Same Sex Marriage?

[davidmlamb]

Friend David,

But when the gay community’s faith says gay marriage should be allowed, and when others’ faith says gay marriage should not be allowed, how can the government respect both?

.

Minority Rights takes precedence! Catholics are not the ones having their rights trampled on but gays are by being denied equal rights to marriage. Your argument is equivalent to saying because the South believed slavery was biblical but the North believed it was wrong than these two sets of belief’s off-set each other and therefore the institution of slavery remains. It does not work that way. In this case gays are the “slaves” and they cannot have their personal liberties impeded because the state favors a religious belief. The state on the other hand is not allowing gay marriage because it favors a religious belief but because to not allow gay marriage is clearly discriminatory simply because Catholics (and other conservative faith’s) believe it is wrong. Once again we do not live in a theocracy but a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY and gays must be represented by allowing them to practice what they believe to be true in pursuit of their own liberty and happiness. That’s the Law and that is what makes us a free country.

Peace,

David

 

[Monkey1976]

It is not about good ideas or bad ideas, its about Constitutional Civil Rights. It’s about upholding the constitution for minority rights. This issue is no different than bi racial marriage. All the same arguments were made than as they are being made now. The state cannot favor one religion over another and must allow people to exercise their personal liberties without discrimination.

Peace,

David

Claiming that same-sex “marriage” is somehow on a par with biracial marriages cheapens and demeans those that fought for civil rights. Race is not behavior - it cannot be changed. Homosexual activity is a free choice. Even here on these forums, there are several members who suffer under the cross of same-sex attraction, but they freely choose to not act on it. That’s the difference. The Church defines homosexual ACTS as “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered”, while “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

Just because someone is a kleptomaniac doesn’t make stealing their right. Just because someone is an alcoholic doesn’t make driving drunk their right. Just because someone is a psychopath doesn’t make murder their right. Why are we called bigots if we don’t see homosexual activity as the “right” of a person with same-sex attraction?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

.

Minority Rights takes precedence! Catholics are not the ones having their rights trampled on but gays are by being denied equal rights to marriage.

You clearly don’t know the details of their agenda very well.

They have all the equal rights of marriage. All of them. It’s not called marriage though and that is what the whining is all about on their part. They want their unions (and actions) to be accepted and seen as normal and then celebrated.

 

[fix]

It is not about good ideas or bad ideas, its about Constitutional Civil Rights. It’s about upholding the constitution for minority rights. This issue is no different than bi racial marriage. All the same arguments were made than as they are being made now. The state cannot favor one religion over another and must allow people to exercise their personal liberties without discrimination.

Peace,

David

Race is morally neutral, behavior is not In this case. There is no right to faux marriage.

 

[fix]

.

Minority Rights takes precedence! Catholics are not the ones having their rights trampled on but gays are by being denied equal rights to marriage. Your argument is equivalent to saying because the South believed slavery was biblical but the North believed it was wrong than these two sets of belief’s off-set each other and therefore the institution of slavery remains. It does not work that way. In this case gays are the “slaves” and they cannot have their personal liberties impeded because the state favors a religious belief. The state on the other hand is not allowing gay marriage because it favors a religious belief but because to not allow gay marriage is clearly discriminatory simply because Catholics (and other conservative faith’s) believe it is wrong. Once again we do not live in a theocracy but a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY and gays must be represented by allowing them to practice what they believe to be true in pursuit of their own liberty and happiness. That’s the Law and that is what makes us a free country.

Peace,

David

Insanity.

 

[Slavonic]

There can be relationship, mutual commitment, bonding and trust between lifelong friends, parents and their children, even between humans and their pets. It is simply untrue that these are what is essentially distinct about marriage. It is the combination of these with physical sexual union and a commitment to the progeny of this union that makes marriage distinct from all other relationships.

Your position simply ignores one necessary aspect by isolating it and trivializing it, forgetting that a new human being with infinite value comes about from “any pairing” of a male and female, as if that little aspect is an insignificant afterthought and not the critically important feature that, ultimately, is the purpose for the physical union.

Well, I just see a difference between saying that a marriage is for procreation and only those of the set of people who can potentially procreate as a couple, even if one or both individuals is physiologically incapable of reproducing, are the only ones that can be married and saying those who wish to procreate should be married.

 

[davidmlamb]

You clearly don’t know the details of their agenda very well.

They have all the equal rights of marriage. All of them. It’s not called marriage though and that is what the whining is all about on their part. They want their unions (and actions) to be accepted and seen as normal and then celebrated.

There was a time in America when inter-racial marriage was seen as not being normal. I am interested to know what you think the homosexual agaenda is? If they want to have unions and call it marriage than let them. You have the freedom not to believe same sex marriage is a marriage. If you opponants of gay marriage were to be half as diligent on wanting to save marriage by eliminating no fault divorce and making divorce difficult to obtain and limiting the amount of times one can remarry you may actually save marriage… But you want to have the option to divorce and re-marry and to hide that little tid bit you pretend to care about marriage by going after the gay community and blaming the demise of marriage on them. Hypocrites, you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

David

 

[CrimsonThorn]

There was a time in America when inter-racial marriage was seen as not being normal

There is no comparison. There are no differences physiologically between the races as there are between the sexes. Also, a racial community is a real community which are unified by their ethnic backgrounds regardless of their sex, creed, profession etc., unlike the homosexual community which is only unified by their actions and nothing more.

I’m also curious to hear your argument of why I cannot use the women’s changing rooms and bathrooms. After all, there used to be bathrooms and water fountains for blacks only.

You have the freedom not to believe same sex marriage is a marriage.

Just as they have the freedom to believe their unions are “marriages” too, but we don’t have to make laws about them and we don’t have to allow those who disagree to be sued for their disagreement and classified as a hate group. Talk about those who shove their beliefs down one’s throat.

But you want to have the option to divorce and re-marry

Newsflash, sir: There is no divorce in the Catholic Church. People who divorce, do not directly assault traditional marriage in the same way SS"M" is doing. No one gets sued or gets called a bigot for not acknowledging a divorce, for instance.

 

[davidmlamb]

Race is morally neutral, behavior is not In this case. There is no right to faux marriage.

There are no laws impeding the expansion of what constitutes a marriage either, But their are laws prohibiting the state from favoring a religious belief about marriage and using that religious belief to rob an entire community of their liberty and pursuit of happiness. In 1960 interacial marriage was considered morally depraved and a behaviour problem. You simply have no argument here. Gay marriage is going to become the law of the land unless you change the constitution.

Peace

David

 

[Equites_Christi]

Gay marriage is going to become the law of the land unless you change the constitution.

Peace

David

Then we had better change the constitution, and fast!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, I just see a difference between saying that a marriage is for procreation and only those of the set of people who can potentially procreate as a couple, even if one or both individuals is physiologically incapable of reproducing, are the only ones that can be married and saying those who wish to procreate should be married.

There is a difference between those who, in principle, can procreate (a man and a woman), even though, factually speaking, they will not, and those who, in principle, can never procreate (man-man, woman-woman). You don’t throw out the principle just because of the incapacity of some to live up to it. We may as well throw out the moral principle of not willfully killing others because some moral agents fail to live up to its demands, which is what essentially, you are arguing: the definition of marriage should be abandoned or rescinded because some heterosexual couples cannot procreate.

Irrelevant, really because the point of marriage laws is not to legally protect an agreement or contract between two adults (no fault divorce has confirmed it isn’t), it is essentially to protect the vulnerable progeny of the fertile union because these offspring did not willingly agree to the terms of the contract. To say that the “agreement” between same sex partners ought to be protected under the law is a laughable suggestion because no fault divorce offers absolutely no legal protection to either party in a legal marriage. There is no point to or reason for redefining marriage except to further extract the remaining teeth it might have to protect children. Redefining marriage in this way is a certain means of leaving not only children in a fetal stage vulnerable (abortion laws see to that), but to leave children of all ages without much in the way of legal recourse because marriage will simply be defined absent any reference to biological offspring,

 

[davidmlamb]

Claiming that same-sex “marriage” is somehow on a par with biracial marriages cheapens and demeans those that fought for civil rights

You’re wrong! It’s the exact same issue, a civil rights issue! Civil Rights do not have to be based on color, IT IS ALSO BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION. So it does not cheapen any past civil rights issue it is in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Race is not behavior - it cannot be changed. Homosexual activity is a free choice.

Your premise here implies that people choose to be homosexual. There is no evidence for that. If Homosexuals choose to be gay than that means heterosexuals also choose their sexual orientation! Do you remember the day you made a choice between a man and a woman? I sure don’t! As early as 5 years I remember me being attracted to girls, there was no choice involved. The empirical evidence suggests the same is true for gays. So there is no free choice involved except intercourse. So if intercourse is the problem why have you conservatives not fought to outlaw fornication? Sex belongs in marriage right? That’s what the Bible say’! Yet you remain silent on this issue. And the reason why you remain silent on the issue is because you are prejudice against gays and that is what makes it a civil rights violation. It also is counterproductive to the Kingdom of God and it clearly demonstrates you pick and choose what teachings you are going to “enforce” and you pick and choose based on your prejudice. We are called to be the light and not the moral police for those outside the Church.

Peace,

David

 

[fix]

There are no laws impeding the expansion of what constitutes a marriage either, But their are laws prohibiting the state from favoring a religious belief about marriage and using that religious belief to rob an entire community of their liberty and pursuit of happiness. In 1960 interacial marriage was considered morally depraved and a behaviour problem. You simply have no argument here. Gay marriage is going to become the law of the land unless you change the constitution.

Peace

David

Immoral laws are immoral regardless. Strange new ideologies do not change the truth.

 

[davidmlamb]

The Church defines homosexual ACTS as “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered”, while “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

Your argument is flawed because everything you just stated is a religious belief. The state cannot endorse or favor any established religion. Secondly, homosexuals being called to chastity applies as enforcible ONLY to those in the Church and not outside the Church. The government cannot enforce either way.

Just because someone is a kleptomaniac doesn’t make stealing their right. Just because someone is an alcoholic doesn’t make driving drunk their right. Just because someone is a psychopath doesn’t make murder their right. Why are we called bigots if we don’t see homosexual activity as the “right” of a person with same-sex attraction?

Because, murder, stealing, and drunk driving infringes on the civil rights of other people and gay marriage does not.

Peace,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

People have to realize an essential fact: to vote in a democracy is, essentially, to try to force your beliefs on other people. For example, many people last year believed that President Obama should be reelected, and they succeeding on imposing this belief on the entire nation, both those who agreed and those who disagreed. And this is the case for every election. This is ok. This is how democracy works. No issue will have a total consensus, and yet it will always be decided one way or the other.

So to say to pro-same sex marriage people, “It is alright to vote your opinion” and to say to anti-same sex marriage people “It is not alright to vote your opinion” flies in the face of democracy. To tell someone how they can and cannot vote is the opposite of a free country, and yet we see it everywhere, especially over this issue.

In short, EVERYONE votes based on their beliefs. Do people say, “I do not believe this man should be president, but I will vote for him anyways”? Of course not! They vote based on their belief of who should be president. To deny people the right to vote their beliefs, whatever they are, is the beginning of tyranny.

Do I think gays should be legally entitled to vote for their interests, even if I think their ideas are bad for society? Yes. And by the same token, I should be allowed to oppose them.

Again your argument here is flawed and I will demonstrate why; what if the majority of Americans voted for segregation between whites and minorities? Does that mean the majority gets their way? NO! A Democracy also has a constitution to protect minority rights. So people can vote to let’s say outlaw homosexuals but the Constitution takes precedence. Let me put it another way…what if one day the majority of Americans were militant socialist homosexuals and got enough signatures for a state ballot to vote for whether or not to outlaw Catholicism? Could Catholicism be outlawed because the majority voted for it? NO!!! It would be for starters a violation of the 1st amendment as well as the 13th amendment.

Peace,

David

 

[Monkey1976]

You’re wrong! It’s the exact same issue, a civil rights issue! Civil Rights do not have to be based on color, IT IS ALSO BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION. So it does not cheapen any past civil rights issue it is in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It’s discrimination based on BEHAVIOR, which is right, proper, and done every day. Same-sex attracted persons have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else. Interracial marriage was based on equality within an existing institution. Gay “marriage” is the REDEFINITION of that institution.

Your premise here implies that people choose to be homosexual. There is no evidence for that. If Homosexuals choose to be gay than that means heterosexuals also choose their sexual orientation! Do you remember the day you made a choice between a man and a woman? I sure don’t! As early as 5 years I remember me being attracted to girls, there was no choice involved. The empirical evidence suggests the same is true for gays. So there is no free choice involved except intercourse. So if intercourse is the problem why have you conservatives not fought to outlaw fornication? Sex belongs in marriage right? That’s what the Bible say’! Yet you remain silent on this issue. And the reason why you remain silent on the issue is because you are prejudice against gays and that is what makes it a civil rights violation. It also is counterproductive to the Kingdom of God and it clearly demonstrates you pick and choose what teachings you are going to “enforce” and you pick and choose based on your prejudice. We are called to be the light and not the moral police for those outside the Church.

Peace,

David

I didn’t say that people choose to be homosexual. What I said was that homosexual ACTIVITY is a choice, just as heterosexual activity is a choice. Just because I’m heterosexual, it doesn’t mean that I’m out having sex every chance I get, because I have willpower and self-control. Since I’m unmarried, I’m called to the same chastity as everyone else, and I pray the God gives me the strength and willpower to answer that call.

What we’re talking about is a group that defines themselves exclusively by their behavior. A behavior that is a free choice. Nobody is forcing them to have homosexual relations, just as nobody is forcing heterosexuals to have intercourse.

 

[fix]

democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: In other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive “sign of the times”, as the church’s magisterium has frequently noted. 88 but the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the “common good” as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable “majority” opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the “natural law” written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of scepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations, and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis. 89

evangelium vitae

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re wrong! It’s the exact same issue, a civil rights issue! Civil Rights do not have to be based on color, IT IS ALSO BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION. So it does not cheapen any past civil rights issue it is in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Your premise here implies that people choose to be homosexual. There is no evidence for that. If Homosexuals choose to be gay than that means heterosexuals also choose their sexual orientation! Do you remember the day you made a choice between a man and a woman? I sure don’t! As early as 5 years I remember me being attracted to girls, there was no choice involved. The empirical evidence suggests the same is true for gays. So there is no free choice involved except intercourse. So if intercourse is the problem why have you conservatives not fought to outlaw fornication? Sex belongs in marriage right? That’s what the Bible say’! Yet you remain silent on this issue. And the reason why you remain silent on the issue is because you are prejudice against gays and that is what makes it a civil rights violation. It also is counterproductive to the Kingdom of God and it clearly demonstrates you pick and choose what teachings you are going to “enforce” and you pick and choose based on your prejudice. We are called to be the light and not the moral police for those outside the Church.

Peace,

David

There is no law that prevents homosexual individuals from engaging in sexual activity, therefore no legislation exists that discriminates against their “freedom” to indulge themselves if no others are harmed by their actions. That is not the issue at hand.

The issue is whether their relationship can properly be called a marriage in the full sense of the word. Many forms of “loving” commitments between individuals exist (friendship, parent-child, owner-pet, etc.) that are insufficient in terms of being called a “marriage” because a marriage is by definition fertile, i.e., productive of new life. A homosexual relationship can never be that. It is a question of basic biology, not discrimination. If “marriage” is redefined to be simply a loving commitment then that opens the field to any of the other forms that have the same quality.

I challenge you to come up with a definition of marriage that includes a homosexual union without including all these other relationships. The credibility of your argument rests entirely on you being able to provide that definition.

Awaiting your reply.

 

[Monkey1976]

Your argument is flawed because everything you just stated is a religious belief. The state cannot endorse or favor any established religion. Secondly, homosexuals being called to chastity applies as enforcible ONLY to those in the Church and not outside the Church. The government cannot enforce either way.

It was also the position of the American Psychiatric Association until 1973. I suggest you look into why and how homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Just because they chose to deny truth because they were being bullied doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.

Because, murder, stealing, and drunk driving infringes on the civil rights of other people and gay marriage does not.

Peace,

David

And presenting two men or two women as “married” infringes on the right of children to have parents. For the child being raised by Elton John and his partner, even basic biology was denied: Elton John is listed as the father on the birth certificate, while his partner is listed as the “mother”. Are this child’s rights not being infringed? The logic is consistent. People are claiming that due to their desires, how they choose to express those desires should be legal, because - implicitly in their position - they are unable to control them.

What gay “marriage” activists are clamoring for isn’t equality, it’s wanting to have all of the benefits with none of the responsibility.

If gay “marriage” is such a good and important “right”, how is it that no other government throughout human history - Christian or not - ever saw it as such? Even ancient Greece, where male homosexuality was celebrated and encouraged, held marriage as something that only happened between male and female.

 

[fix]

So there is no free choice involved except intercourse.

So, acting on one’s inclination is fine based on your logic?

So if intercourse is the problem why have you conservatives not fought to outlaw fornication?