Isn't trying to ban gay marriage forcing our religion on other people?

[Ben_Sinner]

First let me start off. I don’t condone gay marriage at all. I believe its a grave sin and invalid.

But doesn’t the Church teach that we shouldn’t force our religion on people…

Isn’t that what we are doing when we are so forceful to ban gay marriage (civil, not sacred) just because its against our religious beliefs?

I’m wondering when the line is crossed? You know what I’m saying?

 

[Birdpreacher]

yes. yes it is.

Unless you can point to someway the social harm outweighs the social benifits that don’t involve digging into an ancient holy book of some religion.

 

[JimG]

First let me start off. I don’t condone gay marriage at all. I believe its a grave sin and invalid.

But doesn’t the Church teach that we shouldn’t force our religion on people…

Isn’t that what we are doing when we are so forceful to ban gay marriage (civil, not sacred) just because its against our religious beliefs?

I’m wondering when the line is crossed? You know what I’m saying?

No more so than banning pederast marriage or polygamous marriage is forcing our religion on other people. No more so than banning theft or murder or sexual assault is forcing our religion on other people.

 

[Birdpreacher]

No more so that banning pederast marriage or polygamous marriage is forcing our religion on other people. No more so than banning theft or murder or sexual assault is forcing our religion on other people.

If your reasoning is that it angers my god. Then yes.

If you can point to the social harm it causes then no. Its all about rationale. And why. If I say my god forbids anyone from going 120mph in a school zone, and I force that law on everyone, its irrelvevant that its sound policy or a good idea, I am forcing my beliefs onto others.

If I convince others with facts at how speed limits save kids, then I am operating under an approriate rationale.

 

[catholic1seeks]

No more so than banning pederast marriage or polygamous marriage is forcing our religion on other people. No more so than banning theft or murder or sexual assault is forcing our religion on other people.

??

Most people want to have these bans based on religious reasons. Most people are against same-sex activity and relationships based on religion alone. Appeals to natural law or order ultimately come from a religious interpretation of what is “natural law.”

 

[BeccaPax]

No more so than banning pederast marriage or polygamous marriage is forcing our religion on other people. No more so than banning theft or murder or sexual assault is forcing our religion on other people.

Yes, this. Like -

“Oh, sex trafficking is against my religion. I want to stop this. But wait - since my religion is in part motivating my desire to stop sex trafficking, and I have been beaten into submission about shoving my religion down others’ throats, I guess I’ll just shut up and let sex trafficking happen, since some people might like it and think it’s OK.”

 

[Birdpreacher]

Yes, this. Like -

“Oh, sex trafficking is against my religion. I want to stop this. But wait - since my religion is in part motivating my desire to stop sex trafficking, and I have been beaten into submission about shoving my religion down others’ throats, I guess I’ll just shut up and let sex trafficking happen, since some people might like it and think it’s OK.”

Or you can do the not lazy thing and provide real world arguments and evidence that won’t ostracize the parts of society that don’t believe in your holy book

 

[JimG]

??

Most people want to have these bans based on religious reasons. Most people are against same-sex activity and relationships based on religion alone. Appeals to natural law or order ultimately come from a religious interpretation of what is “natural law.”

I don’t even think of it as natural law. I think of it as human anatomy and biology. There are men and women. Those are the two kinds of human beings there are, whether one believes in God or natural law or in nothing. One doesn’t have to ‘believe in’ anatomy, it just is, and it is normative.

And because there are men and women, and they are sexually complementary, marriage and family came about, along with the continuance of civilization. Marriage preceded religion, and it was sexually complementary.

There has been marriage since the beginning of humanity, sometimes monogamous, sometimes polygamous, always between men and women, because of sexual complementarity.

Who am I to argue with 10,000 years of doing what works?

Carle Zimmerman made a study of the history of family and civilization, called just that: “Family and Civilization.” In the end he concluded that when families break down generally, so do societies.

 

[JimG]

If your reasoning is that it angers my god. Then yes.

If you can point to the social harm it causes then no. Its all about rationale. And why. If I say my god forbids anyone from going 120mph in a school zone, and I force that law on everyone, its irrelvevant that its sound policy or a good idea, I am forcing my beliefs onto others.

If I convince others with facts at how speed limits save kids, then I am operating under an approriate rationale.

Well, Catholic theology does not address speed limits in school zones, so I presume that I’m not forcing my religion down the throats of others.

 

[JimG]

Come to think of it, I can recall threads where I’ve argued against same sex marriage based on anatomy–i.e. the way humans are designed–and in the end someone always says “oh, you’re just making a religious argument!” Really? Anatomy is religion?

 

[Birdpreacher]

I don’t even think of it as natural law. I think of it as human anatomy and biology. There are men and women. Those are the two kinds of human beings there are, whether one believes in God or natural law or in nothing. One doesn’t have to ‘believe in’ anatomy, it just is, and it is normative.

And because there are men and women, and they are sexually complementary, marriage and family came about, along with the continuance of civilization. Marriage preceded religion, and it was sexually complementary.

There has been marriage since the beginning of humanity, sometimes monogamous, sometimes polygamous, always between men and women, because of sexual complementarity.

Who am I to argue with 10,000 years of doing what works?

Carle Zimmerman made a study of the history of family and civilization, called just that: “Family and Civilization.” In the end he concluded that when families break down generally, so do societies.

Do you believe that gays are capable of providing stable safe families?

 

[Birdpreacher]

Come to think of it, I can recall threads where I’ve argued against same sex marriage based on anatomy–i.e. the way humans are designed–and in the end someone always says “oh, you’re just making a religious argument!” Really? Anatomy is religion?

It is when you say you can only have sex this way for these reasons.

Just because gays have a fulfilled life by having sex outside the “sanctioned” methods of your holy book does not mean we have to crack down on their individual freedom to do so, this means there ability to live as married and raise children.

 

[DaisymaeD]

Birdpreacher–do you have two moms?

I do.

Her whole life is about her partner and she really doesn’t give a darn about the children from her actual marriage. Including the ones who totally support the gay lifestyle.

So, based on my lived experience, gay parenting is somewhat problematic.

 

[JimG]

It is when you say you can only have sex this way for these reasons.

Just because gays have a fulfilled life by having sex outside the “sanctioned” methods of your holy book does not mean we have to crack down on their individual freedom to do so, this means there ability to live as married and raise children.

Did I even mention a “holy book?” No! I mentioned human anatomy–the way human beings are made. I’m just speaking of external reality here.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Birdpreacher–do you have two moms?

I do.

Her whole life is about her partner and she really doesn’t give a darn about the children from her actual marriage. Including the ones who totally support the gay lifestyle.

So, based on my lived experience, gay parenting is somewhat problematic.

I am sorry to hear that. But there are selfish people everywhere. Just because you mother was selfish does not mean that all gay parents are selfish.

I worked as a lawyer representing kids in CPS cases. There were cruddy straight and gay parents. There were also great foster homes for kids which were ran by gay parents. Parents who loved the children in their care immensely. I can’t unsee that love. I would encourage you to seek it out in your community before making a blanket assertion on all gay couples.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Did I even mention a “holy book?” No! I mentioned human anatomy–the way human beings are made. I’m just speaking of external reality here.

No you are making inferences based on your religious beliefs when looking at anatomy.

People can achieve sexual intimacy without procreative sex. This is a fact. People do it every day.

 

[JimG]

Do you believe that gays are capable of providing stable safe families?

As a gay couple they are incapable of providing a mother and a father to a child.

Now a child might be deprived of a mother or a father in many ways, such as death or divorce. But to deny a child a mother and a father as a matter of public policy is wrong.

 

[JimG]

No you are making inferences based on your religious beliefs when looking at anatomy.

People can achieve sexual intimacy without procreative sex. This is a fact. People do it every day.

I’m making inferences based on anatomy.

 

[Birdpreacher]

As a gay couple they are incapable of providing a mother and a father to a child.

Now a child might be deprived of a mother or a father in many ways, such as death or divorce. But to deny a child a mother and a father as a matter of public policy is wrong.

You realize divorce is a matter of policy right? Like back in the day there was no divorce, you stuck it out in lousy marriages and that did not seem to do wonders for the kiddos

 

[Birdpreacher]

I’m making inferences based on anatomy.

That are seen through your Christian lenses. There are many people who lived fulfilled sexual lives without procreative sex, your doctrines and teachings claim this is impossible though.