Let's STOP gay marriage now!

[estesbob]

Let’s stop fornicators marrying in general, and it’ll do wonders to the divorce rate in this country, and so much more.

The Church strives to do exactly that. You can’t just walk into a Catholic cCurch and say you want to get married. You have to go through Pre-Canna counseling and have the approval of your counselor before the Church will Marry you…

 

[Natasha_Roxwell]

Catholics have every much are they right have their moral views encompassed in the law as a do homosexuals.

Catholics have NO right to go against The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,Nature , Science,Reality, Reason.

You want to bring a new medieval reign of terror, oppression , religious fascism and all that. Don’t be surprised then when people stand up against it and show you how wrong you are.

We lived under your kind rule for more than a millenium. And we all know how it was.

We live in a secular country. We won’t allow your “god” and his rules to be applied top non believers and people of different faith.

There is a major difference between them gays and you.

You want to limit human rights and freedoms of other people based on your totalitarian doctrine and force certain restrictions on non believers and people of other faith. the other team want to live separately from your god and his rules. you want to do that? fine. do it. we will do it other way around and let’s live as neighbors peacefully. But the history of Christianity clearly shows us that as any totalitarian ideology it’s members simply cant live peacefully with people who worship differently, whose values contradict their gods rules etc. History teaches us that well. History shows us how Christian cultists systematically persecuted and obliterated completely other religions, people of different values and views when Christians had power. NO MORE!

 

[JimG]

History teaches us that since the dawn of civilization, under all kinds of societies and all kinds of religions, marriage was between man and woman. Even polygamous marriage was between man and woman. For millenia.

Let’s see, was that because of religious totalitarianism?
No, because it existed under nearly all and no forms of religion.

When did someone—anyone–decide that marriage could ever be between other than sexually complementary persons—i.e. man and woman? Oh, let’s see, within about the past 20 years or so.

Was it religion that made humans man and woman?
Not at all. That’s just biological fact.

Was it religion that invented sexual complementarity between man and woman?
Not at all. That’s just an anatomical fact.

Marriage as a natural institution grew out of those biological facts.
Biology is so totalitarian!

 

[PaulGH]

Catholics have NO right to go against The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,Nature , Science,Reality, Reason.

Then I take it that you support the traditional definition of marriage, rather than the revisionist definition that includes same-sex couplings, right?

I say this because:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Another UN document, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, says that every child shall have “as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” Only the traditional definition of marriage protects the right of every child to be cared for by his or her parents.

Nature says that only the coupling of a man and a woman can lead to the conception of a child.

Science tells us that same-sex unions are always and inherently, by their very nature, non-reproductive.

Reality tells us that no man can be a mother, and no woman can be a father, so same-sex parenting always involves removing a child from either his biological mother, his biological father, or both.

Reason tells us that governments recognize marriages precisely because they have the potential to bring forth new life, and because they are the traditional arrangement for binding a child’s mother and father to each other and to the child, which is good not only for the parents and the child, but for all of society. Reason also tells us that the revisionist view of marriage – which eliminates sexual complementarity from the definition of marriage – means that legal recognition of marriage boils down to little more than a government registry of friendships with inheritance and property sharing.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

This “children have the right to be raised by their biological parents” argument is a red herring in the discussion of same sex marriage.

Gay people can already adopt.

Single people can adopt.

Married heterosexual couples can adopt.

Unless someone is involved in human trafficking, all of those babies would be up for adoption regardless and wouldn’t be raised by their biological parents anyway.

The whole thing is at best tangential to the marriage issue.
Plus, the world NEEDS more adoptive parents!

 

[Corki]

Catholics have NO right to go against The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,Nature , Science,Reality, Reason.

Anyone has the right to disagree with any UN document. Being Catholic does not make us subservient to the UN.

 

[Memaw]

We have gay marriage now because straight people are very comfortable living an immoral lifestyle by embracing premarital sex, living together before marriage, pornography, divorce, contraception and abortion. If a straight person finds sexually immorality to be suitable then he can’t point the finger at gays and say that gay marriage is not OK. Take love for God and the Church out of the picture and this is what happens. We are a decaying culture and only an act of God will prevent gay marriage. Our government also is in favor of it. It seems to be a sort of insanity for our nation but then again sin is always a type of insanity. We must pray.

AMEN !!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Mulligan2]

My best friend is transgendered and I will do everything in my power to ensure that he has the same legal rights that you enjoy. He is not “unholy”.

My cousin is a lesbian, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that she has the same legal rights that you enjoy. She is not “unholy”.

My friends are Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, and Questioning, and you have to believe that I will fight for my friends’ civil rights with my dying breath. They are not “unholy”.

I don’t care if your church won’t marry them. I do care that our laws treat them as equal.

I really appreciate your post. Very well stated.

 

[PaulGH]

This “children have the right to be raised by their biological parents” argument is a red herring in the discussion of same sex marriage.

Gay people can already adopt.

Single people can adopt.

Married heterosexual couples can adopt.

Unless someone is involved in human trafficking, all of those babies would be up for adoption regardless and wouldn’t be raised by their biological parents anyway.

The whole thing is at best tangential to the marriage issue.
Plus, the world NEEDS more adoptive parents!

The entire reason why the government, or the church, or society gives public recognition and support to marriage is because marriage is the institution that binds each child to his biological mother and father, and the biological mother and father to each other. But that public purpose of marriage is thrown out the window when we redefine marriage in such a way that it has nothing to do with binding together mothers, fathers, and their children.

As for saying that same-sex couples can adopt even without changing the definition of marriage, that is a separate issue. But if one supports the idea that only married couples should adopt (as I do), then it makes sense to be concerned about what society means by a “married couple.”

 

[theCrow]

Those against same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, and they know it, but they cannot help but cling to their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. Even for those who are not religious or belief-driven, there is what is known as “fear of the other,” an irrational distrust of anyone who is different.

But deep down, the anti-gay folks know that they are badly out of touch. They just can’t help themselves. It must be truly sad to live like them. The thought of experiencing how their brains function each day–hating people who do them no harm, fearing people who do them no harm–depresses me to no end.

 

[Joe_5859]

Those against same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, and they know it, but they cannot help but cling to their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. Even for those who are not religious or belief-driven, there is what is known as “fear of the other,” an irrational distrust of anyone who is different.

But deep down, the anti-gay folks know that they are badly out of touch. They just can’t help themselves. It must be truly sad to live like them. The thought of experiencing how their brains function each day–hating people who do them no harm, fearing people who do them no harm–depresses me to no end.

You should get to know some of us. Maybe then you wouldn’t be as depressed.

I abhor the “historical inevitability” argument. It attempts to get people to switch sides so that they are on the “right” side (because who wants to be on the wrong side?). That’s an emotional ploy, not a logical argument.

Being in favor of the historical, traditional, natural definition of marriage does not mean that we hate gay people. Does being in favor of “gay marriage” mean that you “hate” Christians who believe in the traditional definition of marriage? I sure hope not.

 

[Corki]

Those against same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, and they know it, but they cannot help but cling to their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. Even for those who are not religious or belief-driven, there is what is known as “fear of the other,” an irrational distrust of anyone who is different.

But deep down, the anti-gay folks know that they are badly out of touch. They just can’t help themselves. It must be truly sad to live like them. The thought of experiencing how their brains function each day–hating people who do them no harm, fearing people who do them no harm–depresses me to no end.

Not supporting same-sex “marriage” has nothing to do with being anti "gay’ or about hating anyone. Nor is it about fear. It is about a desire for the construct of marriage to mean something - something that has both a religious and a secular basis. If marriage can be redefined any way a judge happens to want it to be redefined, it has no real definition.

We are saddened by some of the recent court decisions but it isn’t “sad to live like” us. You, on the other hand, seem to be “depressed to no end” by other people’s expression of their beliefs. Why is it so disconcerting for you that others might not agree with you on everything?

For that matter, it isn’t about history either. Have you read any history books lately? Where in the history of this country do you find same-sex “marriage”?

But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way of a good slogan.

 

[PaulGH]

Those against same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, and they know it, but they cannot help but cling to their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. Even for those who are not religious or belief-driven, there is what is known as “fear of the other,” an irrational distrust of anyone who is different.

But deep down, the anti-gay folks know that they are badly out of touch. They just can’t help themselves. It must be truly sad to live like them. The thought of experiencing how their brains function each day–hating people who do them no harm, fearing people who do them no harm–depresses me to no end.

No one on this thread has expressed fear, distrust, or hatred for gay people, so it is hard to understand who your comments are directed toward. Other than your opening phrase “Those against same-sex marriage,” I see nothing in your post that refers to anyone who has participated in this discussion.

 

[theCrow]

You should get to know some of us. Maybe then you wouldn’t be as depressed.

I abhor the “historical inevitability” argument. It attempts to get people to switch sides so that they are on the “right” side (because who wants to be on the wrong side?). That’s an emotional ploy, not a logical argument.

Being in favor of the historical, traditional, natural definition of marriage does not mean that we hate gay people. Does being in favor of “gay marriage” mean that you “hate” Christians who believe in the traditional definition of marriage? I sure hope not.

I apologize for using the word “Hate.”

And my brother you are EXACTLY RIGHT about one thing! It’s BRILLIANT when you
said “You should get to know some of us.” AMEN! Amen!

This is the absolute greatest statement regarding any other group who shares a different view. In this case, Gay people. GET TO KNOW THEM! This is why many many, myself included have changed their view 180 degrees on Gay Marriage. Because we have gotten to know many good, Kind, beautiful people who are Gay, friends and family, strangers, musicians, etc…and by sitting down and actually talking to them, we feel that empathy and compassion, and that they should have the right to marry just as 2 straight people do.

Thank you for the answer, and I do look forward to getting to know my brothers and sisters here.

"

 

[PaulGH]

I apologize for using the word “Hate.”

And my brother you are EXACTLY RIGHT about one thing! It’s BRILLIANT when you
said “You should get to know some of us.” AMEN! Amen!

This is the absolute greatest statement regarding any other group who shares a different view. In this case, Gay people. GET TO KNOW THEM! This is why many many, myself included have changed their view 180 degrees on Gay Marriage. Because we have gotten to know many good, Kind, beautiful people who are Gay, friends and family, strangers, musicians, etc…and by sitting down and actually talking to them, we feel that empathy and compassion, and that they should have the right to marry just as 2 straight people do.

Thank you for the answer, and I do look forward to getting to know my brothers and sisters here.

"

Your apology about using the word “hate” is appreciated.

I have gotten to know several gay people. Many of them are good, kind, and beautiful people, just as you said, and just as many straight people are also good, kind, and beautiful. But my objection to redefining marriage has nothing to do with whether gay people are good or bad, kind or unkind, beautiful or ugly. Getting to know them is a good thing, and of course I am happy to keep our disagreements civil, polite, and respectful. But getting to know them doesn’t change my view of marriage, because my view of marriage was never based on a negative view of them in the first place.

 

[theCrow]

Your apology about using the word “hate” is appreciated.

I have gotten to know several gay people. Many of them are good, kind, and beautiful people, just as you said, and just as many straight people are also good, kind, and beautiful. But my objection to redefining marriage has nothing to do with whether gay people are good or bad, kind or unkind, beautiful or ugly. Getting to know them is a good thing, and of course I am happy to keep our disagreements civil, polite, and respectful. But getting to know them doesn’t change my view of marriage, because my view of marriage was never based on a negative view of them in the first place.

But does your objection revolve purely around the belief that:

A. Homosexuality is a sin

It is quite sad though that many people do indeed “Hate” Gay people because they believe this. Especially when they say “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Sadly, the 2 are not that easy to separate.

I counter that many people, even Catholics are beginning to believe that:

A. Homosexuality is not a sin

therefore it still becomes a battle of civil rights vs moral right and wrong?

 

[KonstantinS]

Fix marriage among heterosexuals and you’ll fix marriage among homosexuals, who are not a problem

That is a far, far greater an issue

What is a problem, is on paper there are virtually as many virgins in the country as those who identify as LGBT.

I think the percentage is actually less of those who are virgins.

I actually think that the amount of self-identifying LGBT is twice the amount of those who marry as virgins.

Classless. Bunch. Of. Murderers.

 

[PaulGH]

But does your objection revolve purely around the belief that:

A. Homosexuality is a sin

It is quite sad though that many people do indeed “Hate” Gay people because they believe this. Especially when they say “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Sadly, the 2 are not that easy to separate.

I counter that many people, even Catholics are beginning to believe that:

A. Homosexuality is not a sin

therefore it still becomes a battle of civil rights vs moral right and wrong?

1. A good argument can be made in favor of upholding the traditional, conjugal view of marriage, independent of whether homosexual behavior is good, bad, or neutral, and many have made that argument.
2. It is hard to answer whether I agree that “homosexuality is a sin” since I don’t know how you define “homosexuality.” Is it being attracted to members of the same sex? Is it acting on those attractions? Is it both?
3. Something that is wrong does not become right, just because more and more people start to believe it is right.

 

[JimG]

I hope that no one has said that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is simply a tendency, a desire. It is no more a sin than is a desire for fornication, or for adultery, of for stealing, or even a sexual desire for children.

But if one acts on any of those desires, the actions can be sinful—fornication, cohabitation, adultery, theft, pederasty, sodomy.

They key is not to tell oneself something like, ‘But I must steal. Kleptomania is a deep seated part of who I am and I cannot deny who I am.’

 

[theCrow]

I hope that no one has said that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is simply a tendency, a desire. It is no more a sin than is a desire for fornication, or for adultery, of for stealing, or even a sexual desire for children.

But if one acts on any of those desires, the actions can be sinful—fornication, cohabitation, adultery, theft, pederasty, sodomy.

They key is not to tell oneself something like, ‘But I must steal. Kleptomania is a deep seated part of who I am and I cannot deny who I am.’

You lost me the moment you compared Homosexuality to Kleptomania. Just like Perry when he compared it to Alcoholism. You’re basically slapping someone in the face and saying their love is not valid, but is in fact an abomination, and if you act upon that love, get married, and shocking have sex/make love to that person, that act is in fact a mortal sin and you’re going to hell. This is why gay marriage will become legal in all 50 states, you can’t use that comparison.