmarried people.

True.

Asking as an outsider, but how does this impact religious freedom?

Good question

Dr Phil was talking about SSM on his show and he basically said “How will allowing this homosexual couple to marry affect your marriage?”

On the outside I believe this looks like a very good and legitimate question.

However, No one is imposing any other unions someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage on me either, they are just including it into the definition and saying “If you don’t agree with it than just don’t do it” but once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

As Ender on another thread so well put it, in reply to what I said here -
"Ender:

I don’t think this point is fully appreciated. Once the definition of marriage becomes accepted as nothing more than an arbitrary definition by the state then there are no logical arguments to set any limits to it at all. One woman in Washington (state) wanted to marry her house, well - why not? No one is forcing you to marry a house. You aren’t harmed if she marries a house. How do we justify discriminating against her? It sounds ludicrous but if we accept that the meaning of the term marriage is completely arbitrary then we have no rational basis on which to place any limit at all.

I believe Ender is absolutely correct here.

Marriage being only between a man and a woman used to be a self evident truth, but with the total rejection of any truth, how do you place any limit at all on it?

I asked a law professional about this. It’s a non-issue. Animals cannot engage in contracts, thus they cannot engage in the contract of civil marriage.

True.

Thank you for reading

Please feel free to reply or refute any of this.

Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Any topic touching on homosexuality is almost always focused on men. Male gay sex. Always. For some reason women having sex together just isn’t as offensive. Go figure.

It’s interesting that this thread is so quiet. There was a time that any thread about a state approving gay marriage would be on fire.

There seems to be some truth that the more people are exposed to gay people in their everyday lives and the idea of gay marriage, the more accepting (or resigned) they become to it.

I believe the media is doing a great job at desensatising people to homosexuality, I believe they are doing a far better job though at desensatising people to fornication and promiscuity.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

It is the opposite of love to endorse same-sex “marriage”.

From a purely non-religious perspective, it is something that has never existed in any civilization going back to its beginning - even in societies that required men to enter into homosexual relationships as part of the military training mandatory for all citizens (I’m looking at you, Sparta). Biologically, it is obvious that the genitals of men and women are uniquely suited for each other in a way that same-sex couples can never duplicate. Sociologically, any society requires children to be born at a rate of at least 2 per couple to survive, and more than 2 per couple to thrive - a function impossible for same-sex couples.

As you brought God into the discussion, I’ll continue with that theme: Scripture and Tradition are crystal clear on the point of sexual activity between members of the same sex - it is a grievous sin. Scripture and Tradition are also clear on the point that if one dies in a state of unrepentant grievous sin, one is going to Hell. If one is a believer in God and a supporter of same-sex “marriage”, then one is saying that they want people to go to Hell. It’s the equivalent of giving them a first-class ticket to the pit - the ride might be nice, but the destination is what matters.

This is very well said and is what the church has always taught. We are called to love gays just as much as everyone else, but to support them in their sin, is not true love. I find it very hard that someone can consider themselves both a christian and supporter of same sex “marriage”. I agree that if one says they support same sex “marriage”, they are really saying that they don’t care if you end up in hell.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

God created people homosexual, so there is nothing sinful about living homosexual lifestyle

 

[LegoGE1947]

God created people homosexual, so there is nothing sinful about living homosexual lifestyle

Somehow this doesn’t appear in the Bible anywhere. Could we trouble you for a source of this information?

 

[josh987654321]

God created people homosexual, so there is nothing sinful about living homosexual lifestyle

You are absolutely right that God created homosexuals, God created me too and as a heterosexual I also suffer from many immoral desires, should we all just wrecklessly give into our every desire, throw our hands up in the air and say “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it?”

I believe not one person doesn’t suffer from an immoral desire and I believe our desires are Not! who we are, because we make that choice!

Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey ‘people.’ People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war… Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest. C.S. Lewis

Please re-read my posts on your previous thread here -

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=835387&page=5

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

God created people homosexual, so there is nothing sinful about living homosexual lifestyle

God also created heterosexuals, does it follow that there is nothing sinful with fornication and promiscuity? How about any other desires someone might have? Does the morality of the act change simply because of our desire for it?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JimG]

God created people homosexual, so there is nothing sinful about living homosexual lifestyle

Hmm, so did God also create people as adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, and swingers? I guess we can get rid of a lot of moral categories at one fell swoop and create a great many more protected classes.

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

Hmm, so did God also create people as adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, and swingers? I guess we can get rid of a lot of moral categories at one fell swoop and create a great many more protected classes.

Exactly, we all suffer from immoral desires, but that does not make it okay to act on them. God did not make anybody an adulterer or a fornicator. It would not be okay for someone to say God made me a fornicator, therefore it is perfectly fine.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

God also created heterosexuals, does it follow that there is nothing sinful with fornication and promiscuity? How about any other desires someone might have? Does the morality of the act change simply because of our desire for it?

Thank you for reading
Josh

That’s why I encourage all homosexual couples to marry before having sex.

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

That’s why I encourage all homosexual couples to marry before having sex.

Well, the church doesn’t recognize same sex “marriages”, and having sex outside of a valid marriage is sinful.

catholicbible101.com/homosexualmarriage.htm
Here is a good link to read.