B
Brooklyn
Guest
Of course they were. And like every other society, they condemned it. They never envisioned a society where it would be so openly accepted and where homosexuals would be given the permission to marry one another.
- Status
G
gamewell45
Guest
I’d have to respectfully disagree with you regarding this. If, as you are maintaining, they have influence over non RC’s, then there would be only one church.
My point is that JP2 was the cause of it’s fall (along with Reagan, Thatcher and Lech Wałęsa).
You stated that RC has no influence outside of RC. Which is patently false
D
Dale_M
Guest
Well, indeed. The US version of Immigration (I am not sure of their exact name anymore) would take a dim view of a marriage in which sex did not occur. But so would the Catholic Church.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Are you aware that many people in the west no longer bother to get a civil marriage license?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
I have some influence on my friends. Doesn’t mean we are all one family
K
KostyaJMJ
Guest
Yes, that seems reasonable, but what I want to know is why they have to have sex to get the societal approval and legal benefits. If marriage is about procreation then it makes sense to limit it to sexual relationships, but if it is only about love then there really doesn’t seem to be any good reason to be so concerned about sex.
Instead of doing away with discrimination gay marriage only invites more as it now excludes people who may wish to get married but aren’t interested in sex.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Yes, and the “enlightened” elites who have power over us seem, remarkably, to think there’s nothing particularly important about marriage unless it’s between people of the same gender.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Perhaps in parts of the west outside of the USA. I was speaking of USA numbers only.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
My question has yet to be answered. A third attempt:
To supporters of so-called gay marriage:
If you knew that legalizing gay marriage across the nation would lead to the Catholic Church being forced underground, would you still support legalized gay marriage?
To supporters of so-called gay marriage:
If you knew that legalizing gay marriage across the nation would lead to the Catholic Church being forced underground, would you still support legalized gay marriage?
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Aside from the fact that the premise of the question is false (opening the protections of civil marriage to people regardless of their sexual orientation will do no such thing), I would most surely. Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Yes, about those liberals…I recall the last Presidential election, and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said they were against gay marriage, but supported civil unions.
Two prominent, supposedly enlightened, liberal lawyers, who lead the liberal party in the United States, are against gay marriage. Europe, with all their enlightened socialist governments, largely doesn’t allow gay marriage either (I think only Norway, Sweden, and Spain do).
So why it is, whenever I voice an objection to gay marriage, I get the response that only dittoheads and tea partiers share my view, and certainly no one who was politically enlightened, educated in the Constitution, or had the faintest reason capacity, would be in my camp?
When will Clinton and Obama be called out as haters? Why is it just bishops and popes and religious people who are attacked for holding this very commonplace opinion?
C
Corki
Guest
It is not justice to deprive millions their constitutionally provided rights in order to give an invented right to a minority.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
It’s justice to give Americans everywhere, regardless of sexual orientation, their fundamental constitutionally protected right to civil marriage…
Also why does it matter that they’re a minority? What if Catholics were a minority (call it 10% of the population) would that make it licit for an atheist majority to ban the celebration of the Mass? Of course not, your First Amendment right would protect you even from overzealous anti-religious voters. So too here, the populace can’t vote to abridge a citizen’s fundamental constitutionally protected rights.
C
CatholicGerman
Guest
Um… the discussion is about *civil *marriage, not a religious rite. There is no attempt to stop gays from marrying privately. It’s to stop their so-called marriages from being recognized by the state. Why should they be recognized if they aren’t real marriages? It doesn’t even make any sense.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
But two days ago, gay marriage wasn’t a constitutionally protected right. It was completely constitutional to have a gender requirement for marriage. Today gender distinctions in marriage are suddently unconstitutional, in ONE federal court. And you cite it as if it were black letter law for a hundred years. Amusing.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
My intention was to make a parallel about a fundamental right many on this board hold near and dear.
What does marrying privately even mean? The whole point of marriage is that it grants literally thousands of protections on the individuals married. They are real marriages in the same way a marriage between two people of differing races are real. Does constitutes a real marriage in your view? A matching set of genitalia? I don’t mean to sound crass but it cannot be about the ability to have children since octogenarians routinely marry, as do men who’ve had vasectomies and women who’ve had hysterectomies. Individuals seeking to wed need not show fertility with one another.
C
Corki
Guest
But there is a Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. There is no such protected right to same-sex marriage licenses. It is not justice to overturn a Constitutionally enumerated right. The operative word is not “minority;” the operative word is “invented”.
F
FreeAmerican
Guest
I was listening to some radio program and they were mentioning Proposition 8 being struck down. They mentioned the Catholid church There was also mention that the younger generations favored gay marriage than that older generations. I don’t know how many of the younger generation that are catholic would oppose the overturning of the Gay Marriage ban in California. The Catholic Church as we all know opposed Gay Marriage and those that belong to the Catholic church whether traditional or new order are obligated and expected to do and believe what the church says or go against the church. I have to oppose Gay Marriage due to religious obligations and I voted against Gay Marriage. Sometimes I have to question in these modern time we live in whether supporting or oppsing it is the right thing to do. Liberals are likely to support gay marriage while Conservatives are likely to oppose it.
C
Corki
Guest
And it’s still not a protected right. Not outside of California. Not even IN California as long as the stay is in place.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Actually, that is fairly recent. And it isn’t “literally” thousands. It probably isn’t even fifty.
Marriage used to carry significant legal burdens. Like, for example, being hard to get out of. It wasn’t just a piece of paper that was your ticket to a government handout, as it is, unfortunately, today.
You don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about, do you?
Of course it can be about the ability to have children. You are engaging in a fallacy. Marriage can be designed to promote propagation, without having propagation be a legal requirement. It really isn’t that hard to comprehend, is it?
- Status