Should the state marry gay lovers?

[magdelaine]

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Matthew 7:15

Ashley refuses to accept that when you call an apple “orange”, it neither changes the nature of the apple nor improves the definition of “orange”. In fact, he denies the existence of apples and oranges at all, because of his experience as a blackberry who looks like a strawberry but is, in fact, a blackberry. So blackberries, strawberries, apples, and oranges have no reality other than that which we ascribe to them.

Call it the death of observation, the death of reason, and the death of the soul.

 

[AngelAshley]

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

No. Church and The State should be seperate. People should have a choice.

The Church is reacting to accusations of hate speech in this context; she didn’t bring them up.

She did, by lobbying against homosexual marriage. If the Church was accepting of homosexuals into the legal definition of marriage, homosexuals would have less of a reason to feel as though they are being discriminated against.

Ah, but marriage is a religious as well as a social concept.

It shouldn’t be. People who choose not to live under religion should still be allowed to get married under the purely legal sense. The religious and legal definitions of marriage need to be seperate.

“Equality” can be achieved through other legal means; “civil partnerships” and the like.

That’s not equality. That’s like white people saying to black people, “You can drink from water fountains, just not the same fountains we do.” and expecting them not to feel discriminated against because they are still allowed to drink.

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?

From society. It’s in my original text.

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

By not allowing them to get married, you are shutting them out from the social institution that is marriage. Marriage should not be like an exclusive club that you can only join if you’re not gay. That sort of thing belongs in the playground (I say that, of course it would be utterly wrong in the playground, too!)

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.

Go on then. I’d actually really be interested to hear what reasons you have for saying that. Specifically, which articles have I misrepresented? Which authors have I quoted that are discredited? Which statistics have I quoted out of context, and what is the context you believe they should be in?

 

[AngelAshley]

Ashley refuses to accept that when you call an apple “orange”, it neither changes the nature of the apple nor improves the definition of “orange”.

Since when have I called apples oranges? Marriage is something that is defined by us. It is not a physical object that cannot be changed. Marriage CAN be changed.

In fact, he denies the existence of apples and oranges at all, because of his experience as a blackberry who looks like a strawberry but is, in fact, a blackberry.

Since when have I denied the existance of apples and oranges?
Also, it’s polite to refer to somebody of the female gender using feminine pronouns, “she, her” etc. This is basic English, did they not teach you this in School? No wonder you’re confused about apples, oranges and strawberries!

 

[Newbie2]

She did, by lobbying against homosexual marriage. If the Church was accepting of homosexuals into the legal definition of marriage, homosexuals would have less of a reason to feel as though they are being discriminated against.

But you just said there should be separation of Church and State…the Church should be free from societal constraints. Your argument seems to be for a one-way street, that the Church should have nothing to say about society, but that she should accept what the state has to say about societal matters.

It shouldn’t be. People who choose not to live under religion should still be allowed to get married under the purely legal sense. The religious and legal definitions of marriage need to be seperate.

Well, it is. Like it or not, religion and marriage are intertwined. If you think that the definitions need to be separate, then you should be lobying for some sort of civil union.

That’s not equality. That’s like white people saying to black people, “You can drink from water fountains, just not the same fountains we do.” and expecting them not to feel discriminated against because they are still allowed to drink.

Baloney. That’s a ridiculous analogy. Marriage has religious roots. You cannot change that fact with wishful thinking.

From society. It’s in my original text.

By not allowing them to get married, you are shutting them out from the social institution that is marriage. Marriage should not be like an exclusive club that you can only join if you’re not gay. That sort of thing belongs in the playground (I say that, of course it would be utterly wrong in the playground, too!)

Sorry. Some things are exclusive. Societal marriage is for man and woman. If you don’t like it, make your own club. There are good reasons why traditional marriage and family works…it has for thousands of years.

Go on then. I’d actually really be interested to hear what reasons you have for saying that. Specifically, which articles have I misrepresented? Which authors have I quoted that are discredited? Which statistics have I quoted out of context, and what is the context you believe they should be in?

Life experience is my reason.

People on both sides of an issue use statistics and make claims to support their position. You clearly have an agenda, friend, and I’m convinced that you like many others will ignore evidence that contradicts your position and play up “evidence” that supports it. And that’s OK, as long as you don’t expect me or anyone else to buy what you’re selling.

Anyway, I’ll bow out of this discussion, as we could go 'round and 'round.

I believe what I believe, and you likewise. I pray that you’ll come to know the truth, friend.

 

[AngelAshley]

But you just said there should be separation of Church and State…the Church should be free from societal constraints. Your argument seems to be for a one-way street, that the Church should have nothing to say about society, but that she should accept what the state has to say about societal matters.

I don’t see how that goes against what I said?
What I’m saying is that the Church should not impose it’s religious views on Society by lobbying against homosexual marriage for religious reasons. The Church can keep it’s religious version of marriage, it can retain the right to not allow homosexuals to get married on Church property. These are matters that should not affect the Church - i.e. if two homosexuals decide to get married under the purely legal definition of marriage, get married away from Church property, and do not seek any sort of recognition or acceptance from the Church, then I don’t see why this is any of the Church’s business.

Well, it is. Like it or not, religion and marriage are intertwined. If you think that the definitions need to be separate, then you should be lobying for some sort of civil union.

Civil union is fine. As long as the term “marriage” is not used under law to segregate hetrosexual couples from homosexual couples, then there isn’t really a problem. i.e. if the law decides to drop the term marriage for everybody, then the Church can have the term “marriage” for people who get married in the religious sense. The terms are not impotant. It’s weather or not the law segregates homosexuals that is important.

Baloney. That’s a ridiculous analogy. Marriage has religious roots. You cannot change that fact with wishful thinking.

I’m not trying to change the fact. I’m trying to say that segregating groups of people based on arbitary attribues such as race and sexuality is wrong.

Societal marriage is for man and woman. If you don’t like it, make your own club. There are good reasons why traditional marriage and family works…it has for thousands of years.

At the moment it is, but why can’t we change that? We know more about ourselves now than we did before. Why should we make our own “club”? The Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. Why should we be segregated?
Just because it has been like that for thousands of years, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. Many things have changed over time, for the better.

Life experience is my reason.

People on both sides of an issue use statistics and make claims to support their position. You clearly have an agenda, friend, and I’m convinced that you like many others will ignore evidence that contradicts your position and play up “evidence” that supports it. And that’s OK, as long as you don’t expect me or anyone else to buy what you’re selling.

Your “reason” for what?
I am not ignoring “evidence”, I am contesting the fact that there is “evidence” and contesting the validity of it. Take this statement for example: “Homosexual behaviour kills homosexuals”. That’s just laughable, really.

I believe what I believe, and you likewise. I pray that you’ll come to know the truth, friend.

You believe what you believe, and I’ll know what I know. You go and pray, and that’s great cos since prayre has no effect you can do no harm that way. Just don’t vote

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I don’t see how that goes against what I said?
What I’m saying is that the Church should not impose it’s religious views on Society by lobbying against homosexual marriage for religious reasons. The Church can keep it’s religious version of marriage, it can retain the right to not allow homosexuals to get married on Church property. These are matters that should not affect the Church - i.e. if two homosexuals decide to get married under the purely legal definition of marriage, get married away from Church property, and do not seek any sort of recognition or acceptance from the Church, then I don’t see why this is any of the Church’s business.

Civil union is fine. As long as the term “marriage” is not used under law to segregate hetrosexual couples from homosexual couples, then there isn’t really a problem. i.e. if the law decides to drop the term marriage for everybody, then the Church can have the term “marriage” for people who get married in the religious sense. The terms are not impotant. It’s weather or not the law segregates homosexuals that is important.

I’m not trying to change the fact. I’m trying to say that segregating groups of people based on arbitary attribues such as race and sexuality is wrong.

At the moment it is, but why can’t we change that? We know more about ourselves now than we did before. Why should we make our own “club”? The Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. Why should we be segregated?
Just because it has been like that for thousands of years, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. Many things have changed over time, for the better.

Your “reason” for what?
I am not ignoring “evidence”, I am contesting the fact that there is “evidence” and contesting the validity of it. Take this statement for example: “Homosexual behaviour kills homosexuals”. That’s just laughable, really.

You believe what you believe, and I’ll know what I know. You go and pray, and that’s great cos since prayre has no effect you can do no harm that way. Just don’t vote

Well, I certainly intend to vote:thumbsup:
In the long-term , those who have large families-which tend to be those of orthodox faiths which do not condone homosexual behavior- will have the final say in voting & national policy.Numbers win out in democracies.

 

[AngelAshley]

Well, I certainly intend to vote
In the long-term , those who have large families-which tend to be those of orthodox faiths which do not condone homosexual behavior- will have the final say in voting & national policy.Numbers win out in democracies.

That’s the problem with democracy, ignorant people can and do vote
I don’t think it should be a democratic matter. Those who are unnafected by the change should not be able to affect that change.
Besides, I disagree - I think more and more people are beginning to realise the truth about homosexuality - more and more homosexuals are coming “out”, and therefore more and more people are seeing that we are the same as everybody else, and why shouldn’t we have the same rights?
It may take time, but I think gay marriage will be legalized in time, just as homosexuality itself became decriminalized as we became more and more understanding of ourselves.
I just intend to do whatever I can to speed up that process

 

[Elizabeth502]

That’s the problem with democracy, ignorant people can and do vote
I don’t think it should be a democratic matter. Those who are unnafected by the change should not be able to affect that change.

Unbelievable. You read it here first.

(Let’s hear it for disenfranchisement – out of the mouth of someone who wants “equal rights.”)

 

[Cracker_Mom]

That’s the problem with democracy, ignorant people can and do vote
I don’t think it should be a democratic matter. Those who are unnafected by the change should not be able to affect that change.
Besides, I disagree - I think more and more people are beginning to realise the truth about homosexuality - more and more homosexuals are coming “out”, and therefore more and more people are seeing that we are the same as everybody else, and why shouldn’t we have the same rights?
It may take time, but I think gay marriage will be legalized in time, just as homosexuality itself became decriminalized as we became more and more understanding of ourselves.
I just intend to do whatever I can to speed up that process

And we’re just doing everything we can to slow it down.

 

[AngelAshley]

Instead of digging your heels in and resisting the inevitable, did it ever cross your mind to actually help the situation?

You are not going to convert all homosexuals into hetrosexuals.
Neither are you going to convert all nonreligious people into Catholics.

So instead of trying to delay the inevitable down to your own beliefs, why not spare a thought for your fellow human, for society, and think, “What can I do to help?”

By supporting gay marriage, you can help society by letting everybody know that you are fully supportive of the rights of your fellow human. You will be doing both yourself and the Church a favour, portraying both in a good light - one that says, “Wait, these people actually care.” You can do all this without going against Church teachings, if you open your mind a little and think logically about the situation for the moment.

People outside of the Catholic Church view it in a variety of different ways. Wouldn’t it be better for them to view it as an organisation that is helpful and inclusive to Society, instead of one that digs in its heals and resists change?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Instead of digging your heels in and resisting the inevitable, did it ever cross your mind to actually help the situation?

You are not going to convert all homosexuals into hetrosexuals.
Neither are you going to convert all nonreligious people into Catholics.

So instead of trying to delay the inevitable down to your own beliefs, why not spare a thought for your fellow human, for society, and think, “What can I do to help?”

By supporting gay marriage, you can help society by letting everybody know that you are fully supportive of the rights of your fellow human. You will be doing both yourself and the Church a favour, portraying both in a good light - one that says, “Wait, these people actually care.” You can do all this without going against Church teachings, if you open your mind a little and think logically about the situation for the moment.

People outside of the Catholic Church view it in a variety of different ways. Wouldn’t it be better for them to view it as an organisation that is helpful and inclusive to Society, instead of one that digs in its heals and resists change?

The short answer, “No.” And it isn’t just Catholics who are in opposition.
Another point is that Catholics do care but caring about the individual while still recognizing the disorder in his/her lifestyle.

 

[Annn]

Instead of digging your heels in and resisting the inevitable, did it ever cross your mind to actually help the situation?

You are not going to convert all homosexuals into hetrosexuals.
Neither are you going to convert all nonreligious people into Catholics.

So instead of trying to delay the inevitable down to your own beliefs, why not spare a thought for your fellow human, for society, and think, “What can I do to help?”

By supporting gay marriage, you can help society by letting everybody know that you are fully supportive of the rights of your fellow human. You will be doing both yourself and the Church a favour, portraying both in a good light - one that says, “Wait, these people actually care.” You can do all this without going against Church teachings, if you open your mind a little and think logically about the situation for the moment.

People outside of the Catholic Church view it in a variety of different ways. Wouldn’t it be better for them to view it as an organisation that is helpful and inclusive to Society, instead of one that digs in its heals and resists change?

I guess I don’t really understand why you keep supporting the same pro-gay-marriage opinion that others on the thread and forum do not agree with. The vast majority of those here are Catholics, and Catholics are required to follow the Church’s teaching on gay marriage, and to stand against it. You are unlikely to change anyone’s mind, and it’s beginning to border on silly and disrespectful to keep trying.

As an out queer person, all I would like is a civil union. I have no desire to tread on others’ religious beliefs nor to push to partake in a ceremony most see as part of their religious history. I know that even my own parents would not support gay marriage, but I do think that they could be ok with my gaining the security that a recognized union could bring my family.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Instead of digging your heels in and resisting the inevitable, did it ever cross your mind to actually help the situation?

Here’s your short answer: Now that your goals have become transparent, which are (1) to disenfranchise the part of the population that disagrees with you, and (2) to hasten the dominance of gay beliefs over mainstream beliefs, at any cost, I will participate in helping such a nefarious cause when Hell freezes over.

 

[Roy5]

A TOUGH ISSUE

 My guess is that millions are like I am, We have gradually come around to accept that certain people have same-sex attraction because of genes, possibly conpounded by childhood influences. If God made them gay or lesbian, how can Christians heap abuse on them? 

  So, I finally began to feel that civil unions were okay. My problem is calling it marriage. That is a term that always has meant male-female and should remain that way. Check any dictionary published five or more years ago. 

   Give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as married couples, but don't call it marriage. Besides, that gets very confusing. Not long ago a young woman told me she was married. Come to find out, she had 'married' another woman in Massachusetts. I had assumed otherwise and initially responded accordingly.

   I am troubled that so many gays and lesbians are determined to change the definition of marriage. Provide them equal rights but don't change the meaning of the word.

 

[AngelAshley]

You are unlikely to change anyone’s mind, and it’s beginning to border on silly and disrespectful to keep trying.

I know that. You seem to be missing my point though - I’m not here to change anyones mind (although it would be great if I could), I’m here to get my voice heard. I think I’ve achieved that. The stats on my page are skyrocketing

 

[Annn]

I know that. You seem to be missing my point though - I’m not here to change anyones mind (although it would be great if I could), I’m here to get my voice heard. I think I’ve achieved that. The stats on my page are skyrocketing

People understand your opinion. For me, this is all about compromise…allowing people to live in the way they want without trampling on other people.

 

[AngelAshley]

I want more or less the same thing. Compramise is good, but equal rights are important.
I don’t want to trample over Christianity any more than the next person. I fully support them being able to keep religious marriage seperate, and if they want to exclude homosexuals from it, then to me that’s fine. Sad, but fine.

On a lighter note… here’s 10 humourous reasons why gay people should not marry

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

 

[AngelAshley]

couragecampaign.org/page/s/ThankYouForMilk

Round of applause for that man.

 

[Newbie2]

Just noticed that you live in the UK. Mind the business in your own country. Move here and you can vote, with the rest of us “ignorant” Christians.

 

[magdelaine]

couragecampaign.org/page/s/ThankYouForMilk

Round of applause for that man.

courage.*real *