T
TK421
Guest
Legal or illegal isn’t applicable to the question because it’s about whether or not the state is going to recognize a marriage and whether it comes with certain benefits and privileges.
Last edited:
- Status
P
Polak
Guest
Okay but what about my question? Do you, as an atheist I assume (correct me if I’m wrong) believe it should be taught in schools that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable and would you take issue with Christians, Muslims, Jews or people of other faiths who do not want their children to be taught this?
You talk about the state, but religious people are part of states too and surely have a right to their beliefs. While I can understand you objecting to them wanting schools to teach that gay marriage is morally wrong, would you also object to them not wanting it to be taught in schools that’s it’s completely okay and natural?
You talk about the state, but religious people are part of states too and surely have a right to their beliefs. While I can understand you objecting to them wanting schools to teach that gay marriage is morally wrong, would you also object to them not wanting it to be taught in schools that’s it’s completely okay and natural?
B
buffalo
Guest
Offended? I am offended they are trying to redefine what is obvious.
P
Polak
Guest
I know I was just responding to the suggestions that most gay people are perfectly okay with what Catholics believe about gay marriage. It certainly doesn’t seem that way to me, judging by some of the things many of them have to say.
B
buffalo
Guest
Too bad. We are a country of laws and morals. You happily ride on the back of the safety and morals that those before you implanted all the way back to the founding.
F
Freddy
Guest
I don’t want schools to teach things that are wrong and/or harmful. Being gay is neither so I have no problem in schools covering the subject when discussing relationships in schools. But I do have some sympathy with parents who don’t want their children taught about sexual matters in school.
But that’s life. It’s messy. It’s rarely black and white. And in some cases like that (and maybe bakers making cakes and similar situations) there are difficulties which need to be addressed in some way and we aren’t going to please everybody. If we deal with the problems honestly and treat the position of others with some respect then we might be able to find some common ground.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t have a source other than my own experiences, but my experience is that while gay people find the attitude that gay relationships are not real, and that gay marriage is not real to be wrong and even offensive, they respect that others have a right to that viewpoint, that the Church has a right to not perform gay marriages, and so forth. What they don’t accept is that gives people a right to enforce their religious viewpoints with the force of law.
F
Freddy
Guest
Well, yeah…Freddy:
We are a country of laws and morals.
And as it turns out, where we both live, the vast majority of people think ssm is perfectly moral. And is legal as well. And the chances of either of those positions being reversed is zero.
B
buffalo
Guest
In America this was done by activist judges. When put to referendum it lost.
B
buffalo
Guest
The act is immoral. The condition is a struggle.
Yes, public school sex class is agenda riddled.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Does a government have the power to redefine what the word “love” means? Does it have the power to redefine what the word “tree” means? Does it have the power to redefine anything it chooses? If it does, and you’re okay with that, that’s a big ol’ problem.
F
Freddy
Guest
‘Based on polling in 2019, a majority of Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose it.’ Changing Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage | Pew Research CenterFreddy:
In America this was done by activist judges. When put to referendum it lost.
That 61% is the same percentage as Catholics who support it. And more younger people support it than older people so those figures are only going to rise.
Before getting back to the discussion, I want to apologize if my comment was offensive to gays or anyone else.signit:
Really? I know quite a few gay and non gay people who are extremely offended by people saying marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman. They are also very offended and angered by gay sexual relations being called sinful.
Do you have a source/stat for your claim that most gays are accepting of the Catholic belief?
I based my comment that most gays respect the Catholic belief (not accept it for themselves, but respect others holding it) on comments by gays/gay marriage supporters during the gay marriage debate a few years ago in the U.S. before the Supreme Court settled the issue.
I remember one person in particular, in response to a gay marriage opponent saying something like "God says . . . " or "the Bible says . . . " The person said something like ". . . and we respect your holding that belief . . . ".
I don’t claim to speak for gays; I was just expressing an opinion based on my observations.
Edit: Posted before seeing post #154.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
It certainly can redefine marriage. The Supreme Court did in 1967 to allow mixed races to marry. Maybe you only think it’s a problem if you don’t agree with it.
P
phil19034
Guest
SSM does not affect an individual couple’s marriage. Like no-fault divorce, it negatively impacts people’s understanding of what marriage truly is.
SSM & no-fault divorce wrongly imply that the happiness of the individuals in marriage is the most important thing. It isn’t.
The most important thing is the wellness of the children. Marriage is not primarily about the two spouses. It’s about the creation and rearing of children.
That’s why the church doesn’t allow two people to get marriage who refuse to be open to life. That’s why they would not marry a man who was castrated. That’s why SSM is not possible. Because none of those marriages have a possibility of creating life.
NOTE: now there are are a few exception of where the husband & wife are open to children but can’t. They can still get married because while they might not be able to naturally have children, because of their openness, God could supernaturally provide them a child because of their love. So those couples are not excluded from marriage.
But the couple who refuses to ever have children – cannot get married
The couple who physically cannot embrace in the marriage act – cannot get married
Close relatives – cannot get married
Same sex - cannot get married
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Polling means little. It is the vote that counts.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Ok, but we’re talking from two different perspectives. From my perspective those races already could marry, according to marriage’s essential nature. I guess maybe it’s the difference between legal marriage and actual marriage, which are two different things. I say it cannot redefine marriage, and your example is simply an example of a government acting outside it’s bounds.
B
buffalo
Guest
Race and color are innate. Homosexual acts are not unless your claim is these acts are beyond self control and animal instinctive.
B
buffalo
Guest
And why the state has a vested interest to regulate it. The state is interested in its own continuance. So called same sex marriage cannot support this.
The state also set forth the rights of children and the responsibilities parents have to them in marriage laws.
- Status