Stephen168
New member
there is no homosexual gene. You seem to be confusing friendship with marriage.
- Status
T
Taestron
Guest
??? Did something I say offend you? Please know that the was not the intent of my message. I was not trying to call for discrimination. I was merely trying to point out that it is not the government’s job to protect against discrimination but to promote the good of society. And I propose those are the best ways to have this debate. BTW, I would wait to hear my actually opinion on gay marriage before you assume that I defend traditional marriage.
Point taken, I was not trying to say anything about gays and lesbians with this. Merely trying to point out that the government does indeed discriminate for the good of society (again not saying that this should be the case with same-sex marriage).
But I would like to say your point about discrimination and differentiation may be correct when talking with legal jargon, but there is very little difference when having down to earth talks like this.
N
NeoCat40
Guest
It’s ashame how people think Gay Marriage is ok. As Catholics we believe that living a homosexual lifestyle will lead you right down into hell. Then why do people even encourage gay marriage if they know it is harmful to that person’s soul. The golden rule in the Bible is to love God with all your mind, with all your heart, with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Then how come if we are supposed to love our neighbor as ourself then why do we allow harmful laws in government. Honestly I don’t want to go to hell, then if I don’t want to go to hell than why would I give my neighbor the chance to go to hell and live a life according to his sexual orientation instead of living a life according to God. This is something we need to stop! Mainstream America has become so corrupt and is against any religion not just Catholicism. This law is a crime and the people affected by these laws shouldnt have to suffer eternally because the government allows them to. So put an end to this nonsense and I’m fourteen and I can see these things so clearly. Peace and God Bless.
S
Stylites
Guest
First of all, discrimination in and of itself is nether good nor bad. Society can discriminate against children or siblings or married people marrying, and that is good. Society can discriminate against immutable characteristics, and that is generally bad when the immutable characteristics are not behavioral in nature.
Secondly, regarding the supposed discriminatory marriage laws, there is no discrimination at all. An unmarried man is free to marry an unmarried woman if they both want to.
Thirdly, if so-called ‘gay marriage’ becomes an acceptable standard of behavior on par with real marriage then it will be children who suffer, since society will no longer be able to look to the welfare of the child as the determining factor in adoptions or custody, but to adult needs alone. Studies have consistently shown that children from stable, monogamous heterosexual homes fare far better than those in broken or abnormal homes, so the members of human rights-based society have a right to make these sorts of societal determinations.
Secondly, regarding the supposed discriminatory marriage laws, there is no discrimination at all. An unmarried man is free to marry an unmarried woman if they both want to.
Thirdly, if so-called ‘gay marriage’ becomes an acceptable standard of behavior on par with real marriage then it will be children who suffer, since society will no longer be able to look to the welfare of the child as the determining factor in adoptions or custody, but to adult needs alone. Studies have consistently shown that children from stable, monogamous heterosexual homes fare far better than those in broken or abnormal homes, so the members of human rights-based society have a right to make these sorts of societal determinations.
G
GratefulFred
Guest
Not being gay, I cannot claim to know what that is like.
I do know that God exists. That we have an immortal soul. That we am imperfect and struggle with all sorts of temptations. That, in the end, each of us will be either Heaven or Hell for all eternity.
As much as I can, I am fully aware of the sins I have committed. Aware when I have given in to my natural tendencies. Yet, I always acknowledged that what I did was a sin. I never tried to convince anyone that my sin was right and should be applauded.
I just cannot call God’s expectations wrong. I understand that although I fail frequently, I am still obliged to try again, and again, and again to avoid sin. Thank God for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I trust, that in time, God will grant me the grace to live better if I but constantly pray for His forgiveness, mercy, and grace. I have experience growth toward living a better life.
It goes against the two greatest Commandments - to Love God and to Love others for the Love God - to berate, belittle, or be violent against gays. There, but for the Grace of God, go I. I must be compassionate.
At the same time, there are limits, set by God. The major limit in question these days is the definition of marriage. As a Catholic, who fully believes in God and Heaven and Hell, I support Genesis 2: 18 - 25 and Matthew 19: 3-12 and other biblical statements. It is a false love to promote the change in God’s definition of a marriage as between a man and a woman.
To those who chose to reject God’s expectations and passionately promtote gay marriage, I call your attention to Romans 1: 18-32.
Because we are destined for either Heaven or Hell for all eternity, what we do in this life does matter. We can use our free will in concert with God’s Will or against it. I simply fail to see how promoting gay marriage is in concert with God’s Will.
I do know that God exists. That we have an immortal soul. That we am imperfect and struggle with all sorts of temptations. That, in the end, each of us will be either Heaven or Hell for all eternity.
As much as I can, I am fully aware of the sins I have committed. Aware when I have given in to my natural tendencies. Yet, I always acknowledged that what I did was a sin. I never tried to convince anyone that my sin was right and should be applauded.
I just cannot call God’s expectations wrong. I understand that although I fail frequently, I am still obliged to try again, and again, and again to avoid sin. Thank God for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I trust, that in time, God will grant me the grace to live better if I but constantly pray for His forgiveness, mercy, and grace. I have experience growth toward living a better life.
It goes against the two greatest Commandments - to Love God and to Love others for the Love God - to berate, belittle, or be violent against gays. There, but for the Grace of God, go I. I must be compassionate.
At the same time, there are limits, set by God. The major limit in question these days is the definition of marriage. As a Catholic, who fully believes in God and Heaven and Hell, I support Genesis 2: 18 - 25 and Matthew 19: 3-12 and other biblical statements. It is a false love to promote the change in God’s definition of a marriage as between a man and a woman.
To those who chose to reject God’s expectations and passionately promtote gay marriage, I call your attention to Romans 1: 18-32.
Because we are destined for either Heaven or Hell for all eternity, what we do in this life does matter. We can use our free will in concert with God’s Will or against it. I simply fail to see how promoting gay marriage is in concert with God’s Will.
A
Allegra
Guest
Because upholding the traditional definition of marriage automatically means firing people, denying hospital visits, bullying, and violence? You make yourself and your cause seem foolish with this sort of post.
A
Allegra
Guest
I think you’ve seriously misunderstood the Michigan law. This is from the Washington Post article.
The draft law, which passed the state Senate with 26 Republican votes against 11 Democratic votes and now advances to the lower house, includes language inserted before the vote that says the bill “does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held belief or moral conviction” of a student or school worker.
It does not say that a “bully” can abuse someone as long as the victim is gay and the bully is religious. The language only states that making a statement such as “homosexual acts are sinful” is not bullying. Personally, I would not support any law that didn’t have such a distinction in it because if it didn’t then there are people who would accuse people who are innocent of any crime other than believing in the Christian faith of being bullies. Just look at this thread if you don’t believe me. One poster goes as far as to insist that supporting the legal definition of marriage that has been used by our society since its inception is the same thing as bashing in people’s heads! Clearly, such language is necessary in such a law.
A
Allegra
Guest
This extremely scholarly article that was writen by a contributer that specializes in “video games, nerd culture, and the gaming industry” indicates that Gov. Walker is just a big old meanie because he asked his state legislater to not allow cities to register “same sex unions”. Walker’s heartless argument was that his state had only a few years prior taken the time and trouble to have the people of the state vote on an amendment regarding same-sex marriage in the state of Wisconsin. The PEOPLE voted it down. So those in favor of sam-sex marriage in the state congress decide, “Well to heck with the people! We’ll get same-sex marriage allowed by local governments by changing the name to “union” and not letting all those horrible, stupid citizens have any say in it.”
This whole complex issue is condensed down into, “Mean old republicans won’t let sick gay people see who they want in the hospital!” Never mind the fact that no hospital actually denies gay lovers the opportunity to visit each other except for maybe if the patient is in surgery (In which case, no visitors are allowed.) Let’s get real, people. Have you ever been in ANY hospital that didn’t allow people in to visit the patient? Hospital staff don’t have time for that nonsense!
Wisconsin democrats need to quite trying to circomvent the democratic process in order to get their way. The nonsense they’ve tried to pull in the last couple years is absolutely rediculous!
T
TracerBullet
Guest
There is no black gene
There is no left handed gene
There is no blue eye gene
Yet like homosexuality all of these are inborn
Just like international couples are “just friends”
T
TracerBullet
Guest
And fifty years ago an unmarried man was free to marry an unmarried woman of the same skin color. Therefore there was no discrimination against interracial couples
How is being adopted by loving and nurturing parents going to cause children to suffer?
Not true. When controls for differences in socio-economic status are put in place children raised by single parents do not fare any worse than children raised by couples. And after decades of study no one has been able to show that children raised by same gendered parents are disadvantaged.
“No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being,…Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures,” (How) Does The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Matter? Stacey J. and Biblarz T. American Sociological Review Vol. 66 No. 2 2010
T
TracerBullet
Guest
washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/washington-adventist-denied-same-sex-visitation-hospital-apologizes/2012/01/19/gIQAvngQCQ_story.html
daily.decisionhealth.com/Articles/Detail.aspx?id=501927
daily.decisionhealth.com/Articles/Detail.aspx?id=501707
Can you remind me how interracial couples circumvented the democratic process in order to get their way?
C
Corki
Guest
Your attempt to compare same sex marriage to interracial marriage is a flawed comparison. There was never a redefinition of marriage involved. Marriage was, and still is, the union of one man and one woman. No one who opposed mixed race marriages would have said it wasn’t a marriage - only that it was an illicit one – and only illicit in some locations. It was a matter of what was legally allowed. And it was a societal vestige of slavery. There is no comparison with same sex marriage.
The rules on mixed-race marriages were not any different than the fact that states had different defininitions of who can drive or own property. Changing those laws don’t involve changing the definition of operating a motor vehicle or land ownership.
T
TracerBullet
Guest
A) Marriage was redefined.
B) If there is no comparison between the two why are the arguments for both identical?
A
Allegra
Guest
Did you even read this link yourself? The hospital didn’t prohibit the woman from seeing her because she was gay. The receptionist didn’t let her back because she wasn’t listed as family and it was a mistake. The patient’s sister came out and told them who she was and they let her in.
A
Allegra
Guest
Proponants of interracial marriage did not circumvent the democratic process. They participated in the democratic process. They stated their case in a clear manner and people saw an injustice that was being done and so states that had laws that prohibited interracial marriage challenged the laws in court or simply changed them after a vote. Wisconsin voted on this issue. The people decided not to change the definition of marriage. In response to this, elected officials attempt to get around the people in order to get same sex marriage recognized by calling it something else. This is only one of several examples of antics we have seen from the Wisconsin state legislature in the past couple of years.
A
Allegra
Guest
They aren’t. And certainly the arguments against them are not even remotely similar.
T
TracerBullet
Guest
…just like supporters of same gendered marriage are doing
And Virginia voted on interracial marriage and decided to not redefine marriage to include it. And those people affected by this law participated in antics and worked to get around the will of the people.
A
Allegra
Guest
Some supporters are. The elected democrats of the Wisconsin state legislature clearly aren’t among their number. There are also many non-elected supporters of gay marriage that are perfectly happy to step all over the rights of others to get their way. I have a problem with that. Those who want to try to change my mind about gay marriage are welcome to do so using means that preserve the rights of others. If it was a just cause, that would be enough to cause the change, as it was in the case of black civil rights. I don’t see that happening. Gay marriage is not a just cause and the only way they ever will get their way is through bullying others into silence.
As a matter of curiousity, what event are you refering to, regarding circumventing the people’s vote in Virginia? I’m not sure what you were talking about. Most of the triumphs of the civil rights movements were handled in the courts and through the passing of new laws and the abolishing of old ones.
T
TracerBullet
Guest
Can you give me an example of an argument used against same gendered marriage that was not used to justify laws against interracial marriage?
Let me save you some time:
The bible and Christian belief was heavily used to justify laws against interracial marriage
The slippery slope: Rick Santorum used this idea to make his infamous "man on dog” case against gay marriage along with the claim that same sex marriage leads to polygamy and incestuous marriages. But the argument was made by R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia’s assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the Commonwealth of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws.
‘Oh wont someone please think of the children’ was heavily used in arguments against interracial marriage.
Gay couples can’t procreate: a subset of the ‘Oh wont someone please think of the children’ argument. It would be valid except infertile heterosexuals are not barred from marriage.
Gays can already marry someone of the opposite gender…therefor it’s not discrimination. Is equal to Blacks can already marry someone of the correct skin color…therefor it’s not discrimination
C
Corki
Guest
a) Marriage was NOT redefined. In the case of mixed-race marriages, it was whether a marriage would be **legally **allowed. There was no question whether such a union was a marrige in the locations where it WAS allowed. (only 30 states ever had laws regulating mixed-race marriages and most of those did not have such laws until the 1900’s). Mixed-race marriage was NEVER nationally restricted.
b) the pro-same-sex marriage crowd uses the same arguments because they are desparate to paint this as a civil rights issue. The pro-traditional marriage proponents use some of the same arguments but that’s not the main one. The main argument, is that always and everywhere in the US, marriage has been an instituation that involved one man and one woman. A complete redefinition of marriage is needed to justify same-sex marriage.
- Status