Question for Gay Rights Advocates

[peace2u2]

Gays dont want the sacrament of marriage they simply want to be married in the eyes of the State.

According to homosexual activist Masha Gessen., she is quoted saying in a radio interview:

“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.”

Then go get married in a civil union by a judge at city hall.

If the underlying plan by gay activists is to destroy marriage altogether, then whose rights are being taken away now? Seems like my rights were just taken away. And suppose 2 gay people practice their faith in the Catholic Church? And, they want to get married in the Catholic Church? Then what?

 

[stewstew03]

They are being forced if they don’t have equal rights as the one’s initiating the act. Woman and men enter to marriage as equals. Animals and Children do not.

You are revealing your ethnocentrism, Roscoe. In some cultures, a pre-pubescent boy might voluntarily fellate a post-pubescent boy with the hope that he will also reach semenarche. (See Gilbert Herdt’s research on the Sambia tribe).

So - how about if we lower the age of consent, to say, the age of menarche or semenarche?
Certainly a pubescent child can initiate an act involving genitalia.

As far as animals… are you saying they need the same (equal) rights as humans? I’m not following you…

.

 

[Ruthie_again]

Back to the original question - and the first response that directly answered it:

Birdpreacher said:

Gays dont want the sacrament of marriage they simply want to be married in the eyes of the State.

A civil union gives a couple all the rights of marriage. Can you tell me why the activists are not satisfied with that?

It seems to me that they attach some kind of symbolism to the word “marriage” that they don’t attach to the actual rights they say they want. And that they want to take away our right to refuse to perform or support gay marriage – thus forcing their beliefs on us.

Feel free to use facts to prove that civil unions don’t provide all the rights of marriage. If that’s true, I’ll support a change to those laws – a civil union should give one all the rights of the “next of kin.” (I’m especially concerned about hospital visitation – I’ve heard too many heartbreaking stories about that.)

For the record, I am a faithful Catholic who has had deep, close homosexual friends in my life.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You are revealing your ethnocentrism, Roscoe. In some cultures, a pre-pubescent boy might voluntarily fellate a post-pubescent boy with the hope that he will also reach semenarche. (See Gilbert Herdt’s research on the Sambia tribe).

So - how about if we lower the age of consent, to say, the age of menarche or semenarche?
Certainly a pubescent child can initiate an act involving genitalia.

As far as animals… are you saying they need the same (equal) rights as humans? I’m not following you…

.

No, I went to Cathic bording school. I’ve seen some stuff.

Why don’t we give children credit cards accounts of their own? They are not legally able to be responsible. They can not enter into contracts. Civil marriage is a contract.

Men and Wonen enter the marriage agrement as equals. The have the same rights under the law. They enter into the contract freely.

 

[Monkey1976]

The counter argument goes something like this:

They are two consenting adults, citizens of the state. Other Religions have prohibitions against pork and alcohol. It doesn’t infringe on their rights for the states to have legal pork and alcohol consumption. They have the legal right to abstain. Catholics and others have a right not to practice gay marriage. The state doesn’t have the same restrictions. By allowing a religious doctrine dictate public policy it shows favor towards that religion which is against the Constitution prohibition against laws "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " Catholics aren’t forced to practice gay marriage so their rights are not infringed. A prohibition of gay marriage is laws based on religious doctrine.

The Church also condemns wife-beating, while it is positively encouraged in other religions. Should we repeal the laws against it? Certain religions encourage the killing of unbelievers, which the Church condemns it - should we repeal the laws against murder? The Church supported the civil-rights movement while a multitude of Baptist congregations did not - should those laws be repealed?

Simply because the Church advocates a position doesn’t mean that the government should automatically oppose it. There are several reasons - none of which have to do with the particular teaching of the Church - to oppose gay “marriage”. There has yet to be a single argument in favor of it that doesn’t ultimately boil down to the cry of a child throwing a tantrum: “I want it!”

 

[stewstew03]

… If someone from another culture does not equate parental fellatio with rape, then it isn’t rape. Now, it could be wrong for a host of other reasons, but isn’t necessarily rape. What constitutes rape has changed over the centuries.
…

Exactly! In other words – it’s all relative, right? A woman in New Guinea who fellates her infant son to soothe him might be perfectly within cultural norms, but here it would be considered criminal. Cultural norms change. Homosexuality used to be immoral. Now it’s normal. And being anti-homosexual – that’s hateful bullying!

What would stop us from lowering our standards even further to allow for paedophilia and/or zoophilia? Maybe it’s decades away, maybe it’s a few centuries away, who knows…

think the standards of the majority of people should be how laws are decided. That is a democracy.

Great – we agree, then, that if a state decides to outlaw same sex marriage, because the people of that state have decided that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman – then that is democracy at work!

.

 

[stewstew03]

No, I went to Cathic bording school. I’ve seen some stuff.

Hmm… not familiar with “Cathics.”

Why don’t we give children credit cards accounts of their own? They are not legally able to be responsible. They can not enter into contracts.

Those are contract laws that can be changed.

Civil marriage is a contract. Men and Wonen enter the marriage agrement as equals. The have the same rights under the law. They enter into the contract freely.

I’m not talking about marriage. I don’t think NAMBLA or ZETA advocate for marriage – they just want to be able to express their “love.” And what about other cultures that practice paedophilia?

.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think the standards of the majority of people should be how laws are decided. That is a democracy.

Except that the “gay” activists don’t want a democracy. They want a dictatorship of relativism. That’s why when the people of California voted for the definition of marriage to be exclusive to one man and one woman, one “gay” activist judge was all it took to deny the will of all those people.

 

[Aviatrix]

What would stop us from lowering our standards even further to allow for paedophilia and/or zoophilia? Maybe it’s decades away, maybe it’s a few centuries away, who knows…

I can’t predict the future, but if it happens in my lifetime I will fight against it.

Great – we agree, then, that if a state decides to outlaw same sex marriage, because the people of that state have decided that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman – then that is democracy at work!

Yes it is democracy at work. I can disagree with laws, advocate changing them (by first changing the minds of the people) but still respect that they have to reflect the views of the majority. We all have the privilege to fight for laws we think are correct and the duty to live by them.

 

[livingwordunity]

Also, just because I’m curious, do you have links to news articles about either the flag burning protests or the naked ones? Or know the name of the group involved so that I may read about them? Thanks.

I won’t provide the link, and I won’t provide the instructions for a specific search for words because I don’t want to be the one to lead someone to the scandalous photos. But the naked protest is something that has happened recently.

 

[stewstew03]

Except that the “gay” activists don’t want a democracy. They want a dictatorship of relativism. That’s why when the people of California voted for the definition of marriage to be exclusive to one man and one woman, one “gay” activist judge was all it took to deny the will of all those people.

Precisely - all it takes is a little bit of guilt-tripping and a few powerful allies in the media, followed by politicians promoting your cause (with a sudden change of heart), and voila! You’re on your way to normalizing what was once considered abnormal/immoral behavior.

I see no evidence that would suggest this same pattern could not be repeated with polygamy, paedophilia, child pornography, or zoophilia/bestiality…

.

 

[Peter12rb]

About a month ago, Dr. Ben Carson made the following statement:

Gay rights advocates were outraged and quickly criticized Carson for his comments. They even said his comments were “anti-gay” and that Carson was a “hatemonger.”

But if you look at what he said - it is clear that, in his opinion, …

• Marriage is an established institution, and
• The definition of marriage cannot be changed.

What is so offensive about this? Why are his comments “anti-gay”? The Catechism states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law…” and goes on to state that homosexual acts can never be approved. CCC 2357

Do you, Mr./Mrs. Gay Rights Advocate, consider the Catechism “hate speech”?

.

Some people are offended by linking gay marriage to bestiality and pedophilia. I’ve said before on this forum, I personally think it’s a bad way to make your point.

The Catechism gives a much more level-headed description and definition than Dr. Carson did, in my opinion. Certainly, there are people who view both Dr. Carson’s speech and the Catechism as both being hate speech, but I think there’s far less people who view the Catechism this way.

To me, I think it’s important to remember that it’s not so much what you say, it’s how you say it. I knew of Dr. Carson and respected him long before he made these comments, and I just had to shake my head when he said them. Not because he has traditional views - not at all. But because he’s a smart, educated man, and he completely, totally stuck his foot in his mouth when he said it. I’m glad that he later somewhat clarified, somewhat apologized for the statement, but what he initially said will not be forgotten.

 

[livingwordunity]

Precisely - all it takes is a little bit of guilt-tripping and a few powerful allies in the media, followed by politicians promoting your cause (with a sudden change of heart), and voila! You’re on your way to normalizing what was once considered abnormal/immoral behavior.

I see no evidence that would suggest this same pattern could not be repeated with polygamy, paedophilia, child pornography, or zoophilia/bestiality…

.

It started with the artificial contraception pill, then fornication and adultery which they called “free love”, then abortion and divorce, now this.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Hmm… not familiar with “Cathics.”

Sorry Catholic - I was typing on my phone. Jesuits.

Those are contract laws that can be changed.

So is civil marriage

I’m not talking about marriage. I don’t think NAMBLA or ZETA advocate for marriage – they just want to be able to express their “love.” And what about other cultures that practice paedophilia?

.

I am taking about marriage

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The Church also condemns wife-beating, while it is positively encouraged in other religions. Should we repeal the laws against it? Certain religions encourage the killing of unbelievers, which the Church condemns it - should we repeal the laws against murder? The Church supported the civil-rights movement while a multitude of Baptist congregations did not - should those laws be repealed?

Simply because the Church advocates a position doesn’t mean that the government should automatically oppose it. There are several reasons - none of which have to do with the particular teaching of the Church - to oppose gay “marriage”. There has yet to be a single argument in favor of it that doesn’t ultimately boil down to the cry of a child throwing a tantrum: “I want it!”

It’s not that the Church opposes it, it is because the electorate dosen’t. We don’t have civil laws prohibiting the eating of meat during lent. It’s not to oppose the Church but rather the recognition that not everyone is Catholic, so not every citizen is beholden to Church doctrine. It may cost them spiritually to eat a cheeseburger on Friday during lent but not civilly. We recognize that eating meat during lent on a Friday doesn’t carry a civil cost to society, so it’s allowed.