State should not deny SSX marriage? Huh

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ASimon said:
Re-placing the question again. On what basis do you assert that reproduction is the only basis of marriage, and why should I or my government care?

Do you honestly not realize how insulting you are when you say stuff like this?
Click to expand...
This is Catholic Answers. Catholics are taught and believe that based on Scripture and Tradition that homosexuality is disordered and therefore in discussing homosexuality, you don’t have to like it, you don’t have to accept it, you can refuse to post…the reality is that homosexuals have in my opinion and others that are Catholic perverted and aberrant sexual behavior. This behavior is not to be consistent with what I have been taught, what Catholics are taught, what Catholics believe to be sexual intercourse. This is in the context of the Sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.

If you find this insulting then I understand. If you do not understand that I do not see this as insulting then you don’t understand. I have no reason to change my stance. This is the stance. This is the belief. We disagree.
 
ASimon said:
Needless to say, there is no compelling evidence that a man-woman home life necessarily provides a better, more stable environment for raising children than a same-sex couple would. But it’s interesting that people who put forward this argument never follow through on that logic -** wouldn’t allowing gays the option to marry increase the stability of their partnerships, and their home lives? If stability really is the problem, why couldn’t marriage be part of the solution?**
But even if I accept your premise (and I don’t), what would benefit orphan children more - having a stable home life being cared for by two men or two women, or being a ward of the state until they turn 18? And wouldn’t it benefit the state to have a larger pool of potential adoptive parents? It would certainly seem to save the state and taxpayers money.

Finally, I’ll repeat the point from earlier - it’s not for the state to grant people rights based on whether it serves a state interest. Rights are presumed to exist, and the state may only deny them if they have a compelling state interest to do so. So even if there were no benefit to the state for allowing same-sex marriage, that argument would still fail, because it would not satisfy the burden of showing that granting that right would be to society’s detriment.
Click to expand...
Assimon,

You negate the fact that the OHCAC teaches, Catholics believe that based on Scripture and Tradition homosexual acts are disordered and to condone or enable the propagation of these unions would be tanatmount to accessory to the act and would imply the same sentiment as doing the act in the teaching of the OHCAC.

I believe that it is wrong to steal. I aid and condone a thief without stealing myself. I am as guilty as the thief. Get it.👍
 
CopticChristian said:
Assimon,

You negate the fact that the OHCAC teaches, Catholics believe that based on Scripture and Tradition homosexual acts are disordered and to condone or enable the propagation of these unions would be tanatmount to accessory to the act and would imply the same sentiment as doing the act in the teaching of the OHCAC.

I believe that it is wrong to steal. I aid and condone a thief without stealing myself. I am as guilty as the thief. Get it.👍
Click to expand...
I don’t negate the fact that this is what Catholicism teaches. My point is that this basis is insufficient for the purposes of imposing your beliefs on others (as our government forbids policy to be dictated by religion). As well as the fact that most of the claims Catholicism makes re: homosexuality are false.
 
ASimon said:
I don’t negate the fact that this is what Catholicism teaches. My point is that this basis is insufficient for the purposes of imposing your beliefs on others (as our government forbids policy to be dictated by religion). As well as the fact that most of the claims Catholicism makes re: homosexuality are false.
Click to expand...
Asimon,

Good. Now you should accept that on Catholic Answers when dialoguing with a Catholic that saying homosexuals cannot have intercourse is not insulting. OK:thumbsup:
 
CopticChristian said:
Asimon,

Good. Now you should accept that on Catholic Answers when dialoguing with a Catholic that saying homosexuals cannot have intercourse is not insulting. OK:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Why? Because it’s false? That’d be pretty silly, wouldn’t it? I shouldn’t find false claims made on the basis of a religion that’s very likely false as well to be insulting?
 
ASimon said:
Why? Because it’s false? That’d be pretty silly, wouldn’t it? I shouldn’t find false claims made on the basis of a religion that’s very likely false as well to be insulting?
Click to expand...
Asimon,

I find it insulting that on a Catholic Answer forum with a Bible believing Catholic you say that what I believe is fale. You also say what I believe is silly. You state that the claims of the OHCAC that I believe to be the Church of the living God is false and the religion is false. This is insulting the beliefs I profess. Now I am not in a bar, I am not in a restaurant, I am not on a street corner…I am on a Catholic Answer forum…where guests are welcome to discuss, agree, disagree…and offend…I find you offensive and insulting. Sometimes guests are that way. Welcome to Catholic Answers.🙂
 
Hi, ASimon,

Just saying you don’t like what the Catholic Chruch teaches falls flat against some very hard reality. Homosexual behavior is simply self-serving, pleasure seeking to the exclusion of physical realities. Sodomy destroys the body - now, you man not like that - but, that is one of those realities that can be easily documented by no less an authority then the CDC to which I have given you a link.

Complaining about the Catholic Church “…Imposting your beliefs…” is a soap bubble of an argument - easily seen through and just as easily broken. There are Commandments that forbid murder, theft, lying adultery, etc. - do you complain that these are arbitrary laws and that you would feel safer and more fulfilled if no such commandments existed?

I submit you have demonstrated how whining without any documented argument leads nowhere. Please, look beyond your feelings and present a logical argument in response to the logical arguments you have been evading so far.

God bless
ASimon said:
I don’t negate the fact that this is what Catholicism teaches. My point is that this basis is insufficient for the purposes of imposing your beliefs on others (as our government forbids policy to be dictated by religion). As well as the fact that most of the claims Catholicism makes re: homosexuality are false.
Click to expand...
 
The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
 
ASimon said:
You are the one who insists that your definition of marriage is eternal and unchanging. I ask again, on what basis do you assert this, and why should people be obliged to respect it?
Click to expand...
I think “definition” means what we understand by it. What is it that people have up to now generally called a marriage (regardless of culture or religion)? Actually, I haven’t insisted on it being eternal or unchanging; just look back at my posts. That is exactly the conversation we’re having: if we can change it and to what extent.
It’s like having a horse and shoeing it, or trimming the mane or cutting off the tail for example: it will still remain a horse. But there are certain things you can’t cut off without killing the poor beast (and that is my concern). But you seem to be saying that the beast doesn’t exist at all…
In which case you are fighting an absurd cause, unless your goal is to do away with marriage all together (and I have a feeling, that is the true intention of someone behind the so called “marriage equality” movement).
 
Hi, Nagszakall,

Without at least a workding definition we are just watching shadows on a wall.

I liked you analogy about the horse… 🙂

God bless
nagyszakall said:
I think “definition” means what we understand by it. What is it that people have up to now generally called a marriage (regardless of culture or religion)? Actually, I haven’t insisted on it being eternal or unchanging; just look back at my posts. That is exactly the conversation we’re having: if we can change it and to what extent.
It’s like having a horse and shoeing it, or trimming the mane or cutting off the tail for example: it will still remain a horse. But there are certain things you can’t cut off without killing the poor beast (and that is my concern). But you seem to be saying that the beast doesn’t exist at all…
In which case you are fighting an absurd cause, unless your goal is to do away with marriage all together (and I have a feeling, that is the true intention of someone behind the so called “marriage equality” movement).
Click to expand...
 
tqualey said:
I liked you analogy about the horse…
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I shouldn’t take credit for it. I heard it from a Carmelite priest friend / mentor of mine. True, he didn’t use it for marriage; that’s my part in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top