Poll saying white Catholics embrace same-sex marriage than other Americans

[christus_vincit]

There is only one truth and the one who speaks for it, is correct. Whenever we go against the truth, disastrous consequences always follow. Study some history.

Relativism is devastating our society.

 

[Eternal_One]

But see, you are presenting your religious views as fact. They are not. They are opinions when used outside of the church.

And yes, gay couples are absolutely capable of raising children. It has been proven time and time again; the opposition just refuses to acknowledge it.

Please point out to me where Ive used a religious argument. I have not. Homosexual relationships being inherently sterile is biology, not religion.

There are exceptions, as Ive acknowledged, of homosexual parents doing their best raising children, but they are still just exceptions and not the rule. A loving father and mother will always be the ideal and preferrable over the ideal homosexual couple.

 

[Havard]

But there is an urgency to this situation because so many people, millions of taxpaying Americans, aren’t able to have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Then you see politicians using their religious beliefs as reasoning against said rights. I find that wrong.

Everyone, including politicians, of course has the right to their religious beliefs. But using them from a political standpoint is the very definition of “imposing”.

Well, even where same-sex marriage is legal, there’s still an imposition. We’re still saying people in certain kind of relationships are somehow more special than those who are not in those kinds of relationships.

 

[Angels84]

Please point out to me where Ive used a religious argument. I have not. Homosexual relationships being inherently sterile is biology, not religion.

There are exceptions, as Ive acknowledged, of homosexual parents doing their best raising children, but they are still just exceptions and not the rule. A loving father and mother will always be the ideal and preferrable over the ideal homosexual couple.

Because, you’re insinuating that the validity of marriage depends on whether or not the couple can procreate, and that stems from your religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter whether or not a couple can procreate. That is irrelevant.

Again, nothing is “ideal” other than having a parent or parents that love, provide, and nurture their children.

 

[Angels84]

Well, even where same-sex marriage is legal, there’s still an imposition. We’re still saying people in certain kind of relationships are somehow more special than those who are not in those kinds of relationships.

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but are you stating that homosexual relationships are being treated in a special way that is different from heterosexual couples?

I agree. Somewhat. Except I see it the opposite way. Heterosexual couples are the ones getting “special” rights. Nationwide, they are permitted to marry their partner and partake in the benefits. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, are only able to do this in select areas, despite the fact that they pay taxes just like everyone else.

I apologize if Im misunderstanding your statement.

 

[Scottgun]

Because, you’re insinuating that the validity of marriage depends on whether or not the couple can procreate, and that stems from your religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter whether or not a couple can procreate. That is a irrelevant.

Again, nothing is “ideal” other than having a parent or parents that love, provide, and nurture their children.

No, that stems from the fact that true marriage is a fundamental building block of society and is an institution that exists prior to the State and the State has no authority to invent new arrangements but has a positive duty to uphold real marriage. You don’t have to be religious to understand that. Love and lies cannot coexist.

 

[Eternal_One]

Because, you’re insinuating that the validity of marriage depends on whether or not the couple can procreate, and that stems from your religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter whether or not a couple can procreate. That is irrelevant.

Again, nothing is “ideal” other than having a parent or parents that love, provide, and nurture their children.

It does matter whether the relationship is properly ordered and that stems from the truth of biology, not from religion. When we go against what we are properly ordered for, disaster always follows.

Stating that bad consequences or not the best consequences result from homosexual parenting is like stating bad consequences will come from giving drivers’ licenses to blind people. Nothing stemming from religion there, its just the truth.

 

[SquallLeonheart]

If the DMV started licensing blind drivers and you argued against that and then there were those who disagreed, who’s truth would be correct?

There is only one truth and the one who speaks for it, is correct. Whenever we go against the truth, disastrous consequences always follow. Study some history.

It appears some truth is more equal that others.

 

[estesbob]

Because, you’re insinuating that the validity of marriage depends on whether or not the couple can procreate, and that stems from your religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter whether or not a couple can procreate. That is irrelevant.

Again, nothing is “ideal” other than having a parent or parents that love, provide, and nurture their children.

And where does you definition of marriage come from? Why should we accept it?

 

[Havard]

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but are you stating that homosexual relationships are being treated in a special way that is different from heterosexual couples?

I agree. Somewhat. Except I see it the opposite way. Heterosexual couples are the ones getting “special” rights. Nationwide, they are permitted to marry their partner and partake in the benefits. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, are only able to do this in select areas, despite the fact that they pay taxes just like everyone else.

I apologize if Im misunderstanding your statement.

I am saying that marriage, in the context of civil law, is an elevation of one type (or now two types) or relationships over others. It grants joint tax filing, social security inheritance, etc., only to people in those specific types of relationships.

Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples still doesn’t mean everybody’s included. And I’m not talking about polygamy. I’m talking about all the people who are not in romantic relationships at all, or the people whose most significant relationships are with their blood relatives, especially in the case of people who are caregivers for parents or other relatives. No matter how you slice it, the law is saying their relationships are “less worthy of promoting” than whatever it currently calls marriage.

 

[manualman]

Not sure why you are hot under the collar at me. I made no assertions nor did I say it was useless to make a distinction among practicing vs. non practicing Catholics.

No hot collar, I just like a vigorous debate and you appeared to provide opportunity for one.

 

[estesbob]

It appears some truth is more equal that others.

Absolutely ! The truth as revealed by God through his One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic church as passed down through the generations is the only truth we should depend on. Any “truth” that contradicts this is a lie

 

[SquallLeonheart]

Absolutely ! The truth as revealed by God through his One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic church as passed down through the generations is the only truth we should depend on. Any “truth” that contradicts this is a lie

What about those who don’t believe in God, or believe in different God(s)? Is there Truth a lie?

 

[Scottgun]

I am saying that marriage, in the context of civil law, is an elevation of one type (or now two types) or relationships over others. It grants joint tax filing, social security inheritance, etc., only to people in those specific types of relationships.

Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples still doesn’t mean everybody’s included. And I’m not talking about polygamy. I’m talking about all the people who are not in romantic relationships at all, or the people whose most significant relationships are with their blood relatives, especially in the case of people who are caregivers for parents or other relatives. No matter how you slice it, the law is saying their relationships are “less worthy of promoting” than whatever it currently calls marriage.

From [Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons](Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons) Note that it doesn’t reference religion:

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

 

[estesbob]

What about those who don’t believe in God, or believe in different God(s)? Is there Truth a lie?

Yes. It’s like a person who doesn’t believe in gravity-if they jump off a cliff they will find that their truth was a lie.

 

[manualman]

(Bolding Mine) Please note that you tell her that she’s making an incorrect assumption and you “prove” it with your own (admitted) assumption.

Regardless, fundamentalists, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other groups that teach strict adherence to premarital abstinence have higher than average rates of domestic violence.

The notion that having premarital sex turns men into abusers is a dangerous and unsupported statement. A LOT of things contribute to domestic violence, and it’s a very complex social issue that affects people of all races/religions/gender//etc.

And besides, even if men with more sex partners had higher rates of abuse, why would you assume that causality? Spuriousness seems likely in that scenatio (higher testosterone, more aggressive or cocky, upbringing, etc.)

This would be an excellent argument if we were both atheist sociologists who start from an assumption that there is no supernatural revelation and that assertions must be proven from the ground up. I’m not that. I’m starting from a place where I believe that catholic teaching is based on revealed truth from God and I believe that it’s useful to observe and see the ways in which social observations support that revelation. From YOUR perspective, that’s “my” assumptions verus hers. From mine it’s her assumptions versus God’s revelation (hardly made up by me!).

Nowhere in my post did I imply or state such a simplistic idea that only sexual behavior determines abusiveness. My assertion is that the sexual objectification that comes from immoral sexual behavior is ONE influence towards and supporting domestic violence. That leaves room for many others. False religious systems based on manipulation and exploitation are certainly another.

In short, I’m not assuming causality from the ground up. I’m expecting it based on cathol moral theology and I’m observing it in society. Yes, that’s different than secular sociological methodology. I believe in revelation and am not ashamed of it.

 

[Angels84]

No, that stems from the fact that true marriage is a fundamental building block of society and is an institution that exists prior to the State and the State has no authority to invent new arrangements but has a positive duty to uphold real marriage. You don’t have to be religious to understand that. Love and lies cannot coexist.

But under whose authority does this come from? Tradition? Traditional isn’t a valid argument.

Society evolves.

 

[SquallLeonheart]

from CNN just now:

Even if society has yet to achieve a certain level of acceptance of same-sex marriage (although it appears it has), there is little risk of ongoing social battles over marriage.

Indeed, the justifications for banning same-sex marriages are groundless. The Supreme Court has made it clear that religious-based objections cannot justify such discrimination against LGBT persons. Legislation that discriminates against certain groups only because the majority disfavors them, for religious or even secular reasons, are not legitimate. Moreover, the argument that allowing same-sex marriage undermines efforts to channel procreation into marriage is nonsensical.

We allow infertile couples to marry, so procreation cannot be a necessary requirement for marriages. Even if such “channeling” is a legitimate interest, it would only support the creation of opposite-sex marriage, not a ban on same-sex marriage. No state has advanced a reason why same-sex marriage bans would have any impact on the procreation of straight persons.

cnn.com/2014/09/23/opinion/holbrook-marriage-equality/index.html?hpt=op_t1

 

[Scottgun]

But under whose authority does this come from? Tradition? Traditional isn’t a valid argument.

Society evolves.

From simple apprehension of where society comes from. Widespread homosexuality is evidence of civilization in decline, not progress.

 

[Eternal_One]

What about those who don’t believe in God, or believe in different God(s)? Is there Truth a lie?

There are those that believe anorexia is perfectly healthy. I can assure you it is not. That doesnt stem from religion either. Of course you are free to disagree with that biological fact of life, but your disagreement will not suddenly make living as an anorexic a viable, healthy alternative. Like I said, there is only one truth, even if you dont agree with it. Not living by truth will hurt us, such as those living as anorexics are not in a healthy state and their bodies are weakened and at risk.