North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[Pfaffenhoffen]

How many wives did Solomon have? How many concubines. Shall we repeal all the various redefinitions of marriage since Solomon?

rossum

Yes.
We are Christians not Salomonics.
Jesus Christ answered exactly to your question. If you do not remember, I will quote.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If you think you’re scoring any points in this debate by equating homosexuality and incest (and possibly child rape), then please keep doing so. All you’re doing is marginalizing your position and making it clear to anyone with anything resembling an open mind that your argument has gone off the rails.

You misunderstood him.

 

[Orogeny]

Very bad point, Tim.
In gay marriages who is going to give birth to a baby if both are men?
Does this applies to heterosexual marriages?

I have no clue how this possibly is addressed to what I wrote. There is no such thing as “gay marriages”.

Peace

Tim

 

[Lapey]

I have no clue how this possibly is addressed to what I wrote. There is no such thing as “gay marriages”.

Peace

Tim

This one floored me too. We’re on the same side. There cannot be a marriage where the two being married are not free to marry, and one man and one woman. Doesn’t matter what civil law states, same sex couples will never be married.

 

[Orogeny]

You wrote a lie about my intent to address this thread.

You wrote:
Ronald E:

We Catholics and other Christians cannot keep our own house in order and then we try to tell other people what to do and what is right. It sickens me also.

What sickens you Ronald? Is it the responses that some on this thread had to the news? Your post is number 9 in this thread. Two posts ahead of yours is a post by Arkeaus who ended with “You make me sick.” as a response to pfaffenhoffen’s initial post where he used a dancing emoticon. No other posters used the term “make me sick”, so your post clearly agreed with Arkeaus. Arkeaus’ self-identification under “religion” is “Absolutely would love to live his life untouched by religion”.

So, we have you claiming that the response by posters on this thread celebrating the result of the North Carolina vote makes you sick. The result, by the way, is in 100% agreement with Church teaching. You, however, decided to quote from St. Paul to shame those who are celebrating the outcome of the vote. Why did you post that passage, Ronald? Was it to add to the celebration we are having or was it to shame people for celebrating by pointing out a passage in scripture that you claim somehow says that we shouldn’t be supportive of the outcome of the North Carolina election?

Where is my lie, Ronald?

Slander is “the utterance of a falsehood that damages another’s reputation”. How does your lie not damage my reputation? Then you end with…
Peace

Where is my lie, Ronald? What is your reputation?

I know you are sensitive, but come on. You really should consider avoiding public forums if you feel that I slandered you.

If you truly believe that I slandered you, take it to the moderators.

By the way, I mean it when I end with peace.

Peace

Tim

 

[mgoforth]

No, the point is that Jesus thought lying was such a terrible thing, He used that specific sin to name evil personified.

If the argument is being made that gays being married is a sin, then we should be equally going about trying to make ALL lying a crime.

But we don’t. Because we want to lie. Because we think it’s so common it’s no big deal. Because it seems foolish.

Lying and gossip and trying to make a fool out of someone and ridiculing the weak, ignoring the desperate for our own comfort, all these things are the true and terrible sins of humankind. What people of same gender do in the bedroom doesn’t begin to compare.

25,000 people a day die of starvation in this world. When everyone celebrating the vote ITT tells me how they have given up something important in their lives to feed the starving people of Africa and other places, I’ll really start respecting the “sin” argument.

Take the logs out of your own eyes, people. Your time would be better used.

Julia, all mortal sin separates us from God. Lying can be a mortal sin. Homosexual relationships can also be a mortal sin. If someone falls into Hell because of either one, the result is the same.

 

[mgoforth]

Actually, there are few people here better acquianted with natural law than myself.

Or, are you referring to some phrase the Church uses? Which is a religious argument, as I have said. In which case, again, you want to make people act in accordance with your beliefs.

Don’t you identify yourself as “Catholic” on your posts?? Was this an accident when you signed up for an account? Did you mean to say “Catholic - but only privately…I would never tell anyone else what to believe.”?

 

[mgoforth]

I don’t have a problem. I am entirely clear on Church teaching. I am also entirely in support of separation of Church and State and freedom of choice.

Every argument made here is based on religion. Trying to make other people adhere to our religious beliefs is wrong. Do you think it’s right?

If the Jews gain power, is it okay if they get a law passed saying all male babies must be circumcised? If Muslims become the majority will you stop driving because it’s a sin for women to do so?

The difference is…Catholic teaching is the THE one and only correct teaching. You do agree…don’t you?

It’s never wrong for us to pass laws that promote and protect the Truth.

 

[mgoforth]

Leaving aside the clear implication that gays shouldn’t be able to marry because their relationships are inherently inferior, why wouldn’t gays being married serve the same purpose on society as straights being married?

Because it’s not God’s purpose ASimon. The reason Catholics voted for this are not about the various worldly considerations you mentioned. Again, I don’t expect you to agree with that at this point on your journey. But hey, you’re here on a Catholic website debating the issue …so I see that God is trying to draw you to Him. I’ll pray that He uses the faithful Catholics here to share His loving message with you, and lead you to accept His sacrifice.

 

[BenedictFTW]

God bless them!!!:clapping::knight1:

 

[Bookcat]

I’m not sure that this is the real standard, but even if it was, marriage certainly qualifies.

Leaving aside the clear implication that gays shouldn’t be able to marry because their relationships are inherently inferior, why wouldn’t gays being married serve the same purpose on society as straights being married?

There’s a practical (and not insignificant) obstacle to a relationship ending when the principles are legally bound. Divorce is expensive and a hassle. Breaking up when you’re not legally bound together is comparatively easy. So, in a world where gay and lesbian couples are not legally prohibited from adopting children, or having them through artificial insemination, why is it not a net positive to allow gay couples access to the same legal ties as straight couples?

They do not have a right to marriage. There is not question of a civil rights issue here. And society ought to oppose their adopting any children as well.

 

[Ronald_E]

Personally, I think that as a Catholic, you should defer to the Catholic Church’s interpretation of scripture…rather than going Sola Scriptura. The Church’s position on this issue is, has, and always will be crystal clear, Ronald. End of debate, really.

“God will judge those outside…” What does the Church state about that?

 

[Bookcat]

“God will judge those outside…” What does the Church state about that?

It is is not that anyone is judging anyone here.

We are discussing the very fabric of society.

Apples and chocolate cake.

 

[rossum]

The gay has rights as long as does not call it “marriage”

And it can’t even be called “civil partnership” in North Carolina. A married person has the right to have their foreign spouse immigrate; how does a gay person get that right for their partner?

rossum

 

[ignatius777]

And it can’t even be called “civil partnership” in North Carolina. A married person has the right to have their foreign spouse immigrate; how does a gay person get that right for their partner?

rossum

What isnt a “right” anymore? Is there ANYTHING that isnt a "right’?

 

[Ronald_E]

You know what Jesus called the devil? Not “the thief.” Not “the fornicator.” He called him THE LIAR. Now, here is this sin so terrible, Jesus uses it to name the ultimate source of evil.

The day you start passing around a petition in your state to make lying, any kind of lying, a criminal offense, is when I’ll give your position serious consideration.

The objections are religious. We don’t foist our beliefs onto others because we don’t want theirs foisted off on us. We want the right to our Sacraments, including marriage. We want the Church to insist on a year’s worth of notice for a marriage, to require pre-marriage counselling, to not recognize civil divorce as valid.

We are free to practice our beliefs because we allow freedom to others. Start denying that freedom and then, when the government impinges on us, we will have no right whatsoever to complain.

Thank you for your intelligence and wisdom

 

[Bookcat]

"President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family.

However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage.

I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons."

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York

usccb.org/news/2012/cardinal-dolan-president-obama-remarks-on-marriage-deeply-saddening.cfm

 

[Ronald_E]

Grace & Peace!

Tom, of course the Law of God is worth standing up for, but if we insist on standing up for it by using the terms, tools or tactics of power, death and violence, then I’m afraid we’re providing poor witness to it and are, in reality, standing up for our own perception of our own correctness as opposed to the Law of God. That is, in fact, the gist of what I wrote in that post.

You’ll notice that I never once advocated being “nice,” but I did implicitly suggest that it is our job to embody the Deathless Love of Christ. We both know that niceness is easy and meaningless. Love is hard. Violence is easy. Compassion takes effort. So if you think that the call to embody the Deathless Love of Christ means being “nice,” then I would suggest that your perception of what that Deathless Love might be is slightly skewed. Love demands of us extraordinary sacrifice–dismissing those demands as mere “niceness” because we are in love with our own violent rhetoric and our own rightness is just a way of avoiding those demands, avoiding living into the high calling, the great responsibility to which to which Love calls us all.

It strikes me as strange how closely we tend to cling to and defend a rhetoric of us/them, of you losers and us winners, of power, of violence, and how quick we can be to justify it as prophetic when such things are challenged. In the Light of the Resurrection, such rhetoric is revealed to be paltry rags. We can defend those rags all we like, with as much passion and conviction as we dare, but I don’t think those rags will pass muster as proper attire when we attempt to enter the great banquet of love to which our Lord calls us.

Happy Easter, Tom.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Once again, thank you

 

[Bookcat]

"President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family.

However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage.

I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons."

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York

usccb.org/news/2012/cardinal-dolan-president-obama-remarks-on-marriage-deeply-saddening.cfm

Thank you Cardinal Dolan!!

 

[Orogeny]

And it can’t even be called “civil partnership” in North Carolina. A married person has the right to have their foreign spouse immigrate; how does a gay person get that right for their partner?

rossum

What heterosexual has the right to have a person of the same sex immigrate? A homosexual person has exactly the same rights a heterosexual person does regarding marriage and the rights that come with marriage.

Peace

Tim