North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[PumpkinSeed]

Whats odd about this is that yesterday Obama said he is in favor of gay marriage, however he does believe that it should still be up to the states.

That guy will anything for votes. I used to respect Obama but with his opinion hopping, it makes him look unstable.

 

[Ronald_E]

You wrote: 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?

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

If you read further down you will find I wrote that it is the ignorance of how to treat others that sickens me. Your lie was that I came here to berate commenters. You still do not understand what I mean by sensitive. I am sensitive means that I am extremely aware of the harm caused by the words and actions of others which are not based on love. My reputation is based on 30+ years of helping others overcome their history of pain associated with people who are insensitive and do not have the awareness of the harm which they do with their words and actions when they think they are doing something right.
I do not need a moderator to determine slander, that is for your benefit if you choose to be open with yourself.

 

[mgoforth]

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

Bookcat beat me to it…but I agree. I’m not judging anyone…either inside the Church or outside. First, learn the correct meaning of judgment or judging as found in Scripture. It means condemning someone to Hell for their actions. We don’t do that to anyone. But pointing out that a certain behavior is sinful is not judgment.

What you seem to be implying that passage to mean is that we should only try to help those within the Church to recognize their sins…I can tell you the Church does not agree with that.

 

[Ronald_E]

Bookcat beat me to it…but I agree. I’m not judging anyone…either inside the Church or outside. First, learn the correct meaning of judgment or judging as found in Scripture. It means condemning someone to Hell for their actions. We don’t do that to anyone. But pointing out that a certain behavior is sinful is not judgment.

What you seem to be implying that passage to mean is that we should only try to help those within the Church to recognize their sins…I can tell you the Church does not agree with that.

It does not mean condemning someone to hell. From The New American Bible “judgment is connected with the work of Christ, accepted by the faithful or rejected ty the unbelievers. It is already present and marks a difference between groups of people.” Now. Webster’s meaning of judgment pertains to the law and to the Last Judgment but it also states to form an opinion about, to criticize or censure.
This is the 2nd time you have told me to learn the correct meaning. Judge for yourself.
Give me the document which shows that the Church disagrees with me.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

You seem to have made a pattern of evading and avoiding what you do not like - but confidently charge on without any objective support for your claims.

The idea that you have no idea about, yet support, is that sin somehow increses one’s freedom to do more things…and, according to you, this is taught by the Catholic Church. My references is from the Catehism of the Catholic Church - and it totally refutes your statement. If you are going to make a statement, and are asked for the references - and you decline to give it, I’d say you are simply expressing an uninformed opinion. Here is a reference that will give you, not only the material I provided to you, but an abundance of Catholic Church teaching. Your past post appear to need some serious help.

By the way, what is the basis for your claim that you have extensive knowledge of the Natural Law?

God bless

I’m sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to without a link to the posts in question. However, the Church is irrelevant in terms of this issue. In fact, the constant references to the Church sort of prove my point. You want to impose Church teaching on society at large by using civil laws. That’s wrong. Is that what you want me to support? That the Church says it’s wrong to force our beliefs on others? Do you really need a link to know that?

We are supposed to preach the Gospel, not legislate it.

 

[Orogeny]

If you read further down you will find I wrote that it is the ignorance of how to treat others that sickens me. Your lie was that I came here to berate commenters.

So it is us ignorant people that make you sick? I apologize. You only posted to berate ignorant commenters. Got it.

You still do not understand what I mean by sensitive. I am sensitive means that I am extremely aware of the harm caused by the words and actions of others which are not based on love. My reputation is based on 30+ years of helping others overcome their history of pain associated with people who are insensitive and do not have the awareness of the harm which they do with their words and actions when they think they are doing something right.

And yet your were the first to fire accusations against me on this thread AND to publically tell us ignorant people that we make you sick. Hmm. Sounds sensitive to me.

Peace

Tim

 

[Ronald_E]

So it is us ignorant people that make you sick? I apologize. You only posted to berate ignorant commenters. Got it.
And yet your were the first to fire accusations against me on this thread AND to publically tell us ignorant people that we make you sick. Hmm. Sounds sensitive to me.

Peace

Tim

For the last time, your lie was your written statement that I came here to berate people.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

You are not only seriously mistaken, you are going in the wrong direction.

While you have already decided you do not have a problem, you are not, ‘…entirely clear on Church teaching…’. It is truly interesting that, today, those who publicly claim ‘separation of Chruch and State’ advocate for atheist positions, applaud Obam’s ‘Mandate’ and against religious freedom of conscious. Those who usually chapion ‘freedom of choice’ actively support abortion. These positions are clearly condemned by the Catholic Church. They are, however sufficiently vague enough to allow you expain that you did not mean what I understood you to mean - would you like to do that?

Just as a reminder, the “C” in CAF stands for CATHOLIC. Thi is not a political party, social club or civic organization - IT IS a religion. Your hypothetical questions managed to miss the entire point of the discussion. Why not try and craft a question that supports your view and challenges what the Catholic Church teaches? By the way, the Jews have had power before - and Gentiles were not required to be circumcised. Judging from the pictures I have seen of streets in the large Middle Eastern cities - driving is quite the fashion - with every manner of traffic jam in existence.

When it comes to, ‘…adhering to the religious beliefs…’ of others or forcing others to do this - did you know that there laws against, theft, murder, and lying under oath? These laws pre-date the founding of the USA, and all of the Europen countries in existence today. You can verify this by referencing Deuteronomy 9.

God bless

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?

 

[Orogeny]

For the last time, your lie was your written statement that I came here to berate people.

So you came for something else and decided to berate ignorant commenters. Got it.

Peace

Tim

 

[tqualey]

Goodbye, Julia Mae,

It would appear that it is you who are refusing to listen to the corrections of others, have launched out on your own path, and now are in full retreat.

Feel free to return - but, this time, please come with the facts instead of just your opinion.

God bless

Everyone has said everything they have to say at least six times or more, as far as I can see. No one is listening to the other side. I see no reason to keep repeating myself, except to say: it’s just like the last civil rights issue. One side is sure they are defending God’s Law or natural law or whatever. The other side believes that freedom equals charity and the right to choose for yourself is sacrosanct.

I predict, unless we lose our democracy a together, a serious threat right now, gay marriage as it is called, will be commonplace and accepted.

So, I’m done. Y’all get the last 5000 words.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mgoforth,

I think you made a serious error here… There is a limit to the number of letters one can use in identifying their religion - no matter how well it may clarify!

Enjoyed your post.

God bless

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.”?

 

[LoboLobo]

To our atheist friends here: I’m sure you’ve already heard this, but in case you haven’t, I’d like to point a few things out. Most Catholics don’t oppose gay marriage because they find gays “icky.” It’s because we understand marriage as an institution directed towards producing families. In that respect, we do not view marriage, sacramental or not, as a right. The breakdown of the nuclear family in modern times is an obvious reality, and in a society that has already assumed a selfish position on marriage (i.e. it’s all about feelings), gay marriage only further undermines the historical and true purpose of marriage: to create stable, loving environments in which to produce and raise children.
The phenomenon of marriage as being purely about “being in love” (while that is an important part, but still only a part) is a wholly modern one and the results speak for themselves. So, it might seem to be simply “mean” or “homophobic” to you, but for many, if not most, of us, that’s just not the case.

In my experience, most Catholics do not oppose gay marriage. That observation is only based on personal interaction. Many Catholics do oppose. The Pope counts himself as one of those. I know priests who do not oppose gay marriage, including some gay priests and some straight ones. But perhaps not “most” Catholics in the US, and certainly only a small minority of Catholics in Europe are opposed to gay marriage. In Brazil and Mexico, there is not a lot of opposition to gay marriage. There is strong opposition in most parts of Africa.

Please be careful about making statements about what “most” Catholics believe. The only thing known with certainty is that the Catholic community is diverse in its opinions, and that the Church is usually clear in its position on the subject.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rossum,

You have really asked this same question several times - and, amazingly, you have gotten the same basic answer: homosexuals can not enter into marriage because they are not qualified. Simply not liking the responses you have previously received is not a reason for asking the same question multiple times. We can discuss why 2 + 2 = 4 and not 3 all day long. Compounding question on question is not going to change the answer to 3 because there is a political movement to “Vote 3” in the area. Reality is what it is.

I think it is time to try a different question …

God bless

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

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LoboLobo,

What you are presenting, I think, would be called a ‘convenience sample’ - you looked around and saw some positions and then formulated a hypothesis. At the very least, the issue you have here is based on insufficient sample size. Unfortunately, this is NOT the real issue: The Catholic Faith is not based on a ‘show of hands’. Notice in Matthew 16, Christ did not make a motion to have Peter lead the Apostles and receive the Keys to the Kingdom. Christ did not ask for a vote for Peter. After Peter’s denial - the Apostles did not gather to have a ‘No Confidence Vote’. What we have is a religion of Faith, based on the Authority of God - and not the traditions and votes of men.

As the late Bishop Sheen said, “just because everyone believes something, does not make it true…” If all of the US Catholics that formed part of a national sample (no question about size or bias, here…) said that they did not opposed homosexual behavior - all that would mean is that we have a lot of US Catholics who either do not know or refuse to believe the teaching that homosexual behavior is inherently disordered - and gravely sinful for those capable of sin.

It really makes no difference (except for the pulbic scandal it gives) for a priest to allow homosexual behavior in his parish or to endorse homosexual behvior in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Note: Luther was a priest and he went off the deep end in promoting heresy (e.g., Sola Scriptura). Just being a priest does not immunize anyone from straying from the path.

God bless

In my experience, most Catholics do not oppose gay marriage. That observation is only based on personal interaction. Many Catholics do oppose. The Pope counts himself as one of those. I know priests who do not oppose gay marriage, including some gay priests and some straight ones. But perhaps not “most” Catholics in the US, and certainly only a small minority of Catholics in Europe are opposed to gay marriage. In Brazil and Mexico, there is not a lot of opposition to gay marriage. There is strong opposition in most parts of Africa.

Please be careful about making statements about what “most” Catholics believe. The only thing known with certainty is that the Catholic community is diverse in its opinions, and that the Church is usually clear in its position on the subject.

 

[LoboLobo]

Hi, LoboLobo,

What you are presenting, I think, would be called a ‘convenience sample’ - you looked around and saw some positions and then formulated a hypothesis. At the very least, the issue you have here is based on insufficient sample size. Unfortunately, this is NOT the real issue: The Catholic Faith is not based on a ‘show of hands’. Notice in Matthew 16, Christ did not make a motion to have Peter lead the Apostles and receive the Keys to the Kingdom. Christ did not ask for a vote for Peter. After Peter’s denial - the Apostles did not gather to have a ‘No Confidence Vote’. What we have is a religion of Faith, based on the Authority of God - and not the traditions and votes of men.

As the late Bishop Sheen said, “just because everyone believes something, does not make it true…” If all of the US Catholics that formed part of a national sample (no question about size or bias, here…) said that they did not opposed homosexual behavior - all that would mean is that we have a lot of US Catholics who either do not know or refuse to believe the teaching that homosexual behavior is inherently disordered - and gravely sinful for those capable of sin.

It really makes no difference (except for the pulbic scandal it gives) for a priest to allow homosexual behavior in his parish or to endorse homosexual behvior in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Note: Luther was a priest and he went off the deep end in promoting heresy (e.g., Sola Scriptura). Just being a priest does not immunize anyone from straying from the path.

God bless

I don’t disagree. My point was that blanket statements about “most” are simply opinions, most of the time. My statement was only an opinion. It is true that gay marriage is legal in Spain. Gay unions are legal in Brazil. Gay marriage is legal in parts of Mexico. These are all “Catholic” places. It might be fair to say that most Spanish Catholics do not oppose gay marriage, at least not enough to vote in anti-gay-marriage legislators. I make no claim to be a source of spiritual or moral guidance for others. I hope my opinion was not interpreted in that way.

 

[ahs]

It does not mean condemning someone to hell. From The New American Bible “judgment is connected with the work of Christ, accepted by the faithful or rejected ty the unbelievers. It is already present and marks a difference between groups of people.” Now. Webster’s meaning of judgment pertains to the law and to the Last Judgment but it also states to form an opinion about, to criticize or censure.
This is the 2nd time you have told me to learn the correct meaning. Judge for yourself.
Give me the document which shows that the Church disagrees with me.

For starters…see CCC 900 on Duty of Laity; 904 – 905 on Participation in Christ’s Prophetic Office; 1829 on Fraternal Correction as part of Charity; 1868 – 1869 on Shared responsibility for the sins of others; CCC 1912-1914 on Responsibilities in Society; 2238 on Duties of Citizens; 2465-2473 on Living in & Bearing Witness to Truth).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LoboLobo,

It wasn’t…

I, however, point to the teaching of the Catholic Church that condemn homosexual behavior. How this teaching is taken is a matter of conscience between the Soul and God. The idea that a few days ago, our Catholic Vice-President said he did not have a problem with homosexual behavior is just another example of public scandal. There are some who look up to the VP and the President, for that matter, and here we have making pronouncements effectively endorsing homosexual behavior.

This behavior is disordered, and the endorsements that the proponents have received are also disordered.

God bless

Tom

I don’t disagree. My point was that blanket statements about “most” are simply opinions, most of the time. My statement was only an opinion. It is true that gay marriage is legal in Spain. Gay unions are legal in Brazil. Gay marriage is legal in parts of Mexico. These are all “Catholic” places. It might be fair to say that most Spanish Catholics do not oppose gay marriage, at least not enough to vote in anti-gay-marriage legislators. I make no claim to be a source of spiritual or moral guidance for others. I hope my opinion was not interpreted in that way.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This behavior is disordered, and the endorsements that the proponents have received are also disordered.

 

[Bookcat]

"Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. "

BL. Pope John Paul II EV

 

[LoboLobo]

Hi, LoboLobo,

It wasn’t…

I, however, point to the teaching of the Catholic Church that condemn homosexual behavior. How this teaching is taken is a matter of conscience between the Soul and God. The idea that a few days ago, our Catholic Vice-President said he did not have a problem with homosexual behavior is just another example of public scandal. There are some who look up to the VP and the President, for that matter, and here we have making pronouncements effectively endorsing homosexual behavior.

This behavior is disordered, and the endorsements that the proponents have received are also disordered.

God bless

Tom

This should be an interesting election, to say the least. I agree with you that public leaders should be examples of moral courage and responsibility, to the best of their ability, if that is a part of what you are saying. Of course, President Clinton was broadly disliked by many for being a sex addict, and his behavior becoming the subject of public discussion. Yet, Bette Ford was admired for her courage in talking about her addiction. Of course, the circumstances were entirely different, but I wonder how much of the indignation was resultant of the fact that the behavior was sexual?

In this case, I can see how religious people would strongly disagree with the President’s statement. I became aware of the statement, as I was walking past a television, and someone was talking about the courage of the President to make the statement. I can also see that point of view. To me, courage, at times, is the willingness to back up one’s moral convictions with action, regardless of the consequences. That statement could cost him an election. I suspect that the people who favor gay marriage were already his supporters, so he didn’t win any additional votes there.

I would much prefer a leader state openly what his beliefs are, even when I disagree with them. If more leaders were as candid, then it would be much easier to make an informed decision as a voter. Now, anyone who is considering candidate Obama, knows his position on this issue, clearly. If Mr Romney has not made a statement clearly stating his views, then I hope he will. I think I know his position, but I have been fooled before by politicians.