Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, you keep sidestepping the New Covenant’s continuance of God’s Law:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1)
Click to expand...
God not only rejects the homosexuals but also those who pretend to be so nice and loving and merciful and just to support the homosexual “choice.”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
The problem is that what you spouse (and has been done) is pretend that there’s a cure so just go ahead an be homosexual; pretend that it’s the Church forcing mandates on man that God is just a ok with whatever man wants to do and that fallacy keeps the wide gate and ample road full of traffic; “sex education and free needles” programs were supposed to keep stds down to minimum, promote healthy sex without unwanted pregnancy and reduce the “need” for abortions… instead promiscuity and multiple sex partners and sex experimentation has continued to grow… as a response to that these “enlightened” and “cultured” people have continuously brought down the age of the children who would be exposed to these “programs” and “implementations” (abortions, and contraceptives) to elementary-age children… what’s next, toddlers?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Are you saying all objections need to be unprincipled? That would be weird.
 
jcrichton said:
Do you not believe that a civil union between heterosexuals should be rejected by the Church as not a Valid Sacramental Matrimony?
Click to expand...
Two non baptized persons (man+woman) marrying in the registry office is a valid marriage to which the church makes no objection. It is not sacramental.

Two men (baptized or not) ‘marrying’ in the registry office is the public acclamation of morally wrong behaviour.
 
Last edited:
The goal is to create two totally separate societies defined as secular/civil and religious. The religious get very little voice in the secular media. The media has been demonstrably taken over by sexual deviants who promote fornication and any other way to have sex as normative, while two parent, heterosexual households are consistently portrayed as dysfunctional in various ways. Divorce is common along with cohabitation.

This is being done to model various deviant behaviors as normal. The goal is to promote “have lots of sex” at any cost. It doesn’t matter that there is an STD epidemic in the US. It doesn’t matter that gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men are seeing a disproportional increase in STDs. It doesn’t matter and money needs to be spent on cures only. The behaviors will continue regardless, cure or no cure, even though the CDC recommends fewer sex partners.

Now, the only way to “improve” Western society is to sexualize it, to hypersexualize it, especially through the media and programs aimed at kids in school. If given the “power” to trample on religious freedom, the goal is to gain most if not total power, especially in the United States. That would be a Technocracy where science is god, following by the god - Change.

Now, to Catholics and all men of good will, find out what is going on yourself:

google with the words LGBT and
GLAAD
GLSEN
ACLU
Human Rights Campaign
 
Last edited:
Poussin said:
40.png
niceatheist:
I live in a secular country, not in a theocracy.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don’t want to live in a Democracy either where someone that goes to church, God forbids, gets to vote.
Click to expand...
And if it were put to a vote, it looks like it would pass. It’s not like I see a lot of people hear cheering the Irish and Australian referendums. In fact, as I recall, when the Irish voted in favor of SSM, it was like the sun had fallen out of the sky around here.

At any rate, the US is a constitutional republic, a democracy to be sure, but one with checks and balances, even against voters. So not everything is simply up to popular will. That would be rule by a mob.
 
Poussin said:
…and then explain why it requires an activist court decision to make it happen.
Click to expand...
At the time, that was the path available. And now that it has happened no ordinary vote can correct it. You need to invoke the onerous process of constitutional change to get back to the starting position - one in which your constitution did not address SSM, but 5 judges (contradicting 4 others) found a way to conclude it was implied.
 
niceatheist said:
Because civil liberties issues usually end up being adjudicated.
Click to expand...
Once again, you confuse “civil” rights with Constitutional rights. Civil rights are creatures of statute (subject to popular vote). Constitutional rights are creatures of the Constiutution (requirng an amendment approved by 2/3rds of the states). Not the same.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
You need to invoke the onerous process of constitutional change to get back to the starting position
Click to expand...
Judicial activism can easily be corrected by electing a Congress and President to appoint Supreme Court justices that support the actual Constitution. No need to go back to the “starting position”, merely bring a new case in front of an improved court. No “Constitutional change” is needed because the SCOTUS case was never about the actual Constitution.
 
Poussin said:
No need to go back to the “starting position”, merely bring a new case in front of an improved court. No “Constitutional change” is needed because the SCOTUS case was never about the actual Constitution.
Click to expand...
If you are saying the court can reverse its own prior ruling, so be it. But if not, you will need to make the Constitution explicit about what marriage means, or change it so it is clear it does not address the matter - directly or indirectly.
 
I’m sure God said a man is not to lay with another man as like a woman. Gods word is above man above religion above the pope so no matter how people want to justify homosexuality God said “no” so I recon play it safe and just listen to God lists not complicate it it’s sin.
 
Hi!

I’m am speaking to civil unions… there are plenty of “Catholics” who believe that because they “love each other” and “they are in a monogamous relationship” they don’t need to Receive the Sacrament of Matrimony–they, at least the wife, would come to Mass every Sunday and (not that I’ve known many) Receive the Holy Eucharist as her “right” of being “Catholic.”

This is what I am making a comparison with the homosexual unions… couples who believe that they have the “right” and that the Church has the “obligation” to accept them as they are.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…but only because of the active propaganda and conversion… if a person does not accept the culture of death they are branded homophobes, haters, expressionists, and bigots (which coincidentally it is everything that they are… on top of opportunistic, mentalists, malcontents, and assemblers).

Look at the history of the so call “vote;” every single time that it has been voted against the culture of death their proponents proceed to force the nation/s to take another vote (the US, as well as the UN, has been strong-arming nations to accept the culture of death under penalties of financial and military sanctions (join the fold or perish [be left on your own without financial or military support]) and third-world nations people have been at the gravest “cash-for-vote” end of this “vote” experience.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…to that they just go into la-la-land and claim that God is not concerned with what people do as long as they “love” each other… some would even entertain “in a monogamous relationship.”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
This is what I am making a comparison with the homosexual unions… couples who believe that they have the “right” and that the Church has the “obligation” to accept them as they are.
Click to expand...
So true! The Church does not have an obligation to accept sin as something that is good. People who claim the Church is bigoted because they don’t accept Homosexual “marriage” clearly don’t see the whole picture.
jcrichton said:
I’m am speaking to civil unions… there are plenty of “Catholics” who believe that because they “love each other” and “they are in a monogamous relationship” they don’t need to Receive the Sacrament of Matrimony–they, at least the wife, would come to Mass every Sunday and (not that I’ve known many) Receive the Holy Eucharist as her “right” of being “Catholic.”
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t she be in mortal sin then? Isn’t it sad when people believe they are allowed to receive the blessed Euchuarist in mortal sin? It’s sacrilege
 
Last edited:
On a purely philosophical level, I can’t imagine why an infinite, eternal, omnipotent being would care if someone on the tiny speck of dust some of the locals call earth is gay or marries someone of their own sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top