Exactly. As I’ve said, they are incapable of marriage. The reproduction argument was in response to the falsely claimed similarity between “gay marriage” and the “mongrel” argument made by interracial marriage opponents.
Again, the immoral stance of your religion in this matter is irrelevant. We have freedom of religion, so your community can participate in whatever false ceremony you like. However, there is no reason our government should be compelled to recognize those ceremonies.
Sexual “experiences?” One can have sexual “experiences” with anyone or anything. But that’s not marital intercourse, and it’s not marriage. I’m not talking religion, I’m talking biology. I know a lot of societies accepted homosexual relationships, but none accepted such relationships as marriage. I suppose that we may be the first society in history to think that a non-marital relationship can be marriage. It’s of no benefit to society; there’s no need to recognize it as a marriage because it isn’t.
Personally, I think it’s both. It’s an impossibility and anti-God.
And yet state by state IS recongnizing same-sex marriage…next week another state to the north of me will sign into law a bill allowing same sex marriage. The court in California ruled in favor of the un-constitutionality of Prop 8…your beliefs compell you to believe there is no reason for the government to recognize same sex marriage…but secular law disagrees with your religious beliefs and in 6-7 states it is law…and in a hand full of others “domestic partnerships” and “civil unions” are recognized by law.
Exactly you “think” it is…but secular law allows same sex couples to be married as defined by secular law…in the exact same way they define opposite sex couples with all the rights and priveleges secular law allows under the banner of “marriage”. The state has a different definition of “impossible” I assume…not only is it “possible”…but it is a reality as defined by civil law. Your religious beliefs do not define what is “possible” and what is “impossible” in regard to civil law.
The question of prop 8 hasn’t been fully determined yet. And, I will still be against immoral, unjust laws. I don’t worship the government as the arbiter of truth.
No it is not over…the struggle will continue…and eventually it will be heard before the SCOTUS…then it most likely will be the “law of the land” in all 50 states and those laws governing discrimination against others in housing, business, employment will be enforced by that law…and those religious organizations which find it immoral will be able to hold those beliefs within their religious community.
I’m not imposing my beliefs any more or less than you and the other secularists are imposing your beliefs. We are a pluralistic society. You will not be able to silence Christ’s Church with irrelevant statements about the imposition of beliefs.
The “state” is us. You are attributing some sort of moral authority of the state to overturn reality. It doesn’t have that power.Exactly you “think” it is…but secular law allows same sex couples to be married as defined by secular law…in the exact same way they define opposite sex couples with all the rights and priveleges secular law allows under the banner of “marriage”. The state has a different definition of “impossible” I assume…not only is it “possible”…but it is a reality as defined by civil law. Your religious beliefs do not define what is “possible” and what is “impossible” in regard to civil law.
Agreed. There is not a “secular law” that can overturn God’s laws.
No where did I request that your church be silenced…it simply cannot impose its rules and values upon me as I do not believe it has any authority whatsoever to do so…religious or secular authority…no one has stated you cannot hold your beliefs…you simply cannot impose them upon me or others.
The REALITY would be however that by law the stones ARE rational and Kansas IS viewed as mountainous…and if any who declare it to be so can now receive the benefits of that law would be able to do so.
And those whom we have dutifully elected and placed in authority over us to interpret the Constitutional secular law HAS in fact determined what is real in relation to secular law.
I’m sure slaveholders used the same argument when slavery was the law of the land. I guess you would have stood with them and demanded that the abolitionists not impose their beliefs on them.
Ahhh…now we move to personal attack? Read your history concerning the role of Friends in the abolution of slavery friend.I’m sure slaveholders used the same argument when slavery was the law of the land. I guess you would have stood with them and demanded that the abolitionists not impose their beliefs on them.
You have no understanding of how pluralism works. Again, I am not imposing my beliefs any more or less than you are. The difference is that I am on the side of morality.
Your entire argument is based on semantics. Call the union of two consenting adults what you like - it doesn’t change the legal definition of “marriage”. The current legal definition of “marriage” does not require a couple to engage in sexual relations and includes the possibility of “divorce” - which as a Catholic you believe does not exist either.
Friend, you speak my mind in many ways.
On the surface the arguments and reasons are the same, maybe. But, the opposition to interracial marriage were far nastier than those against same-sex marriage. Homosexuals have NEVER had it as hard as Blacks in this country (or Catholics for that matter).Race and sexuality IS NOT BEING equated…the REASONS for denying inter-racial couples marriage and same sex couples marriage are similar if not THE SAME. The struggle of marriage equality between the sub groups face the same difficulties in society.
While same sex couples cannot reproduce…they can bring children into the relationship and the REASONS of why same sex marriage AND inter-racial marriage is harmful to the children rasied in same sex marriages or inter-racial marriages was/is used.
Simple question…inter-racial marriage was once deemed “unnatural” and against the will of God. Same sex marriage is deemed “unatural” and against the will of God…are not these two reasons the same? The SAME words are used…both were/are discriminated against in relation to housing and employment…both being denied housing due to the circumstance they find themselves DUE TO THE RELATIONSHIP they hold are the same.
Indeed. You are now making my argument. Thank you.Ahhh…now we move to personal attack? Read your history concerning the role of Friends in the abolution of slavery friend.
My favorite “Quaker saints” are John Woolman and Levi Coffin.