Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ThinkingSapien said:
I thought the comments of kids interviewed on the issue were interesting.

youtu.be/Jwwg1Yt18vE

There are non-gay cross dresserd. Let’s not forget the transgendered community (there exists heterosexual transgendered people).
Click to expand...
How about we don’t get started on the topic of whether it is actually possible to change one’s gender.
 
KSU said:
… The objective has never been civil unions; it’s the elimination of Christian and politically Conservative influence in America; i.e., the elimination of the loathed and feared Religious Right which is and has always been the foundation of America’s decency.

Our Founding Fathers (the original Religious Right) entered into a civil partnership with the Divine. That has been the sole reason for our decency, otherwise known as American Exceptionalism-- the proposition that our rights and true freedoms come from God, not the Supreme Court or the President or the Legislature.

The aforesaid force driving the homosexual lobby is the same force driving the baby-killing lobby and the pornography lobby. Offering sacrifice to that force with civil unions; abortion only after rape or incest; and “entertainment” filth only for adults places us on a path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

We Catholics know that God can’t be expected to continue to bless America after our governors have rejected the partnership with the Divine. Our governors no longer want American Exceptionalism. After all, hedonists have a constitutional right not to be offended, and constitutional rights to dignity and privacy. Obviously, that’s not decency or wisdom speaking; it’s evil–our ancient enemy force.
Click to expand...
👍
 
truetofaith said:
I would have told them …if Adam & Eve were gay, there would be no human race, so perhaps that’s why the Bible is against homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…I think that argument only works against someone arguing only for homosexual sex and against heterosexual sex.
 
EasterJoy said:
How about we don’t get started on the topic of whether it is actually possible to change one’s gender.
Click to expand...
There would have to be an explanation of word usage to understand the arguments of those that say there is.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Of course…a small percentage of the population with a weird behavior and that makes it acceptable. Why not include pedophiles?
Click to expand...
You were trying to use social signalling through clothing to determine whether or not someone were gay. I pointed out that the clothing attributes you looked at might not be an indicator the person is gay. I am not sure how pedophiles relate to this. I’m also not sure why acceptability is being mentioned. If there is additional information you have that tie these things together feel free to state how. Otherwise I will classify it as an off topic remark and make no further mention of it.
 
NickDeez said:
Just a point of order, but shouldn’t we care for all immortal souls on this planet, whether or not they happen to belong to someone who is Catholic? Obviously, in these instances prayer is the first and foremost thing needed, as their hearts are most likely not in the proper frame of mind to receive any fraternal correction that is needed. So, it’s good to pray for them, that God may open their hearts to his amazing and transformative power in their lives. It is also good (and necessary) that we pray for ourselves in these instances, that we may discern the proper time and place for words of encouragement - that there is strength to be found in God helping us to recognize our sins and turn away from them.
Click to expand...
You are right, Nick.

We should care for all immortal souls. And prayer would certainly be in order for those strongly opposed to Catholic teaching.

Catholic homosexuals and those who approach the Church with a genuine thirst for salvation are special people. They accept the teaching of the Church and try their best to follow the rules. I hold these people in awe. I don’t believe I could make such a commitment.

My personal fault is my attitude towards those who approach the Church, not with intentions of embracing Catholicism, but with the intentions of changing our religion to fit their agenda. I have to work on this.
 
The solution is so simple.

Church and State must be separate.

Legal weddings/marriages/unions are conducted by the State - no other unions have legal status.

If the State recognizes same sex unions, this has no bearing on any Church. Churches can continue not to recognize the unions.

Anybody who belongs to any Church/Faith Group is free to conduct marriage within that Faith Group - this union has no legal status in the State - but is recognized by the Faith Group.

Thus, believers are not forced to accept any marriage legislation which does not fit in with their particular belief. At the same time non-believers are free and not shackled by other peoples’ beliefs.
 
It is not simple at all. Civilzed people pass laws to regulate behavior in order to foster the individual and common good, not just to encourage all license that cannot to shown to cause direct damage. Otherwise, why even bother with legal marriage at all? What would its purpose be? Status? Permanence? What status or permanence is there in a union you define independently and can leave unilaterally?

The minority opinion objecting to this as an overstepping of judicial authority hit the nail on the head. The court should not have taken upon itself to re-write such a foundational societal contract. Doing so undermined the institution of marriage tremendously.
 
eamonnroma said:
The solution is so simple.

Church and State must be separate.

Legal weddings/marriages/unions are conducted by the State - no other unions have legal status.

If the State recognizes same sex unions, this has no bearing on any Church. Churches can continue not to recognize the unions.

Anybody who belongs to any Church/Faith Group is free to conduct marriage within that Faith Group - this union has no legal status in the State - but is recognized by the Faith Group.

Thus, believers are not forced to accept any marriage legislation which does not fit in with their particular belief. At the same time non-believers are free and not shackled by other peoples’ beliefs.
Click to expand...
What about non-believers who are opposed to homosexuality for other reasons? Thete also exist many religious people who openly celebrated the gay marriage decision here.

…So its not really about Church and State so much as many would like it to be.

…also note, that in athiest communist societies, homosexualism was never equal to regular sexual relations. So it’s not religious at all. Traditional yes, but not exclusively religious.
 
TEPO said:
What about non-believers who are opposed to homosexuality for other reasons? Thete also exist many religious people who openly celebrated the gay marriage decision here.

…So its not really about Church and State so much as many would like it to be.
Click to expand...
Mostly, it is. The drive against gay marriage in this country has been led by religious organizations: Focus on the Family, the LDS, the AFA, etc.

Any non-believers among their midst are fellow travelers, or token saps adopted to give the anti-gay marriage movement a semblance of secularism that doesn’t exist.
…also note, that in athiest communist societies, homosexualism was never equal to regular sexual relations. So it’s not religious at all. Traditional yes, but not exclusively religious.
Click to expand...
The atheist character of foreign anti-gay sentiment is irrelevant to the essentially religious character of American anti-gay sentiment.
 
Path_Finder said:
Every State Constitution it seems, mentions God:

Example:

usconstitution.net/states_god.html

Such should count for some things concerning the rule of law.
Click to expand...
The name “God” covers a lot of conceptual ground, and has been ascribed to multiple entities with different, often competing attributes and attitudes

Without a strict definition–which no state constitution provides–the word “God” counts for very little in politics.
 
Darryl_Revok said:
Mostly, it is. The drive against gay marriage in this country has been led by religious organizations: Focus on the Family, the LDS, the AFA, etc.

Any non-believers among their midst are fellow travelers, or token saps adopted to give the anti-gay marriage movement a semblance of secularism that doesn’t exist.

The atheist character of foreign anti-gay sentiment is irrelevant to the essentially religious character of American anti-gay sentiment.
Click to expand...
Probably most people who oppose homosexual “marriage” do so for religious reasons. But not all do. One of the problems with the SC ruling is the violence it does to language, and likely there are some who oppose that. There are undoubtedly some who object based on the fact that redefining words often has unforeseen, negative, consequences.

I recall, for example, some years back when the Supreme Court of my state redefined the word “family” to include any number of people of any age, relationship or non-relationship who lived together under the same roof. The court did that in order to accommodate group homes for disabled people in neighborhoods restricted to “single family dwellings”.

But it was true, and the court ignored the fact that its new definition of “family” would include the Manson “family” or, say, a chapter of the Hell’s Angels, or a structure bearing no relationship to a real “single family dwelling”. The court knew all of that, but just didn’t care because it wanted the result it wanted.
 
Is “anti-gay sentiment” supposed to mean ill feeling and discrimination towards people who identify as gay?

I have met a lot of people who are not on the gay marriage bus. In one case I suspect there might be underlying “anti-gay sentiment”. One. In most cases there was religion involved in the concerns about marriage, but quite a lot of not hugely religious people are concerned with traditions, social aspects and the law as it pertains to religious freedom (potentially less of a legal problem with the USA than for us, for reasons I shan’t bore you all with).

In my case, and in the case of other persons of faith I can vouch for, and as far as I am aware in the wider campaign which I was associated with, and active within on this side of the pond, there has been no anti-gay sentiment at all. As in, not a speck of anything you’d call homophobia if you were being honest, not a central issue that some people identify as homosexuals or what have you.

In my experience the suggestion that everyone invested in traditional views of marriage and the family, is some sort of frothing-at-the-mouth skinhead just itching to make people sad, is emotive invention meant to stifle rational discourse in good faith. It has largely worked, too.
 
ringil said:
I really like what Fr. Barron has to say here.

He presents the truths of the faith in a non-strident and approachable manner. He is a sound and measured evangelizer.
Click to expand...
Ringil,I rarely,if ever agree with you on anything,however,on this we do agree!😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top