Pro-gay-rights folks, I don't understand y'all

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mystic_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But you are perfectly content to have the govt force your views on the rest of us. The impostion of play marraige on the people of California will end in November when the people are given a chance to speak. Then you can fall back on callng everyone bigots.
The government isn’t telling you that you have to go marry someone of your same gender. That would be forcing the views on you.

What they were doing is giving those individuals who wanted to do so, the ability to do so. I don’t really see how it should affect you so much.
 
What a hoot and such a solid affirmation of the “dignity” of homosexuality. You are saying "well marriage is so screwed up we might as well let homosexuals do it too.

Talk about damning with faint praise!
That is not my reasoning for thinking they should be able to. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

However I think that the argument for “sanctity of marriage” is a ridiculous one based on the fact that I pointed out.
 
Woah, woah. I said that the laws against polygamy are something that need to be looked at. But child molestation is child molestation. I suspect that if polygamy were legal, families that practice polygamy would be more in the open and less afraid of their government.
See, this is where your argument falls apart. You are willingly to let Group B rewrite what the definition of marriage to accomadate their lifestyle. So now Group C jumps up and down and says, “hey what about *our *lifestlye?” But now you turnaround and tell them, “No, you can’t marry 14 year old girls, its the law, deemed good for society, by the will of the people.” And that is the exact same premise we are using to quash the activists attempt to redefine marriage, but when applied to *YOUR *group you don’t wanna hear it.

The will of the people over and over again has demonstrated a marriage is a man and a woman.

All this stuff in the past, about interracial marriage, slavery, discrimination, is a moot point. At least 50 years since any of that happened. The will of the people spoke and such laws were struck down. End of story. Now if the people of California had approved the gay marriage measure when it was voted on, I would have been saddened, but the will of the people would have been made clear.

Activists always bring up gays are being discriminated against. Totally false. I asked prior, show me a bus they gotta sit in the back of? Show me a workplace they are not allowed to enter, show me a movie house they can’t get into, show me where they are denied housing, show me where the police have taken someone to jail for being gay. A gay person has the same right EVERY American enjoys, if he is a victim of discrimination he has a path to take for relief.

Systematic discrimination of gays in this country is FALSE. Now can you go out and show examples of individual prejuidice? Sure you can, here’s a secret, some people don’t like gays, deal with it. Just as some don’t like Catholics, I deal with it, now if I’m fired from a job and I can prove it was religious based, well somebody is gonna pay me alot of money. But the system in place does NOT support you firing me for being Catholic, and it does the same for gays, but that doesn’t isolate me from individual biases out here in the real world.

But gay activists see EVERYBODY out to get them, especially the Catholic Church, calling Her intolerant, homophobe etc. but She has never taught the mistreatment of these individuals.

DIscrimination is NOT the issue, marriage definition is, and the majority of the people have spoken. I don’t care what couple does, as long as they are not breaking the law. Two men wanna live together and call it a marriage? I don’t care, just don’t redefine MY marriage in the process, by telling me if my wife were a man that would be ok to. LOL.

This debate is NOT about homosexuality, yes, as Catholics we believe its wrong, but we make no judgement on those that embrace it, we’ll refer that to a Higher Power. This debate is about which side is gonna define what constitutes a marriage.
 
Why should I be forced to support something with which I have a moral problem? I’m not cramming my faith down your neck, you are cramming your values down mine, or so it seems. Care to explain?
You’re only being asked to “support” homosexuality in the sense that you support everything legally done by human beings in this country. In other words, you’re using “support” to mean “refrain from banning,” or the standard meaning of “tolerate.”

Of course, the problem is that you haven’t explained just what versions of “gay rights” you are attacking. I myself support certain kinds of “gay rights” and oppose others. I am probably not your ideal opponent on this one. (I oppose gay “marriage,” for instance, but I do think that committed personal relationships should have some sort of social recognition with regard to things like hospital visitation rights.)

Edwin
 
That is not my reasoning for thinking they should be able to. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

However I think that the argument for “sanctity of marriage” is a ridiculous one based on the fact that I pointed out.
So since marriage (in you opinion) ois no loinger sacred its ok to let homnosexuals do it. There is no ther way to take what you are saying.
 
The government isn’t telling you that you have to go marry someone of your same gender. That would be forcing the views on you.

What they were doing is giving those individuals who wanted to do so, the ability to do so. I don’t really see how it should affect you so much.
So as long as the govet doenst force anyone else to do it it should be OK for me to marry my brother. Correct?
 
So since marriage (in you opinion) ois no loinger sacred its ok to let homnosexuals do it. There is no ther way to take what you are saying.
I don’t think it’s OK, but I don’t think it’s a big issue, given what marriage has come to mean in our culture. The Church needs to model what marriage is supposed to mean, and then perhaps eventually people will come around to a saner view. Then it will be obvious that homosexual “marriage” is a contradiction in terms. Meanwhile we need to keep the Christian definition of marriage clear and at the same time fully affirm the human dignity of homosexuals.

Edwin
 
I’m saying that the condemnation of homosexuality is based on explicit religious doctrine and dogma.
Okay, thanks. I think we disagree. I think the idea that homosexual sex is not in the best interest of the human person sometimes is and sometimes isn’t based on religious dogma, depending on the person.
 
I don’t think it’s OK, but I don’t think it’s a big issue, given what marriage has come to mean in our culture. The Church needs to model what marriage is supposed to mean, and then perhaps eventually people will come around to a saner view. Then it will be obvious that homosexual “marriage” is a contradiction in terms. Meanwhile we need to keep the Christian definition of marriage clear and at the same time fully affirm the human dignity of homosexuals.

Edwin
The key is “in our culture”. We should not tear down a sacred institution that has stood for thousasnds of yer becuse it is abused by some people at a given point in time.

Those who enage in homosexual beahvior have dignity becuase they were created by a loving God. There is, however, no dignity in the behavior they engage in. Ponting that out is not bigotry-it is an act of love.
 
So as long as the govet doenst force anyone else to do it it should be OK for me to marry my brother. Correct?
Even though I don’t agree with incest, if it makes you and your brother happy, and you are of legal age / sound mind to make such decisions, I really have no place in putting that judgement on you. That would be between you and God.
 
So since marriage (in you opinion) ois no loinger sacred its ok to let homnosexuals do it. There is no ther way to take what you are saying.
If you would have read what I posted earlier, then maybe you would understand. Let me try again, maybe I’ll use simpler words?

I have always been under the impression that marriage is about love, and spending your life with the one you love.

One of the typical Christian arguments AGAINST gay marriage is that they will ruin the sanctity of marriage.

I simply was pointing out that there really is no sanctity to protect, as high as the divorce rate is.

Therefore, making that an invalid argument.

Was that simple enough?
 
I’m not pro-gay rights as I feel nobody should have more rights than another. However, I am completely against discrimination and see no need for it. As long as they can do their work, that’s what matters.

What they do in their personal time, as long as it doesn’t affect their work, it doesn’t matter, and is a matter between them and God.

It’s not for me to judge.
 
I’m not pro-gay rights as I feel nobody should have more rights than another. However, I am completely against discrimination and see no need for it. As long as they can do their work, that’s what matters.

What they do in their personal time, as long as it doesn’t affect their work, it doesn’t matter, and is a matter between them and God.

It’s not for me to judge.
That’s all well and good and I agree, I only have a problem when they (or any other group) want to redefine what makes up a marriage.
 
See, this is where your argument falls apart. You are willingly to let Group B rewrite what the definition of marriage to accomadate their lifestyle. So now Group C jumps up and down and says, “hey what about *our *lifestlye?” But now you turnaround and tell them, “No, you can’t marry 14 year old girls, its the law, deemed good for society, by the will of the people.” And that is the exact same premise we are using to quash the activists attempt to redefine marriage, but when applied to *YOUR *group you don’t wanna hear it.
You know, Mary, the Mother of God, got married at a very early age. 14, was it?
 
DIscrimination is NOT the issue, marriage definition is, and the majority of the people have spoken. I don’t care what couple does, as long as they are not breaking the law. Two men wanna live together and call it a marriage? I don’t care, just don’t redefine MY marriage in the process, by telling me if my wife were a man that would be ok to. LOL.
You bend around backwards to try and explain how this will affect you at all. In fact, it doesn’t redefine your marriage at all. It has no affect on you whatsoever.
 
im sure their struggle of getting gay marriage legalized has caused a good amount of legal fees and court costs.

Gay pride parades cost ordinance fees and city rental which effects taxes. Because AIDS is very prevalent in the gay society it increases our taxes being shuffled to them when they irresponsibly get AIDS by having the number of partners they do.

The irresponsibility of the Gay community has cost our society millions in taxes. Most in health related costs, medicaid, AIDS treatments and the ordinance fees and subsidizing of their Gay Parades and Political Rallys. All that costs a great amount of money
Please cite to where I can see these statistics that prove that Gays are costing me money in taxes for ordinance fees, court costs, attorney’s fees, parade and other event fees? Also please show me the statistics relating to specific Gay health care for Aids specifically tied to “their irresponsibility”. Show how this is somehow above and beyond what I pay for drunk drivers, teen drivers, mountain climbers who get lost, and a whole host of other human activities that I as a taxpayer get stuck with. I’d like to see how they compare. You say it is millions. So I assume you have proofs from a government agency to show this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top