Response to gay marriage video?

[Awful_Things]

continued…

But, what choice will your child *actually *make, if he or she discovers in his teenage years that he or she is indeed inclined solely towards homosexuality. What if your child *is *gay?

Shrug. I guess the same question might be asked as to what choie my child will make if he discovers himself attracted to seven year olds.

I expect that your child, as with most people, won’t make the choice to live a life of total celibacy, forever. I bet that your child won’t be a devout believer and therefore will take the position of most non-devout people:

That would be tragic, yes.

There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Oh, sure there is. There’s plenty wrong with it. It is a disturbing disorders of one’s sexuality. However, it is possible that the person has no culpibility in feeling these attractions. Just for following through. I can’t help it if you reject God’s teachings.

So, given that your child won’t pursue a life of celibacy and *is *gay, what kind of romantic life would you want him or her to have? I imagine that you’d like to have your child to be involved in a monogamous, long-term relationship. Marriage. Would you like the State to have marriage as an option for your child?

What my fallible emotions would tell me at that time give me no right to mock what God has delivered.

We don’t ask that you understand romantic love between two men or two women. As a heterosexual person who has been brought up to believe that homosexuality is wrong, it’s very difficult for you to *understand *us. Our relationships just aren’t the same as heterosexual ones (I’m not saying that they’re *wrong, *just that they’re different).

You’re right. It’s probably for you, who has been brought up to believe that incest, pedophilia, or polygamy are wrong. It’s probably hard to understand them, as well. After all, they are just “different”, right?

Furthermore, we don’t ask that you *encourage *our relationships. We don’t ask that you *like *them.

Legalizing marriage is encouraging them.

But we *do *ask that you don’t compel the state to put them out.

The members of NAMBLA are asking the same of you.

I don’t expect that you’ll understand. You’re not gay.

No, but do a search and you’ll find some of the posts from gay individuals who have argued my side in these forums.

It’s impossible for you to fully understand our position. But consider if your own child and his or her future was at stake. In fact, it very well could be. Would you want secular marriage under the secular law to be an option? Or not?

Hmm, since my emotions are fallible, let me go read some church documents to see what God has to say on the matter and get back with you … okay, it looks like that would be a “no”.

 

[Exalt]

No, but I’ve shown enough precedent for violations of the first amendment to establish the beginning of a slippery slope that could lead there.

#1: You admit that you have no precedence (no example, citation, or instance from the past) where a civil court in these United States has sanctioned *any *Church or pastor for not marrying two individuals for any reason.

However, you *still *expect that if gay marriage is permitted, Churches *will *be held liable for denying a gay couple’s wedding, even though the same has not occurred at any time in the past in this nation, as far as we are aware.

As evidence of the above, you bring up the following examples: nondiscrimination suits from other countries involving Churches, instances where adoption agencies affiliated with Catholicism voluntarily shut down after being pressured to allow gay couples to adopt by the State, private companies being held liable for denying goods or services to gay people. I will demonstrate that you have *not *proven your point. You only cite examples that for obvious reasons do not at all incline the reader to believe that Churches will be compelled by the State to marry gay people.

Your examples would need to prove the following:

A) That the rights of gay people to be married outwiegh the rights of a private Church’s Freedom of Religion, as defined in the First Ammendment and as clarified by subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States

B) That the rights of gay people to be married outwiegh the rights of a private Church’s Freedom of Association, as defined in the First Ammendment and as clarified by subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States

In response to the first accusation (that in other countries, Churches have been successfully sued for discriminatings against gay people), that was in another country. In the United States, the Supreme Court upheld in *Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale *that private organizations have the right to free association, including “a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” Furthermore, this right is “protected by the First Amendment.” In other words, the Boy Scouts of America is allowed to not hire gay people. That’s permitted. And the BSA aren’t even a Church. They recruit in public schools, have meetings in public areas, and recruit without regard to creed. They are as public as you can get while still remaining a private organization. Churches, which are much more private and have many more religious claims than the BSA, fare much better in open court.

In response to the second accusation (that adoption agencies affiliated with Catholicism shut down rather than adopt to gay couples), I must remind you that adoption is a very different type of case all together. You’re not talking about clients who freely choose to associate with the organization, like the BSA or Churches. You’re talking about children who are compelled to participate in the adoption organization, and have no choice in the matter. The State has a vested interest in protecting the rights of those children who do not have freedom of assocation. The adoption agency, too, has an obligation to heed the directives of the State for that reason. Also, the adoption agency is *not *a Church. This does not at all directly relate to the case of gay marriage.

In response to the third accusation (that private companies have been held liable for denying goods/services to gay people), that’s a different ballpark alltogether. First, this isn’t a Church we’re talking about here. Second, the State has a vested interest in protecting it’s citizens from unjust discrimination when it comes to the provision of goods or services. For example, the State had an interest in bringing an end to to private company policies that discriminated against African-Americans, or other minorities. If a private indivudal wants to sell products in the open market for profit, he or she cannot discriminate against clients just because the client is a jew, a muslim, or any other protected minority. Churches, on the other hand, do not sell products on the open market. They are private, not-for-profit organizations with special constitutional protections. With this example, we’re not talking about a Church, so it doesn’t prove your point.

There are *no *examples out there that would prove points A and B above, because they are rights granted to Churches by the Constitution of the United States. You say that Churches will be held liable for not marrying gay people. This is plainly false. No Church has ever been successfully prosecuted for denying marriage to anyone, let alone people whom their holy text say are damned to hell. Justice William Rehnquist himself said in the BSA case that, “freedom of association … plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.”

By the way, you keep ignoring the comparisons I make to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia, which can all be substituted in the rest of your post to create an argument on their behalf. I suppose this is the best way for you to win an argument? Besides the straw man tactic, I mean?

#2: Just as you brought up examples that had very little to do with the matter at hand - except that they dealt with gay people (though in completely different contexts than a Church or marriage), you bring *this *up.

First, pedophilia preys on children who aren’t fit to freely engage in sexual relationships. It’s wrong and the state has a vested interest in protecting those children. It has no bearing on this conversation, and bringing it up demonstrates your inability to discuss the issue of gay marriage as intelligent, clear-minded adults.

 

[Exalt]

In regards to incest, when it includes the molestation of children, the State has a vested interest in protecting them, for the same reasons as above. When incest occurs between two consenting adults, I don’t think we should prosecute that. If they want to get married in a court of law, I don’t really care. Let them. It has no impact on my life.

As far as incest becoming legal, I doubt that it will. Each of these positions must be considered separately on their own merits. They’re all different. If your argument is that if we permit gay marriage, we will be forced to permit incestuous marriage, you are plainly wrong from a purely legal standpoint. If your argument is that if we permit gay marriage, questions regarding incest will be brought to our attention, I think you’re probably right. But questions aren’t necessarily bad things. Questions are supposed to lead to greater understanding, and I, for one, welcome them.

In regards to polygamy: when it concerns freely consenting individuals, I don’t care. Let them do what they like. Legally speaking, just like incest, gay marriage and polygamy are two different animals and accepting one does not compel the government to accept the other. It does, however, raise questions, but those questions aren’t neccessarily bad things.

And eternity in hell would be his life if he persisted in mortal sin. Absence of romantic love is also the entire life of many good priests I know. But anyway, let me point out (though you will ignore it), that this is yet another straw man argument. After all, keeping gay marriage from being legal will not prevent gays from having “romantic love”. It’s not legal in Missouri, where I live, but the couple down the street does just fine. After all, as I said, I don’t personally favor illegalizing gay sex or cohabitation. I just refuse to dignify it with the term “marriage”. You know that.

It’s not a straw man, you just need to read my entire passage and take it as a whole. I was NOT saying that permitting or not-permitting gay marriage means that gay people won’t be able to enter into relationships.

I WAS presenting an EXAMPLE, showing you that an absence of romantic relationships - and all it’s joys and sorrows - is what your own child would be forbidden from engaging in, if he or she agreed with and practiced the teachings of your Church. It would be much more helpful if you respond to my ENTIRE post, instead of just picking out snippets and calling them straw man arguments.

Of course, as have been my own personal struggles. You are obviously aware of what they are, right? Since you are assuming no empathy on my part? Go ahead and share once again why you assume I can not understand. … However, let me ask again, are you asserting that you know for certain that I and the others who oppose your viewpoint do not have tantamount struggles?

Did I say you had never experienced strugges that are TANTAMOUNT to the dilemma faced by gay Catholics? I NEVER said that.

I said that you do not know what it is like to be a gay Catholic and faced with this specific dilemma. The fact is that you do NOT know what it’s like to be forced with the dilemma of (1) never engaging in romantic relationships on earth or (2) eternal destruction in hell forever and ever. How do I know this? You’re married. So, I naturally assume that you have not been faced with this dilemmea - because, once again, you’re married.

 

[Exalt]

Shrug. I guess the same question might be asked as to what choie my child will make if he discovers himself attracted to seven year olds… You’re right. It’s probably for you, who has been brought up to believe that pedophilia [is] wrong. It’s probably hard to understand them, as well. After all, they are just “different”, right? … The members of NAMBLA are asking the same of you.

You are obtuse. You partially ignore my points and try to replace what I’m actually saying with an appeal to MOLEST CHILDREN - and you pretend that this is actually a reasoned argument? Are an intelligent adult? Can you have a reasonable debate? Shall I just replace everything you say with “I like to burn gay people” and say how hateful you are? What kind of debate opponent would I be if I did that?

I suppose you might just be spouting off what you’ve heard your pastor say or your friend say. In that case, I shall respond with three sentences and let the matter rest: The molestation and abuse of children is clearly wrong because the children have no clue what they’re doing (they’re not willing partners, they cannot freely consent) and because it leaves long-term scars on the lives of those children. The State has a vested interest in protecting those children. Allowing gay marriage between CONSENTING ADULTS is completely and totally different.

Continue making ridiculous stunts like this and I will consider you to be too unintelligent to debate like a reasonable adult. Any reasonable person would be able to see that the destruction of children is not the same as homosexuality between consenting adults. Continue making claims to the contrary, and we’re done talking.

Hmm, since my emotions are fallible, let me go read some church documents to see what God has to say on the matter and get back with you … okay, it looks like that would be a “no”.

#3: …

So that’s it?

I present a scenario in which your child grows up, discovers he or she is gay, and decides to pursue romantic relationships. I ask, “consider if your own child and his or her future was at stake. In fact, it very well could be. Would you want secular marriage under the secular law to be an option? Or not?”

And you just some “Church documents” and leave it at that? Well, what arguments do these “Church documents” use? Can you put them in your own words, or is that too hard for you? Do you deny the rights of gay people because your Church tells you to - but do you have any idea of the arguments your Church actually uses?

Prove me wrong and LOOK THEM UP. Then, PHRASE THEM IN YOUR OWN WORDS, and PUT THEM HERE.

In the world of adults having a reasonable debate, simply saying “mah Church teld meh too” doesn’t fly.

 

[Awful_Things]

One can always tell when Exalt is frustrated because his/her argument holds no water because the logical fallacies and silly attacks come like crazy.

Straw man.
Name calling (again in these posts)
Now a shotgun approach, hoping one can’t respond to everything he/she points out

#1: You admit that you have no precedence (no example, citation, or instance from the past) where a civil court in these United States has sanctioned *any *Church or pastor for not marrying two individuals for any reason.

There’s always a first time for precedent. Especially with recent calls for a new constitutional convention, who knows what the first amendment would even look like.

In response to the very lengthy (on purpose) response, they all show a deterioration of cultural values to accomodate an unnatural relationship to the burden of general society. All cost for society, no gain. One of the reasons marriage is a civil insitution, in addition to a religious one, is because it contributes to the general welfare. Gay marriage only pulls is apart.

What else would one expect from perversity?

#2: Just as you brought up examples that had very little to do with the matter at hand - except that they dealt with gay people (though in completely different contexts than a Church or marriage), you bring *this *up.

First, pedophilia preys on children who aren’t fit to freely engage in sexual relationships. It’s wrong and the state has a vested interest in protecting those children. It has no bearing on this conversation, and bringing it up demonstrates your inability to discuss the issue of gay marriage as intelligent, clear-minded adults.

It is your opinion that children aren’t fit for sexual relationships. It happens to be mine, too. Others (NAMBLA) would disagree. Other cultures would disagree. After all, it was in Romeo and Juliet that the statement is made of the 13 year old Juliet that “younger than she are happy mothers made”.

You are taking your opinion and your interpretation of some available research and setting the standard for society. I am doing the same for gay marriage. An “intelligent, clear-minded” adult such as me realizes this. But, then again this was just a set-up for name calling. I understand, though, since you are so frustrated.

 

[Awful_Things]

As far as incest becoming legal, I doubt that it will. Each of these positions must be considered separately on their own merits. They’re all different. If your argument is that if we permit gay marriage, we will be forced to permit incestuous marriage, you are plainly wrong from a purely legal standpoint. If your argument is that if we permit gay marriage, questions regarding incest will be brought to our attention, I think you’re probably right. But questions aren’t necessarily bad things. Questions are supposed to lead to greater understanding, and I, for one, welcome them.

I know. You just don’t welcome definitive answers.

In regards to polygamy: when it concerns freely consenting individuals, I don’t care. Let them do what they like. Legally speaking, just like incest, gay marriage and polygamy are two different animals and accepting one does not compel the government to accept the other. It does, however, raise questions, but those questions aren’t neccessarily bad things.

At least you are consistent. I’ll give you that.

It’s not a straw man, you just need to read my entire passage and take it as a whole. I was NOT saying that permitting or not-permitting gay marriage means that gay people won’t be able to enter into relationships.

I WAS presenting an EXAMPLE, showing you that an absence of romantic relationships - and all it’s joys and sorrows - is what your own child would be forbidden from engaging in, if he or she agreed with and practiced the teachings of your Church. It would be much more helpful if you respond to my ENTIRE post, instead of just picking out snippets and calling them straw man arguments.

Oh, in that case, yes, I would prefer they chose celibacy (and Heaven). I’m sorry that by you indulging sin you gave your devout parents such a tough choice. Seems kind of selfish to me, but I won’t make a judgement there. There’s probably a good reason your own happiness on Earth was more important than God’s will or the guidance your parents gave during your formative years.

Did I say you had never experienced strugges that are TANTAMOUNT to the dilemma faced by gay Catholics? I NEVER said that.

Nope, but you implied that I wouldn’t understand. One doesn’t have to have the exact same struggle to have empathy for another’s struggle. You are assuming I’ve never had a difficult struggle that forced me to reconcile my own “gut” with the teachings that God gave. You assume wrong. Many times over.

I said that you do not know what it is like to be a gay Catholic and faced with this specific dilemma. The fact is that you do NOT know what it’s like to be forced with the dilemma of (1) never engaging in romantic relationships on earth or (2) eternal destruction in hell forever and ever. How do I know this? You’re married. So, I naturally assume that you have not been faced with this dilemmea - because, once again, you’re married.

But as I pointed out, plenty of celibate gays do disagree with you, so not having the experience first hand does not invalidate my opinion, as much as you’d like it to.

 

[Awful_Things]

You are obtuse. You partially ignore my points and try to replace what I’m actually saying with an appeal to MOLEST CHILDREN - and you pretend that this is actually a reasoned argument? Are an intelligent adult? Can you have a reasonable debate? Shall I just replace everything you say with “I like to burn gay people” and say how hateful you are? What kind of debate opponent would I be if I did that?

No, I’m showing that your arguments fall flat when put in a context that you disagree with. That this makes you angry doesn’t change that. My point is that the very best arguments you make can also be made for a group you would oppose for the same reasons I would oppose gay marriage.

I suppose you might just be spouting off what you’ve heard your pastor say or your friend say.

Ah, straw man again. You have to made silly assumptions to argue against and ignore some of my better points.

In that case, I shall respond with three sentences and let the matter rest: The molestation and abuse of children is clearly wrong because the children have no clue what they’re doing (they’re not willing partners, they cannot freely consent) and because it leaves long-term scars on the lives of those children. The State has a vested interest in protecting those children. Allowing gay marriage between CONSENTING ADULTS is completely and totally different.

Addressed above. I also believe that the state has a vested interest in protecting children from the damage (spiritual, in my opinion) of gay parents.

Continue making ridiculous stunts like this and I will consider you to be too unintelligent to debate like a reasonable adult.

Go figure.

Any reasonable person would be able to see that the destruction of children is not the same as homosexuality between consenting adults. Continue making claims to the contrary, and we’re done talking.

I think it very much the same. I think acceptance of the gay culture has already destructed many children, and I’ve seen the experiences first hand.

In fact, the acceptance of it by Catholics has probably been the indifference that allowed some children to give into sin rather than take advantage of the graces God gave to avoid it. What’s more destructive than dying in that state?

Since you admit to being gay, it seems to me that you are being very unfair to your partner by leading him/her into grave sin when you should be supporting a call to holiness. I find it hard to communicate with someone filled with such disregard for another’s salvation. I believe in providing everyone with the equal right to get to Heaven.

Equality for all, I say, gay and straight alike.

I present a scenario in which your child grows up, discovers he or she is gay, and decides to pursue romantic relationships. I ask, “consider if your own child and his or her future was at stake. In fact, it very well could be. Would you want secular marriage under the secular law to be an option? Or not?”

And you just some “Church documents” and leave it at that? Well, what arguments do these “Church documents” use? Can you put them in your own words, or is that too hard for you? Do you deny the rights of gay people because your Church tells you to - but do you have any idea of the arguments your Church actually uses?

Prove me wrong and LOOK THEM UP. Then, PHRASE THEM IN YOUR OWN WORDS, and PUT THEM HERE.

I’ve already put them in my own words. Click on the link in my signature to hear it in audio in a presentation I did on the topic. You can also visit my blog at apologeticsfromscratch.blogspot.com.

If you want the short version, though, here it is:

From the Catechism 2357: (My words) Homosexuality is not sinful, but homosexual activity is. From the next several paragraphs, (my words) people with such inclinations are called to chastity.

From the Document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons: (My own words) It is gravely immoral to vote for or approve of such legislation.

In the world of adults having a reasonable debate, simply saying “mah Church teld meh too” doesn’t fly.

This is name calling, though you don’t actually include the “name”, your tactic implies that anyone who disagrees is a dunce.

Par for the course.

But, actually, you are wrong, for a Catholic, who believes in a Church that is guided from error by the Holy Spirit, “My Church told me to” is perfectly enough.

For you, and for Adam and Eve, God and his laws are rubbish. You’ll decide for yourself, as they did, what is right and what is wrong.

But look how they ended up.

 

[social_aware]

The video was not serious the problem is. I am considering leaving the catholic church for the political involvement it had here in California during the elections in opposing same sex marriages. We need to understand there are two distinctive things religious and civil marriage., one is a sacrament the other is a civil right. I am a strait woman, married for 25 years, same husband, two children same father. Same sex marriage does not affect my personal life in any other way than that I believe it is a civil rights issue. . Let me explaining my feelings better: almost a year ago my husband had an accident. When I got to the hospital I was hushed to his side, as next of kin. I was so stressed, being allowed to be with my husband at that moment was one of the greatest blessings I could imagine at that time. This incident got me thinking, what if my marriage was not recognized? It would have being agony for me. Than I though further, if God forbid, I was to lose him? As a married woman, I would keep my home, where my children go to School because as a married woman I would not have to pay inheritance tax on my home. Well If I was not married I would not even be in the country legally because I would not have benefited from immigration laws that allowed my husband to bring me to this country as his spouse. If not married I would not receive social security, I have no job outside the home, I left my job when we decided to raise the children home. How could I enjoy this, when I knew other could not. Being Christian for me mean to be merciful and companionate. homesexuality is inate. If you are liberal you can see it as a biological variation, if conservative as a birth defect. I am in the medical field and I see physiological indicatives of homosexuality. You can see alteration MRI of the brain, hormonal tests in the newborn can tell if that infant will be gay, before the infant is aware of his/her fingers and toes much less his/her sexual orientation. Christianity for me is about tolerance. I did not see that in my church. I did not want to raise my kids in an environment that thought them to be judgmental, to cast the first stone. I believe if you really believe in God you bring people to him by living by example, not by imposing laws. It was not until november of 2000 that Alabama took out the ban on interracial marriage from its constitution, and not by much, 47% of the voters opposed it. They used bible verses to justify it too.
social awareness@live.com
Please answer me

 

[fix]

The video was not serious the problem is. I am considering leaving the catholic church for the political involvement it had here in California during the elections in opposing same sex marriages. We need to understand there are two distinctive things religious and civil marriage., one is a sacrament the other is a civil right. I am a strait woman, married for 25 years, same husband, two children same father. Same sex marriage does not affect my personal life in any other way than that I believe it is a civil rights issue. . Let me explaining my feelings better: almost a year ago my husband had an accident. When I got to the hospital I was hushed to his side, as next of kin. I was so stressed, being allowed to be with my husband at that moment was one of the greatest blessings I could imagine at that time. This incident got me thinking, what if my marriage was not recognized? It would have being agony for me. Than I though further, if God forbid, I was to lose him? As a married woman, I would keep my home, where my children go to School because as a married woman I would not have to pay inheritance tax on my home. Well If I was not married I would not even be in the country legally because I would not have benefited from immigration laws that allowed my husband to bring me to this country as his spouse. If not married I would not receive social security, I have no job outside the home, I left my job when we decided to raise the children home. How could I enjoy this, when I knew other could not. Being Christian for me mean to be merciful and companionate. homesexuality is inate. If you are liberal you can see it as a biological variation, if conservative as a birth defect. I am in the medical field and I see physiological indicatives of homosexuality. You can see alteration MRI of the brain, hormonal tests in the newborn can tell if that infant will be gay, before the infant is aware of his/her fingers and toes much less his/her sexual orientation. Christianity for me is about tolerance. I did not see that in my church. I did not want to raise my kids in an environment that thought them to be judgmental, to cast the first stone. I believe if you really believe in God you bring people to him by living by example, not by imposing laws. It was not until november of 2000 that Alabama took out the ban on interracial marriage from its constitution, and not by much, 47% of the voters opposed it. They used bible verses to justify it too.
social awareness@live.com
Please answer me

1. Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural moral law.
2. All thypes of inclinations are part of our fallen world. We seek to remedy them not justify them as “natural”.
3. Healthcare issues and property issues can be sorted out through contracts and other devices without redefining the truth of marriage.
4. You are being judgemental in your assertions in claiming the Church is judgemental.
5. The state has an interest in the public good. Artifically redefining the reality of marriage has affects on society, especially children.

 

[Awful_Things]

The video was not serious the problem is. I am considering leaving the catholic church for the political involvement it had here in California during the elections in opposing same sex marriages. We need to understand there are two distinctive things religious and civil marriage., one is a sacrament the other is a civil right. I am a strait woman, married for 25 years, same husband, two children same father. Same sex marriage does not affect my personal life in any other way than that I believe it is a civil rights issue. . Let me explaining my feelings better: almost a year ago my husband had an accident. When I got to the hospital I was hushed to his side, as next of kin. I was so stressed, being allowed to be with my husband at that moment was one of the greatest blessings I could imagine at that time. This incident got me thinking, what if my marriage was not recognized? It would have being agony for me. Than I though further, if God forbid, I was to lose him? As a married woman, I would keep my home, where my children go to School because as a married woman I would not have to pay inheritance tax on my home. Well If I was not married I would not even be in the country legally because I would not have benefited from immigration laws that allowed my husband to bring me to this country as his spouse. If not married I would not receive social security, I have no job outside the home, I left my job when we decided to raise the children home. How could I enjoy this, when I knew other could not. Being Christian for me mean to be merciful and companionate. homesexuality is inate. If you are liberal you can see it as a biological variation, if conservative as a birth defect. I am in the medical field and I see physiological indicatives of homosexuality. You can see alteration MRI of the brain, hormonal tests in the newborn can tell if that infant will be gay, before the infant is aware of his/her fingers and toes much less his/her sexual orientation. Christianity for me is about tolerance. I did not see that in my church. I did not want to raise my kids in an environment that thought them to be judgmental, to cast the first stone. I believe if you really believe in God you bring people to him by living by example, not by imposing laws. It was not until november of 2000 that Alabama took out the ban on interracial marriage from its constitution, and not by much, 47% of the voters opposed it. They used bible verses to justify it too.
social awareness@live.com
Please answer me

This was very judgemental. Why can’t you be more tolerant of the Catholic Church. Isn’t a post like this going to teach your kids to cast the first stone?

 

[social_aware]

This was very judgemental. Why can’t you be more tolerant of the Catholic Church. Isn’t a post like this going to teach your kids to cast the first stone?

Please explain to me how was this being judgmental? By excusing myself from judging others? I am just excusing myself from this role, and keeping my children from an environment that I do see as not very tolerant. I never had any problems with the position on gay merriage before. The Catholic church does not see homosexuality as a sin, just the sex act. So if the church does not marry homosexuals I believe that is in consensus with the Church’s doutrine and should be respected. However, imposing our doutrine on civil marriage upon the non believing population to where it would signify economic hardships I believe is wrong.
Freedom of religion means that I am free to be Christian and Catholic. I thank God for that every day! It should also signify that those who do not should be free to do so. Limiting rights to those who dont share your believes is not freedom, it is not equalitarian.

 

[Awful_Things]

Please explain to me how was this being judgmental? By excusing myself from judging others?

You are judging the church for her actions in recent legislation. In fact, far from just excusing yourself, you are on the verge of rejecting the entire church established by Christ.

You judged it and found it guilty.

I am just excusing myself from this role, and keeping my children from an environment that I do see as not very tolerant.

Tolerance of sin isn’t a virtue. If it were, I’m sure it would have been one of the gifts or fruits of the Holy Spirit.

I never had any problems with the position on gay merriage before. The Catholic church does not see homosexuality as a sin, just the sex act. So if the church does not marry homosexuals I believe that is in consensus with the Church’s doutrine and should be respected.

I agree.

However, imposing our doutrine on civil marriage upon the non believing population to where it would signify economic hardships I believe is wrong.

It would almost be possible to agree with you here if it weren’t for the reality that legal arrangements can be made for almost any situation that you are hoping gay marriage will solve with regard to economic hardships. And, for those areas where such documents aren’t currently available, push for those changes to be made. I completely respect that you are concerned about financial well-being and such, but a compromise exists that allows such without putting forth the risks that critics of gay marriage are afraid of.

The Church has shown itself somewhat prophetic as to what societal ills will come of such dangerous new variables. Here, for instance, is a great article about how the inventor of the pill, an early and vehement critic of Humanae Vitae now realizes that the Church called it right as to the damage that society would see with the introduction of the pill. What else woulld one expect from an institution led by the Holy Spirit?

Freedom of religion means that I am free to be Christian and Catholic.

Yes.

I thank God for that every day!

Amen, sister.

It should also signify that those who do not should be free to do so.

I agree, which is one of the reasons I don’t personally favor making everything I see as sin to be illegal. However, we also do legitimize every deviance that occurs within society simply in the name of freedom. Somewhere, you draw this line, too. Maybe you believe prostitution should still be illegal. The use of meth.

Limiting rights to those who dont share your believes is not freedom, it is not equalitarian.

I agree. But marriage is not a right. It can’t be a “right” because it requires a willing partner. If it were a right, then I would be guaranteed a mate, whether another found me attatractive or not.

It is guaranteed by no foundational documents.

And for all sorts of reasons beyond gay marriage, people are denied marriage to someone to whom they are attracted.

If we are talking civil matters, a civil marriage is simply a recognition of a relationship that, in theory, provides benefit for society. Much of this has to do with child-rearing, and for this, “married” couples receive certain benefits, such as tax cuts, to further their efforts. Government shouldn’t be in the business of authenticating “love” and sexual attraction, which is where supporters of gay marriage are confused.

If Jane and Jill want to spend their lives together, so be it. Nothing prevents them from moving in together. There are no laws (anymore, I think) against whatever form of sex happens in their bedrooms. And there are legal arrangements that will prevent your fears from being realized. For those that can’t be resolved this way (such as, perhaps, the immigration issue), legislate for change in this.

In the meantime, here is a great essay from the Heritage Foundation of even more harm that will come from society when government gets away from a practical definition of marriage and gets in the business of recognizing love for love’s sake.

Out of respect for Exalt, I’ll point out that this document focuses not at all on the idea that churches will be forced, against their will, to allow gay marriages (or be prosecuted for refusing), but the litany of disasters that will befall our various institutions is disturbing.

 

[social_aware]

It would almost be possible to agree with you here if it weren’t for the reality that legal arrangements can be made for almost any situation that you are hoping gay marriage will solve with regard to economic hardships. And, for those areas where such documents aren’t currently available, push for those changes to be made. I completely respect that you are concerned about financial well-being and such, but a compromise exists that allows such without putting forth the risks that critics of gay marriage are afraid of.

There no provision for imigration law. There is no excuse for inheritance law, even if you have a partnership, should the other part die you would need to pay tax on the portion inherited, if you are married you are excused that tax. There is no provision that would allow for falling join taxes. There is no provision for the survivor partner in receiving social security. Where is the compromise?

 

[siamesecat]

Marriage is an institution by which one man and one woman commit their lives to one another so that they can procreate children who wil have a mom and a dad. It has worked well since the dawn of civilization. No society has attempted to mess with it much until now. Why mess with what works?

Because lot’s of things “worked” in the past that were changed eventually. Teenage marriage and slavery, killing or shunning disabled people, treating women as property, etc etc. History is not a good indicator of morality.

 

[siamesecat]

This is probably the wrong place to post but if someon could redirect me, I would appreciate it. I understand the Catholic teaching against things like homosexuality, birth control, etc. as “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I get that there’s more to it, but the basis is that god intends for sexuality to work procreatively between a man and a woman. Makes sense - that’s how bodies are designed, there are some Bible verses supporting this. People also justify medical care by saying that when someone is sick or injured, it’s ok to to intervene unlike with birth control or euthanasia because there bodies are working incorrectly, not as God intended, and so it’s ok to fix them to their correct state. But using contraception is making the correct state invalid (preventing procreative sex). I get all this. But what about epidurals during labor? This isn’t something “broken”- it’s how the body was designed to work, and in the Bible it says God wanted women to bear this burdern due to Eve’s sin. But everyone seems to be ok with this…how is this different?

 

[Awful_Things]

Because lot’s of things “worked” in the past that were changed eventually. Teenage marriage and slavery, killing or shunning disabled people, treating women as property, etc etc. History is not a good indicator of morality.

No, but thankfully the infallible teachings of the CC are.

 

[Awful_Things]

There no provision for imigration law.

Then lobby for change in immigration law. That very rare (even you must admit it is) of circumstances simply can’t justify all the potential harm of redefining “marriage”.

There is no excuse for inheritance law, even if you have a partnership, should the other part die you would need to pay tax on the portion inherited, if you are married you are excused that tax. There is no provision that would allow for falling join taxes. There is no provision for the survivor partner in receiving social security. Where is the compromise?

You are probably right here, but frankly, speaking as a “sometimes” libertarian and not a Catholic, I’m kind of glad of this. As I explained in my earlier post, marriage that is potentially fruitful serves as a benefit for society (even when calculating the reality that some of those couples will not be fruitful). Society has a vested interest there (and an investment, no less), but has no business or gain in authenticating love, and that especially includes giving one individual a tax break or a social benefit simply because he has had romantic or sexual attraction for another.

All of the benefits of marriage are built on the premise that marriage brings forth kids and the tax benefits are a suppliment to the couple for the costs associated with that. Will some couples chose not to have kids? Sure, and we can work on a solution to that, but this small problem doesn’t justify turning the governmental benefits of marriage into benefits designed to reward a man or a woman for companionship.

From a religious perspective, the “benefits” of legalizing gay marriage, while not warranted (per above arguments) can prove detrimental to religious and civil liberties for others (per the link I provided), and the Church has a vested interest to lobby in protection of such liberties.

It simply shocks me that you are so offended by the Church doing as any other group or person would do when her liberties are threatened, which is to lobby against that. That you would be so offended that you are willing to leave the sacraments. Shrug.

And this is why your earlier post is being judgemental for criticizing the Church for doing the same as what gay advocates are doing. You are simply “judging” which group is more entitled to liberties and then self-righteously criticizing others for doing the same. It’s all a matter of perspective.

 

[social_aware]

No, but thankfully the infallible teachings of the CC are.

The church has being wrong in the past plenty of times. Remember the dark ages. It was not until 1996 the John Paul II absolved the scientists that were indicted for claiming the earth is round and revolved around the sun. The fact is that although the Church is NOT infalible it has the superior ability of evolving. One of the carachteristics of the Catholic Church I value most is the ability of learning from past mistakes. Science has proven homosexuality is inate, that is one of the reason the catholic church today does not see homosexuality as a sin. The catholic church still sees the homosexual sex act as a sin and as so has the right to deny the sacrament to same sex couples. Perhaps if that would change in the future would require more teological study, not my area of expertise. I am a physiologist. My problem with the church in america was the involvement in denying civil rights to people outside the church.

 

[Awful_Things]

The church has being wrong in the past plenty of times.

Not in infallible teachings. It is sin to say otherwise.

Remember the dark ages. It was not until 1996 the John Paul II absolved the scientists that were indicted for claiming the earth is round and revolved around the sun.

This is an area of scientific speculation. The Church does not have infallibility in scientific speculation, only matters of faith and morals.

Homosexuality is a matter of morals.

The fact is that although the Church is NOT infalible it has the superior ability of evolving.

The Church is infallible in many areas. Sorry, that’s Catholic dogma, so its is a required belief for Catholics. If you believe otherwise, fine, but the point isn’t up for debate among orthodox Catholics. If I’m wrong, please point me out to the Church documents that claim otherwise. I’d be happy to bear the burden of proof for my assertion.

One of the carachteristics of the Catholic Church I value most is the ability of learning from past mistakes.

Me too! But that doesn’t include tolerating heresy.

Science has proven homosexuality is inate, that is one of the reason the catholic church today does not see homosexuality as a sin.

I have no dog in that fight. It doesn’t matter in the long run in my opinion.

The catholic church still sees the homosexual sex act as a sin and as so has the right to deny the sacrament to same sex couples. Perhaps if that would change in the future would require more teological study, not my area of expertise.

Can’t change in the future. Infallible teachings cannot contradict themselves. I admire that you admit this isn’t your area of expertise.

I am a physiologist. My problem with the church in america was the involvement in denying civil rights to people outside the church.

Gay marriage isn’t a civil rights issue. There is no civil “right” to marriage. I address that and the arguments against your case pretty well in the points you ignored from previous posts.

 

[social_aware]

Perhaps I would be better understood is my history was known. Portion of my family lived in Mozambique in the 70’s. My favorite aunt was a missionary nun. The Catholic church was associated with the government there. The government used the Church for recruiting votes in exchange to legislation that promote catholic values. The government was also corrupt and had a profound disregard for human rights. Because of that association overturning the government evolved into religious prosecution. One of my aunts best friends was pregnant. She had the baby removed from her womb and parade in the streets on a stake. This is what happens when we don’t have separation of church and state. Give us new appreciation to the wisdom our forefathers does it not?
Today we live in a country were the majority is Christian… There is a little anti-catholic sentiment, it would be difficult to elect another catholic president, even after Kennedy. Americans did elect presidents Hover and W. Bush in part over anti-catholic sentiment. Yet because we Catholics are Christians we do not oppose the use of the bible in policy making. We think because we identify with the majority the separation of church and state is not that important. What if the public schools today start teaching the world is only 6000 years old and the fossil record is only a test from God to verify our faith. Again we Catholics have John Paul II wisdom guiding us to see evolution differently. (see John Paul II 1996 a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences)
What would happen then if Christianity would no longer be a majority? The Muslin faith is the fastest growing religion in the world. France does not have a Christian majority anymore. What would happen if 200 or 300 years from now the majority was muslin? How comfortable would you be than if the religious majority was to use religion to enforce morality legislation then. Would you be comfortable with your great grand daughter using a burka ?
I believe we should not use our faith to impose our values upon others. We should respect the separation of church and state when we are the majority instead of complaining it does not exists anymore we became the minority.