Should the state marry gay lovers?

[maggiemay2u]

No, I speak “as someone” (in fact I am someone) who has read the actual news, not spin, not misinterpretation, not opinion, but factual news. I am speaking as someone who is in fact a reader of news about actual events. The fact that I also have gay friends and associates (close ones) does not alter the facts as reported in the news in FIVE states, in which the enactment of gay “marriage” rights has been merely the avenue for full-throttled, wholehearted opposition to Christian institutions as institutions, period. Violations of both First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitutions, not pretend rights, not new rights, not wished-for rights, but the established rights of religions and religious believers to act according to their consciences without compromise to enacted rights of others. (There was no compromise in any of those cases; yet lawsuits were filed for the hell of it.)

Oh, whoops, I forgot: You “don’t know much about the First Amendment” (in your own words). Apparently you also don’t know much about the news.

Do not confuse those on a mission with facts!

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I don’t believe that a 13 year onld is capable of understanding a marriage contract to it’s full extent. We already have age limits on marriage for this reason, these don’t need to change to include homosexuals.

Who gets to decide who we change the rules for? Maybe half of America will believe that 13 year old people are capable of understanding…thereby, according to you, they should be able to marry. And I have seen horses that paw the ground twice for yes and three times for no. I have seen dogs bark the same. So how can you say that animals cannot put their paw print on the dotted line. Why should you be able to oppress children, animals and the adults that want to marry them? What gives you the right to make the rules and decisions? Doesn’t that make you a religious bigot like the rest of us?

We’re not forcing our morals on anybody. We just want to be treated equally. Is that too much to ask for? The only disharmony it will create is in those areas where discrimination exists, and in these cases, the discrimination needs to stop.

The discrimination needs to stop. Redefining marriage will do nothing to make those who are against homosexuals all of a sudden stop descriminating against them. If the laws on the books aren’t enforced, why add more laws…and redifine a human institution…rather than enforce the laws already there? The homosexuals who want to redifine marriage are indeed trying to force your morals onto us…by taking away our right to protest.

Here you go then. The type of marriage we are looking for inclusion into is not religious marriage - it is purely legal marriage. We (most of us) do not look to be included in religious marriage. We do not care if religious institutions continue to not recognise our marriages, as long as those insitutions are not providing a public service that should be available to all. All we are seeking is quality under the law, not the Church. There is simply no good reason that there will be any hostility towards the Church aside from areas where the church is discriminating against homosexuals in public.

There you go pretending that this will be the way it is. It will be a very short amount of time before there will be lawsuit’s against religious institutions for unequal treatment. For if heterosexuals can get married in the Church building, then so must homosexuals. If heterosexuals can get married by a priest or minister, then so must homosexuals.

I don’t know much about the First Ammendment, but isn’t Freedom of Speech subject to limitations on hate speech? If I truly believed that black people were the root of all evil, would it be OK for me to go around in public saying derogatory things about black people under the first ammendment, or would this be hate speech?

This would be hate speech. What isn’t considered hate speech…and it is discrimination…is hate speech against Christians. People can speak anywhere, anytime about doing all manner of horrible things to Christians and the law does absolutely nothing. But if Christians say that homosexual sex is sin, the law is on its way to making it illegal.
You think homosexual’s hold the patten on persecution or descrimination. Christians have been persecuted since we were Jews.

 

[nsper7]

This question came up in a different thread on the “Social Justice” Forum. I think it worth its own thread if nobody minds…

---

“The point is legal marriage, here…upon which religious points of view don’t have bearing. No one’s pushing for the catholic church to hold gay marriages…so where are the reasons that gays shouldn’t be able to marry in the eyes of the state? Anyone?”***

And this was my answer:
*
I’ll grant to lleave the Church out of it for the sake of argument (though you really cannot for I would argue that one can only fully separate the Church from the State by holding to no belief in God and His creation.) Thus we acknowledge the State as having her own authority to establish and regulate juridical entities, such as marriage, which she ought to and does.

So homosexual marriage would then be held to be a ‘juridical’ or legal entity with its own rights, norms and privileges in society. That is fine to a certain point for we do need to distinguish carefully between such possible legal entities. Let me start with just a few (the list could be endless and all signs seem to show that it will be) such as marriage between a single man and a single woman as verses marriage between a man and several women or between two women, or between a woman and a dog (don’t laugh) or between a man and a boy, etc… Thus we seem to have a possible chaos only revealing the failure of the state to adequately protect and insure the temporal life and happiness of her constituents (and I mean here particularly children who are either the natural product of such unions or the ‘artificial’ product of gay marriage.)
*

Fr. Mike

In my state (Florida), there is a very valid legal reason not to allow gays to “marry”: Amendment 2, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, was passed by popular referendum.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

So if you have no problem dishing it out, do you have a problem recieving it? What if people started personally attacking you, to your face, to your friends, family and co-workers? What if I started a hate-campaign against you, writing derogatory things about you in newspapers, on the internet and everywhere else I could possibly find an outlet? What if your friends and family started believing it and distanced you from them? What if you lost your job because your boss started getting sick of hearing about you? What if your partner left you because of it?

Would you sit back and take it, and still defend my right to hate speech?

Welcome to the world of Catholicism and Christianity and Judaism in 2009. Do you read even a smidgion of all of the smut out there against people of morals? 'Taint hard to find at all…no it ain’t.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Maybe, but if people are being hostile towards the church, it is not the fault of the gay marriage activists and it is clear there are more issues at work here.

Are you serious, or just making a joke? There were riots against Christians by homosexuals after the election in California where the people said that homosexuals could not marry. People were being physically attacked by mobs of homosexuals. People were being targeted by the homosexuals for violent intimidation simply because they advertised for Proposition 8.

If the Catholic Church is having a problem with Free Speech for example, thats a seperate issue that they need to deal with spereately.

***The Catholic Church has no problem with Free Speech. It is the left wing liberal democrats who want to say that we are committing hate speech when we say that homosexual actions are sin. ***

At the very basic level, adjusting the law to include same-sex couples into marriage does not directly make the Catholic Church guilty of hate speech violations - it is the other laws that define that on a more direct level. They may be linked to marriage law, but the inclusion of same sex couples isn’t the direct law that makes the Church guilty of anything. Therefore, it is these other laws which need overhauling as well if there is unjust hostility to the catholic church. Stopping gays from getting married does not address the root cause of these problems - it is simply an easy way for the Catholic church to not have to deal with the other problems it has with the law.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Jesus_N_Cherie:
As has been said, there’s nothing in the world less tolerant than a liberal whose view has not been accepted.

 

[brazenarticle]

Another topic should be, should Catholic Priests be allowed to marry? Then what? as many of the priests are homosexual tendancy. That’s a fact as we all know, some is hidden, some became public, some acted on male children. Of course at an average age in their mid 50’s, as I’ve heard, the priesthood is dying out big time. I think they should be allowed to marry, but assumng we keep them as male, not to each other or another male. Any thoughts on this matter? Someone can begin a new topic on it and let us know.

 

[AngelAshley]

Yes, a lot of those who are pro gay marriage and deem it a constitutional right and universal right need to read the US Constitution if they are US Citizens.

I’m not a US Citizen. Regardless of the constitution, fist ammendment, yadda yadda, we all have the right to be treated equally.

Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you.

Unfortunately they do. I lost a job once due to something that was found out about me on the internet. Nothing bad, nothing sladerous (in fact I wrote it), but something my boss didn’t agree with so I was out of the door. Thankfully that happened years before this resession and I got another job pretty quick. But if it was to happen now? Then yes, it would hurt.

Who gets to decide who we change the rules for? Maybe half of America will believe that 13 year old people are capable of understanding…thereby, according to you, they should be able to marry. And I have seen horses that paw the ground twice for yes and three times for no. I have seen dogs bark the same. So how can you say that animals cannot put their paw print on the dotted line. Why should you be able to oppress children, animals and the adults that want to marry them? What gives you the right to make the rules and decisions? Doesn’t that make you a religious bigot like the rest of us?

Because I am not opressing children and animals. I’m not making the rules. I’m not making a case for animals or children to be able to or not to be able to marry. I have my oppinions on the matter, but I have no agenda to change the law. If you believe that dogs and children should be able to marry for the reasons you stated, then by all means go for it.

The discrimination needs to stop. Redefining marriage will do nothing to make those who are against homosexuals all of a sudden stop descriminating against them.

No, but it may have an effect on those who are undecided, and probably will have an effect on future generations.

The homosexuals who want to redifine marriage are indeed trying to force your morals onto us…by taking away our right to protest.

We’re not taking away your right to protest. You can protest all you want, we don’t have to listen to you - our rights are our rights, and we will fight for them regardless if you are protesting or not.

It will be a very short amount of time before there will be lawsuit’s against religious institutions for unequal treatment.

And if they are unlawfully treating people unequally, then so be it. If not, then those distinct laws need to be looked at. Stopping homosexuals from getting married is the easy way out, it does not address the root causes.

You think homosexual’s hold the patten on persecution or descrimination. Christians have been persecuted since we were Jews.

Oh I couldn’t begin to think why…

 

[brazenarticle]

I notice you are a UK citizen. You have to deal with your own country and rules as to employment hired or fired. The US is very strict not to discriminate, ethnicity, weight, height is not on the application to check nor should it matter as to elimination. Most times gender, age is not an issue let alone sexual or religious preference. If in the USA there was a let go for reasons of sexual preference, you’d be a very wealthy person if you could prove such.

 

[Newbie2]

Maybe, but if people are being hostile towards the church, it is not the fault of the gay marriage activists and it is clear there are more issues at work here.
If the Catholic Church is having a problem with Free Speech for example, thats a seperate issue that they need to deal with spereately. At the very basic level, adjusting the law to include same-sex couples into marriage does not directly make the Catholic Church guilty of hate speech violations - it is the other laws that define that on a more direct level. They may be linked to marriage law, but the inclusion of same sex couples isn’t the direct law that makes the Church guilty of anything. Therefore, it is these other laws which need overhauling as well if there is unjust hostility to the catholic church. Stopping gays from getting married does not address the root cause of these problems - it is simply an easy way for the Catholic church to not have to deal with the other problems it has with the law.

Where do you see the RCC as having problems with (I assume you mean opposing?? correct me if I misunderstand)?

You seem unaware that there are indeed gay activists that are seeking to prevent the Church from preaching against homsexual behavior. That’s not to say they’re the only ones trying to muzzle the RCC, but to say that “it is not the fault of the gay marriage activists” is naive.

I do agree that this is a complex issue, but it’s pretty clear when (at least some) homosexual advocates claim that the RCC teaching is “hate speech”, they’re trying to suppress the public teaching of Catholic doctrine. It’s an end-around our laws on freedom of religion.

 

[AngelAshley]

I do agree that this is a complex issue, but it’s pretty clear when (at least some) homosexual advocates claim that the RCC teaching is “hate speech”, they’re trying to suppress the public teaching of Catholic doctrine. It’s an end-around our laws on freedom of religion.

I won’t argue that some activists are doing that, but the point is it’s not all activists. Besides, after all that homosexuals have been through over the last few decades and beyoynd, mostly down to the teachings of various religions, it’s not surprising that some are going to lash out in that way.
Besides, preventing homosexuals from getting married won’t solve the underlying hate-speech issues. That is simply an easy-answer for the Catholic church - rather than try to solve it’s problems, there is more of a ‘let’s just shut out homosexuals and forget about it’ attitude. Not really a very good solution, as society is finding out.

 

[goofyjim]

I won’t argue that some activists are doing that, but the point is it’s not all activists. Besides, after all that homosexuals have been through over the last few decades and beyoynd, mostly down to the teachings of various religions, it’s not surprising that some are going to lash out in that way.
Besides, preventing homosexuals from getting married won’t solve the underlying hate-speech issues. That is simply an easy-answer for the Catholic church - rather than try to solve it’s problems, there is more of a ‘let’s just shut out homosexuals and forget about it’ attitude. Not really a very good solution, as society is finding out.

Do you feel calling something a sin is hate speech?

 

[goofyjim]

I’m not a US Citizen. Regardless of the constitution, fist ammendment, yadda yadda, we all have the right to be treated equally.

Unfortunately they do. I lost a job once due to something that was found out about me on the internet. Nothing bad, nothing sladerous (in fact I wrote it), but something my boss didn’t agree with so I was out of the door. Thankfully that happened years before this resession and I got another job pretty quick. But if it was to happen now? Then yes, it would hurt.

Because I am not opressing children and animals. I’m not making the rules. I’m not making a case for animals or children to be able to or not to be able to marry. I have my oppinions on the matter, but I have no agenda to change the law. If you believe that dogs and children should be able to marry for the reasons you stated, then by all means go for it.

No, but it may have an effect on those who are undecided, and probably will have an effect on future generations.

We’re not taking away your right to protest. You can protest all you want, we don’t have to listen to you - our rights are our rights, and we will fight for them regardless if you are protesting or not.

And if they are unlawfully treating people unequally, then so be it. If not, then those distinct laws need to be looked at. Stopping homosexuals from getting married is the easy way out, it does not address the root causes.

Oh I couldn’t begin to think why…

I really don’t care anymore how far you get the state to recognize the marriages. The Church will never have to. You will not have wedding ceremonies in the Catholic Church. The Church will always be free to say it is a sin. State recognition does not take away the fact.

 

[Newbie2]

I won’t argue that some activists are doing that, but the point is it’s not all activists.

Yes, so we agree.

Besides, after all that homosexuals have been through over the last few decades and beyoynd, mostly down to the teachings of various religions, it’s not surprising that some are going to lash out in that way.

Agreed as well, but it’s not an excuse to try to suppress freedom of religion. I’m sure you agree?

Besides, preventing homosexuals from getting married won’t solve the underlying hate-speech issues. That is simply an easy-answer for the Catholic church - rather than try to solve it’s problems, there is more of a ‘let’s just shut out homosexuals and forget about it’ attitude. Not really a very good solution, as society is finding out.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. The RCC isn’t trying to prevent homosexual marriage as a way to solve hate speech.

Which Church “problems” are you speaking of?

Are you suggesting that the Church should conform herself to please society?

Are you suggesting that homosexual marriage is good for society?

How exactly do you see the Church as shutting out homosexuals? By preventing them from marrying in the Church?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Do you take any medication other than purely herbal remedies? Because, naturally speaking, medicine is not “normal”. How do you define normal anyay?

Well since a dog can’t sign a marriage contract, logic states that it cannot enter a marriage. There is no logic that says hmosexuals lack fundemental prerquisites like this (in a purely legal sense, as per the title of this discussion)

I don’t understand where you’re going with the child/dog sex thing. I agree, just because someone can do something doesn’t mean they should, but if someone can do something, wants to do it, and no harm is done by doing it, then why should they NOT do it?

What’s this link re. Catholic Answers “misleading” us?

 

[AngelAshley]

Do you feel calling something a sin is hate speech?

In my oppinion, no. But if someone is very religious, takes “sins” seriously, and happens to be homosexual then I can see how they might think that.

I really don’t care anymore how far you get the state to recognize the marriages. The Church will never have to. You will not have wedding ceremonies in the Catholic Church. The Church will always be free to say it is a sin. State recognition does not take away the fact.

That’s ideal as far as I’m concerned. Myself and my partner specifically don’t want to get married in a church, and aren’t too worried if you call it a “sin” since we know that there is no such thing as God/Hell.

Agreed as well, but it’s not an excuse to try to suppress freedom of religion. I’m sure you agree?

Yes, I agree (but don’t take me saying that as that I deplore the actions of these people since I don’t know the individual cases to their full extent)

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. The RCC isn’t trying to prevent homosexual marriage as a way to solve hate speech

Maybe not the only reason, but it seems to bring up issues such as hate-speech in the whole gay marriage argument - when it really doesn’t belong here.

Which Church “problems” are you speaking of?

The problems of people lashing out at the church, both homosexual groups and others.

Are you suggesting that homosexual marriage is good for society?

Yes. Homosexual marriage promotes equality, teaches that homosexuals are the same as everybody else and should be treated as such.

How exactly do you see the Church as shutting out homosexuals? By preventing them from marrying in the Church?

That’s one way in which the Church is shutting out homosexuals from itself I guess, but that really doesn’t matter to me (and I’m sure many other athiest homosexuals). I have no desire to marry in a church.
It is shutting homosexuals out from society by lobbying against letting homosexuals get married in a purely legal perspective.

What’s this link re. Catholic Answers “misleading” us?

Have a look:
geocities.com/gaymarriage@ymail.com
In their “special report on gay marriage”, they quote statistics way out of context, misrepresent scientific articles and quote discretited authors - all in an attempt to try to mislead the public into believing there are valid non-religious reasons that homosexuals should not get married.

 

[goofyjim]

In my oppinion, no. But if someone is very religious, takes “sins” seriously, and happens to be homosexual then I can see how they might think that.

That’s ideal as far as I’m concerned. Myself and my partner specifically don’t want to get married in a church, and aren’t too worried if you call it a “sin” since we know that there is no such thing as God/Hell.

Yes, I agree (but don’t take me saying that as that I deplore the actions of these people since I don’t know the individual cases to their full extent)

Maybe not the only reason, but it seems to bring up issues such as hate-speech in the whole gay marriage argument - when it really doesn’t belong here.

The problems of people lashing out at the church, both homosexual groups and others.

Yes. Homosexual marriage promotes equality, teaches that homosexuals are the same as everybody else and should be treated as such.

That’s one way in which the Church is shutting out homosexuals from itself I guess, but that really doesn’t matter to me (and I’m sure many other athiest homosexuals). I have no desire to marry in a church.
It is shutting homosexuals out from society by lobbying against letting homosexuals get married in a purely legal perspective.

Have a look:
geocities.com/gaymarriage@ymail.com
In their “special report on gay marriage”, they quote statistics way out of context, misrepresent scientific articles and quote discretited authors - all in an attempt to try to mislead the public into believing there are valid non-religious reasons that homosexuals should not get married.

I choose to live life by Pascal’s Wager. Believe in God anyway. If there is one you win. If there isn’t you lose nothing. Yet if there is and you choose not to believe then you have lost. Obviously the safest gamble is to believe and follow His teachings.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

This site is"Catholic Answers" for goodness sakes.
Why do folks post things here that have no connection to Catholic teachings?

 

[Newbie2]

That’s ideal as far as I’m concerned. Myself and my partner specifically don’t want to get married in a church, and aren’t too worried if you call it a “sin” since we know that there is no such thing as God/Hell.

I suppose, then, that you support the Church’s right to lobby society, as it were, to conform to her religious teachings on homosexuality?

Maybe not the only reason, but it seems to bring up issues such as hate-speech in the whole gay marriage argument - when it really doesn’t belong here.

If homosexual activists and others didn’t try to suppress Church teachings behind the gay marriage argument, it wouldn’t be brought up in that context. The Church is reacting to accusations of hate speech in this context; she didn’t bring them up.

The problems of people lashing out at the church, both homosexual groups and others.



Yes. Homosexual marriage promotes equality, teaches that homosexuals are the same as everybody else and should be treated as such.

Ah, but marriage is a religious as well as a social concept. “Equality” can be achieved through other legal means; “civil partnerships” and the like. The Church would still speak out against them, as such practices would foster what she considers behavior bad for society, not to mention sinful (which, granted, has no bearing on non-believers).

It is shutting homosexuals out from society by lobbying against letting homosexuals get married in a purely legal perspective.

This is very confused thinking. “Shutting out” from what? The Catholic Church has “rules of behavior” for membership. She should abolish certain things to make membership all-inclusive? Is that what you’re saying?

If so, you’ve got a mistaken perspective on the RCC. EVERYONE is welcome, sinners and saints. In fact, sinners MORE than saints.

Now if you’re saying that there are Catholics who shun homosexuals and that’s wrong to do so, I agree. We should shun the behavior, not the person.

Or what do you mean by “shutting out from society”?

Have a look:
geocities.com/gaymarriage@ymail.com
In their “special report on gay marriage”, they quote statistics way out of context, misrepresent scientific articles and quote discretited authors - all in an attempt to try to mislead the public into believing there are valid non-religious reasons that homosexuals should not get married.

This report is worthless. I could say the same thing about it, that it quotes statistics out of context, misrepresents scientific articles and quotes discredited authors- all in an attempt to try to mislead the public into believing that there are ***no ***non-religious reasons that homosexuals should not get married.

 

[AngelAshley]

I choose to live life by Pascal’s Wager. Believe in God anyway. If there is one you win. If there isn’t you lose nothing. Yet if there is and you choose not to believe then you have lost. Obviously the safest gamble is to believe and follow His teachings.

“People will then often say, ‘But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?’ This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.)”

• Douglas Adams

“If we expect God to subscribe to one religion at the exclusion of all the others, then we should expect damnation as a matter of chance. This should give Christians pause when expounding their religious beliefs, but it does not.”

• Sam Harris

“If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul.”

• Isaac Asimov

“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.”

• Bertrand Russell

“When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life.”

• Sigmund Freud

“I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’.”

• Mike Fuhrman

This site is"Catholic Answers" for goodness sakes.
Why do folks post things here that have no connection to Catholic teachings?

Because the original article CAME from “Catholic Answers!”