Let's talk same sex marriage, shall we?

[lil_flower_luv]

And do you suppose both of those have a connection with the use of the word meaning opposite the left as well? That doesn’t mean the words are connected. In short, no they do not have a connection. The basic right is to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness a.k.a. freedom to do whatever you want; laws are there to make sure that one individual’s exercising of that right does not ingringe upon anyone else’s.

Yes, let’s just make sure everyone is happy. It doesn’t matter if they live an immoral life. Sorry, even though you said morality shouldn’t be brought into this thread…I must tell you, it has everything to do with it! There’s man’s law…and there’s God’s law. Have we forgotten that the two do not always agree?

Sorry if I started to sound like a bad guy Ruby Bridges was certainly not in the crowd when she first stepped into that all white school…but is it really about being in the crowd? As a child of a single mother, I was not in the crowd either…but it would have been better for me than staying with my alcoholic abusive father. As it would be I’m sure for a child being tossed around foster homes because nobody wants to adopt them. There are countless cases of gay couples adopting drug/sick babies and taking them under their wing and caring for them because the couples most in contention for adopting a child wanted a “better” baby. Now if that’s not a loving home then I don’t know what is.

I’m sorry. Your mother must have been a brave woman.

It’s not about “happy homes” here. I think more children growing up in homes with homosexual parents will lose all meaning about what marriage and unity is. Is this what we would like for the future of America, my friend?

 

[mamabear3]

by the way, as catholics we should not be supporting anything that goes against the church.

 

[TOB_questions]

It’s not about “happy homes” here. I think more children growing up in homes with homosexual parents will lose all meaning about what marriage and unity is. Is this what we would like for the future of America, my friend?

Teh fact of the matter is that marriages have a 50% failure rate with no homosexual intervention as of yet. The institution of hetersexual marriage, at least for now, has failed.

 

[peduzzi89]

Yes, let’s just make sure everyone is happy. It doesn’t matter if they live an immoral life. Sorry, even though you said morality shouldn’t be brought into this thread…I must tell you, it has everything to do with it! There’s man’s law…and there’s God’s law. Have we forgotten that the two do not always agree?

While I appreciate that morality is a huge part of your view point, it is not, and CANNOT be a part of the government’s view point. It’s really that simple. It is against the constitution for religious morality to govern a law.

It’s not about “happy homes” here. I think more children growing up in homes with homosexual parents will lose all meaning about what marriage and unity is. Is this what we would like for the future of America, my friend?

I would have to contradict you. The homosexuals who are getting married right now have been fighting for it for years out of their deep unity with one another - something they are no doubt passing down to their children. Juxtapose that with the half of all straight marriages that currently end in divorce.

I’m sorry. Your mother must have been a brave woman.

She is

 

[peduzzi89]

by the way, as catholics we should not be supporting anything that goes against the church.

This has been repeated multiple times just in the young life of this thread alone, but I suppose I will do so again - this argument is not about whether you support same sex marriage. It is about whether it has the right to deny legal rights to certain people. Nothing that you have posted has provided a reason why they should be denied legal rights. You do not decide what is natural for everyone else - as has been posted, rights are simply in place to make sure that one person’s freedom is not infringing on another’s.

 

[mamabear3]

sorry. marriage is not a legal right it’s a privilege that is granted to you if you meet the requirements. gays don’t meet these requirments.

by the way if you don’t want morality as part of the discussion why is this post in the moral theology forum?

 

[peduzzi89]

sorry. marriage is not a legal right it’s a privilege that is granted to you if you meet the requirements. gays don’t meet these requirments.

Marriage…is…a legal right - this isn’t a disputable fact. What’s disputable is who should be granted them. YOU say that gays shouldn’t be, but this whole gist is about how you don’t get to decide that.

 

[mamabear3]

I haven’t decided that the government has

 

[peduzzi89]

I haven’t decided that the government has

That is what the government is TRYING to reconsider at the moment…and most of the places who have had a challenge in the past couple years have found in favor of same sex marriage…the point is WHY, legally of course, not religiously, do you think this SHOULDN"T be the case?

 

[mamabear3]

because marriage is defined for a man and a woman…just the saying “gay marriage” doesn’t make any sense. why should we change it now just to make gays feel like they have the same kind of relationship as a man and woman. they don’t. and thats not the catholic in me that’s the common sense in me.

 

[peduzzi89]

because marriage is defined for a man and a woman…just the saying “gay marriage” doesn’t make any sense. why should we change it now just to make gays feel like they have the same kind of relationship as a man and woman. they don’t. and thats not the catholic in me that’s the common sense in me.

Not necessarily - many people are proving - with success - that it is not just for a man and a woman…at least in the eyes of the government. You saying it’s common sense doesn’t translate into there needing being a law against gay marriage. I could say it makes common sense to live in a bubble because that would mean you would be safe.

 

[mamabear3]

people have not been living in bubbles for thousands of years. marriage has been for man and woman for thousands of years. your argument sucks.

 

[peduzzi89]

people have not been living in bubbles for thousands of years. marriage has been for man and woman for thousands of years. your argument sucks.

That’s because it’s only been recently people have actually studied and become knowledgable on the issue of homosexuality (you should try it sometime). If my argument sucked, my friend, there wouldn’t be people winning cases about it. Nor would I have to resort to saying the opposing side “sucks.” I have made a plethora of intelligent, articulate points, and, frankly, you have not successfully contested any of them.

 

[mamabear3]

i meant your argument about it would be common sense to live in a bubble. people aren’t winning argument succesfully about gay marriage they are deceiving ( not saying they don’t beleive it) people into thinking it is no different than a heterosexal marriage.

let me ask you something, do you beleive in gay marriage?

 

[mamabear3]

by the way what makes you think i knowo nothing about homosexality?

 

[peduzzi89]

i meant your argument about it would be common sense to live in a bubble. people aren’t winning argument succesfully about gay marriage they are deceiving ( not saying they don’t beleive it) people into thinking it is no different than a heterosexal marriage.

let me ask you something, do you beleive in gay marriage?

They are not decieving people - these are people who have devoted their lives to studying the law and how it affects people’s rights - such as your right to have a safe roof over your head at night. You’re using one sense of the word which refers to a very ancient ritual. BUT that same word has come to encompass so much more than that in today’s society - for heterosexual marriage included - LEGAL RIGHTS. And so you can’t use the limited, original definition of the word to govern what we do with legal rights nowadays.

So yes, I do believe in it.

 

[peduzzi89]

by the way what makes you think i knowo nothing about homosexality?

I didn’t say you know nothing about it. But if you think that it’s impossible for them to have the same type of relationship that a heterosexual couple has then you clearly need to bone up on your knowledge of it.

 

[mamabear3]

since you beleive in it nothing i say will be able to let you see my point. I’m not using an ancient definition im using the ACTUAL definition. please explain to me WHY gay relationships should be treated the same as heterosexual ones when they are not?

 

[angelerulastiel]

Marriage isn’t a right. You have to get a marriage license. You have to prove you are eligible. You have to pay to get married. Not a right.

 

[peduzzi89]

since you beleive in it nothing i say will be able to let you see my point. I’m not using an ancient definition im using the ACTUAL definition. please explain to me WHY gay relationships should be treated the same as heterosexual ones when they are not?

False. The origin of marriage leaves out a lot of what we have today. We still have the ceremonial part of it, but we also now have the legal part of it - which can exist in the eyes of our government without the ceremonial part. If you take the time to read, you will see that I have already laid out in my responses why they should be treated the same legally. I’m not saying that all gay relationships are the same but 2 gay people can share the same comittment and bond that 2 straight people. In fact, countless straight people who DONT share it get married everyday! People get married for convenience everyday! I’m not saying that should be moral but it’s legal because it’s their perogative. But people who are deeply comitted cannot…why should one thing that some people find to be immoral also be legal while another thing not? The answer is it shouldn’t be illegal if it doesn’t infringe upon anyone’s rights, which it DOESN’T