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

[Hans_W]

Is the Church “forcing religion” on other people because they believe rape should be banned as should the changing of the definition of marriage? What is marriage anyway? How does it have its effects on society?

I cannot think of any society, including a totally atheistic one, that would approve of rape. The Golden Rule has been a guideline for societies all over the world, for millennia.

 

[roseofshannon]

So is sex a necessity for marriage?

What kind of sex is necessary?

If it isn’t a necessity, then why can’t a brother and sister, father and son…etc. or any group of individuals marry for benefits?

 

[mommy_k]

Many non-religious people are trying to ban gay marriage, so this is not exclusive to religion.

 

[TarkanAttila]

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?

Even an atheist knows you need a man and a woman to create a family. Where do children come from? Thin air?

Everyone likes to be rational, or desire to be so. Part of being rational is looking at what a thing is, and why it is as it is. The human body contains genitals. It is obvious that at least one of their purposes is to produce human life. Anyone who denies this is irrational.

So the question is: ought we to follow the rule of nature? According to dieticians, ecologists, physicists, engineers, and farmers and divers others, the answer is “DUH! YES!”. So why this exception with this very crucial part of human existence - reproduction and the survival of the species? Why don’t we have a license to genetically modify food or cause snails to go extinct, but we do have a license to mutilate a vital organ?

Anyone who supports gay marriage lacks critical thinking skills, or hasn’t applied them to this field - to his discredit.

Besides, if it’s imposing our religious beliefs, it’s sure the hell imposing more than Christian ideas.

Jews support this. Moslems support this. (We put “under God” on our money and in our pledge; that’s already something we and Jews and Moslems have in common.) It is not condoned by Buddhism, or indeed by most religions. Even the pagans never conceived such an idea.

It ought to be telling when not merely a majority of people, but a majority of religions or a majority of philosophies do not support an idea.

 

[Corki]

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?

If Catholicism was the only religion that objected to same-sex marriage, that might be true. But if you look at some of the clergy who have responded since Friday, you can see that is just not the case. Leaders in the Catholic, Baptist and Methodist Churches have all expressed dissent from the SS"M" ruling as has the AME Zion ( a predominantly African American denomination). And that’s not even counting the Muslim and Orthodox Jewish faiths.

But beyond the plurality of the traditional marriage position, most morally based laws have overlap with religious beliefs. There are laws against murder and they aren’t just becaue the fifth commandment says “thall shall not”.

 

[BeccaPax]

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

What can I say about gay marriage that you have not already heard before? That for millennia, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, and that because our society is so shallow these days, it allows pop culture to dictate morality? That societies the world over have frowned upon it no matter religion, creed, race, or political belief up to only the last decade or two? That logic tells us the man and woman belong together because that is what will further the species? That it will lead to the legalization and glorification of things like incest, polygamy and - eventually - pedophilia?

What good would that do? You have heard it before and it makes no difference.

There is absolutely no live and let live with the idealogical left. It is their way or the highway, end of story and whoever tries to stand up them will be bullied, audited, chastised, isolated, and vilified.

How about people who don’t believe in my Holy Book can quit shoving their beliefs down my throat?

 

[roseofshannon]

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.

Shouldn’t children have a right to receive financial support from their biological parents so they don’t become a burden to the state and society?

 

[Jeanne_S]

What can I say about gay marriage that you have not already heard before? That for millennia, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, and that because our society is so shallow these days, it allows pop culture to dictate morality? That societies the world over have frowned upon it no matter religion, creed, race, or political belief up to only the last decade or two? That logic tells us the man and woman belong together because that is what will further the species? That it will lead to the legalization and glorification of things like incest, polygamy and - eventually - pedophilia?

What good would that do? You have heard it before and it makes no difference.

There is absolutely no live and let live with the idealogical left. It is their way or the highway, end of story and whoever tries to stand up them will be bullied, audited, chastised, isolated, and vilified.

How about people who don’t believe in my Holy Book can quit shoving their beliefs down my throat?

 

[on_the_hill]

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

You make a lot of strong statements for someone who can’t make up his mind. But do continue. The irony amuses me.

 

[dmftx]

Our country was built on the biblical beliefs of our founding fathers. I am not forcing my faith on anyone but I am very concerned that the highest court in the land has basically negated God’s Word.

Keep in mind, I am not judging anyone (that is between s/he and our God) but I am judging a court who believes they supercede God.

We should all find this terribly sad and I don’t know how anyone cannot believe that we ARE in the “End Times” after this.

 

[dmftx]

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.

You obviously intend to antagonize but I would like to suggest that you travel to a country that exists without our biblical beliefs and see for yourself the “social harm” that exists there. I might mention that it is in those countries that we find more Christian conversions than anywhere else.

God Bless!

 

[catholic1seeks]

Gay partnership is selfish. They can’t intentionally procreate (an unselfish act), and they know this before they enter into the partnership.

Can they give unto one another? Yes. Can they do so in the context of death in common? I don’t think so.

So are heterosexual couples selfish when they use NFP, since they enter a sexual act intentionally trying not to conceive? They may be doing an act that is “ordered to procreation” but they are still using NFP, in the first place, so that they can have sex and not conceive a child.

And this statement that “gay partnership is selfish” is simply uncharitable, unjust, and nearsighted. Uncharitable because it lacks comprehension of the many couples who share a life of love together and express self-sacrifice and mutual support; unjust because it is misleading; nearsighted because it is a blanket statement that assumed ot know the hearts of homosexual persons in relationships.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Even an atheist knows you need a man and a woman to create a family. Where do children come from? Thin air?

Everyone likes to be rational, or desire to be so. Part of being rational is looking at what a thing is, and why it is as it is. The human body contains genitals. It is obvious that at least one of their purposes is to produce human life. Anyone who denies this is irrational.

So the question is: ought we to follow the rule of nature? According to dieticians, ecologists, physicists, engineers, and farmers and divers others, the answer is “DUH! YES!”. So why this exception with this very crucial part of human existence - reproduction and the survival of the species? Why don’t we have a license to genetically modify food or cause snails to go extinct, but we do have a license to mutilate a vital organ?

Anyone who supports gay marriage lacks critical thinking skills, or hasn’t applied them to this field - to his discredit.

Besides, if it’s imposing our religious beliefs, it’s sure the hell imposing more than Christian ideas.

Jews support this. Moslems support this. (We put “under God” on our money and in our pledge; that’s already something we and Jews and Moslems have in common.) It is not condoned by Buddhism, or indeed by most religions. Even the pagans never conceived such an idea.

It ought to be telling when not merely a majority of people, but a majority of religions or a majority of philosophies do not support an idea.

It simply is imposing a religious view of marriage, no matter how many religions may agree with aspects of the nature of marriage.

 

[TarkanAttila]

It simply is imposing a religious view of marriage, no matter how many religions may agree with aspects of the nature of marriage.

It becomes common sense after a while, and logically silly to argue against.

Just as it is common sense that “all men are created”, and “all men are created equal,” and that all men " are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Not everyone agrees there is a Creator God. Yet enough viewpoints and persons agreed to make this so in the Constitution.

Common agreement among religions isn’t the strongest evidence that gay marriage is nonsensical and wrong. But it would be wrong to write it off as totally irrelevant.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It becomes common sense after a while, and logically silly to argue against.

Just as it is common sense that “all men are created”, and “all men are created equal,” and that all men " are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Not everyone agrees there is a Creator God. Yet enough viewpoints and persons agreed to make this so in the Constitution.

Common agreement among religions isn’t the strongest evidence that gay marriage is nonsensical and wrong. But it would be wrong to write it off as totally irrelevant.

The point is that the vast majority of people (I’m willing to bet at least 95%) who oppose same-sex marriage and relationships do so because of religiously-motivated reasons.

 

[Tomdstone]

So are heterosexual couples selfish when they use NFP, since they enter a sexual act intentionally trying not to conceive? They may be doing an act that is “ordered to procreation” but they are still using NFP, in the first place, so that they can have sex and not conceive a child. .

This is an argument given by opponents of the Catholic teaching on NFP. I have seen this argument on Orthodox forums where they will claim that since the intention is the same whether to use ABC or NFP, you cannot say that one is morally superior or morally inferior to the other.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The point is that the vast majority of people (I’m willing to bet at least 95%) who oppose same-sex marriage and relationships do so because of religiously-motivated reasons.

I don’t think you get my point.

It’s fascinating to see the various worldviews, from the Trinitarian Protestants (well, some), Catholics, and Orthodox (we know all the diverse types already); to the polytheistic Mormons; to the monotheistic Jews and Moslems; to the atheistic Theravada and Tibetian Buddhists all coming together to say… something is amiss with this idea.

If we can’t even agree on the nature of God - or even that there is one! - yet somehow a fair whack of the religions - not religious people, but* religions, the creeds themselves* - agree on this one point, that homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned…

… who is stupid or arrogant enough to say it doesn’t matter “because they’re religious”? “Religion” doesn’t even entail the existence of God by this definition! How much broader a source of opinions can you get?!

 

[Yeoman]

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?

In this era when everything is supposed to be “natural”, we’re in the ultimately ironic situation that socially, we’re really going to town on emphasizing the artificial.

Genetically, it’s pretty easy to tell what gender a human being falls in.

It’s also really easy to tell what the byproducts of a natural attraction between opposite genders is.

Marriage has existed in all societies at all times to protect the byproduct (children) and the state or tribe from having to provide for them. That’s true whether a person was married by the Church, by a Mullah, or by a civilly.

The byproduct of relationships of this type between members of the same gender is nothing at all, so the state has no real role in it, other, apparently than “validating” the relationship. But a government doesn’t exist to make a person feel validated, and given the real problems of the world, the government certainly ought not to be worried about validating people’s love.

Expanding the the definition of marriage out further than it current has been, and it’s certainly been weakened by the state no longer emphasizing that men can’t take off after they create children, and couples together have the responsibility for them, only hurts it further and serves no legitimate state interest.

You’ll note, no citation to religion here at all.

 

[Yeoman]

On the natural thing, what an oddity it is that people actually worry about “all natural” breakfast food, but find it okay to surgically alter their external appearance against their natures and to have the state sanction relationships that are fairly obviously contrary to their genetic orientation. That doesn’t seem very natural.

Which would lead me to suggest that much modern concerns for “all natural”, which tend to come from the same demographics that support complete unnatural relationships amongst human beings, is a fairly shallow.

Shoot, a t-shirt for traditional marriage could practically read “Traditional Marriage–All Natural since Day O and still the best.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So long as we all live in society we are going to have to live with prohibitions and allowances with which we may find some disagreement. We could probably all be said to do some amount of imposing, and being imposed upon. Find the set of complications you can be happy with. If they may you unhappy try to be a motivation for a change in the hearts of the people.