Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Come on, you can guess what the “Q” stands for. The XYZ stands for whatever other odd -ball conditions they come up with. 😉

It seriously has been suggested that it means “questioning” but I really do not know. This court ruling is beyond deserving serious adherence - definitely immoral.
 

It seriously has been suggested that it means “questioning” but I really do not know. This court ruling is beyond deserving serious adherence - definitely immoral.
“Say the secret word win, 50 dollars!”…Oh, sorry, better luck next time.
 
Oh dear - the Republican party of Lincoln was indeed progressive…and has now been taken over by the conservative Dixiecrats…who were indeed democrats in the 18th century. A little history and you will see that the current Republican Party is really just the old racist hate filled reactionary conservative southern Democrats who abandoned the democratic Party over race in the 1950s, 60s and 70s in response the the Republican Southern strategy of GHW Bush, Goldwater and others. Yes, the people who loved Dred Scott are the ancestors of today’s Republican Party…

I certainly understand why the GOP want to distance themselves from Jim Crow, slavery, secession, racial hatred and bigotry - but they, unfortunately, welcomed those very Dixiecrats with open arms to win elections and now…may as well put on the hoods. Irony? You betcha!

learn some history
What craziness. Care to provide any objective sources for this slander?
 
Cruz, Carson and Jindal are demagogues well within the ambit of historic Dixiecrats. Sorry, try as you want, the GOP today is the party of hate, reaction, xenophobia, big business, …just like the old time southern Democrats who they co-opted. I will certainly admit the Democratic Party was indeed the party of southern hatred and bigotry, but the GOP co-opted them and now bear that face of shame.
The GOP is the party of hate. Please give examples.
 
No they have the legal capcity to marry…sorry

But that ain’t the law…sorry

Nope, under the law they are married…sorry

Just don’t confuse the law and it’s definitions with the definitions from other disciplines and you won’t be…
You know what comes to mind…??

I see the Supreme Court telling the states that an apple is now an orange. 🤷

If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the government would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question.

The ruling requires STATES to recognize same sex couples with valid marriage licenses from states that recognize such things. Zoltan is not a STATE. I am not going to be forced at gunpoint to recognize a homosexual relationship as a marriage. If I am forced to do so, I will fall back on my First Amendment religious freedom…and look forward to the next session of the Supremes. (Apologies to Diana Ross)
 
You know what comes to mind…??

I see the Supreme Court telling the states that an apple is now an orange. 🤷

If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the government would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question.

The ruling requires STATES to recognize same sex couples with valid marriage licenses from states that recognize such things. Zoltan is not a STATE. I am not going to be forced at gunpoint to recognize a homosexual relationship as a marriage. If I am forced to do so, I will fall back on my First Amendment religious freedom…and look forward to the next session of the Supremes. (Apologies to Diana Ross)
Now you’re talkin’ brother. Where IS our respect?
youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0
:cool:
 
Cruz, Carson and Jindal are demagogues well within the ambit of historic Dixiecrats. Sorry, try as you want, the GOP today is the party of hate, reaction, xenophobia, big business, …just like the old time southern Democrats who they co-opted. I will certainly admit the Democratic Party was indeed the party of southern hatred and bigotry, but the GOP co-opted them and now bear that face of shame.
Wait—did this comment actually suggest that minorities like Cruz, Carson and Jindal are dixiecrats? :ehh: :nope: :dts:

Talk about playing the turkey at Thanksgiving! :doh2:

Some dixiecrats were in favor of lynching people who looked like them!

Big business: In 2008 Wall Street gave a record donation to the Obama/Biden ticket. And just look at the Clinton Foundation.

The GOP did win over the south, however, it wasn’t by adopting the dixiecrat racism. See egnorance.blogspot.com/2012/10/where-did-all-of-dixiecrats-go.htmlThe article asks a good question: “Why would dixiecrats run to the GOP after the party fought for civil rights for minorities for over 100 years?”.

According to this (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat), the Dixiecrat influence seem to have been pretty short-lived in national elections.
 
I have always believed that most in the gay community actually know all of this - it is sort of the closet in the closet. If anyone is shocked it will be the straight supporters of “gay marriage”, the progressive consensus, I believe is the correct term we are to use now.
An asute observation! 👍👍

It’s been my experience that the rudest and most persecution on the issue comes from straights with a very selfish big government/I wanna look :cool: in front of my family, friends, coworkers or whoever I am trying to impress agenda. :mad:⭕(

Actually, many GLTBQ folks have been calm and reasonable about the whole affair, even though it affects them more personally.
 
An asute observation! 👍👍

It’s been my experience that the rudest and most persecution on the issue comes from straights with a very selfish big government/I wanna look :cool: in front of my family, friends, coworkers or whoever I am trying to impress agenda. :mad:⭕(

Actually, many GLTBQ folks have been calm and reasonable about the whole affair, even though it affects them more personally.
Yeah, I know some really cool gay people too - you have to be careful. Kind of like discerning between normal women and strident feminists I guess…;):rolleyes:

(act like a wolf with the wolves and a sheep with the sheep)
 
Yeah, I know some really cool gay people too - you have to be careful. Kind of like discerning between normal women and strident feminists I guess…;):rolleyes:

(act like a wolf with the wolves and a sheep with the sheep)
And be as wise as a serpent 🙂
 
Originally Posted by Sy Noe
I was stunned to see a Catholic say anyone is a lost cause.

Originally Posted by KSU
Will you never stop? You know very well that, for example, a practicing homosexual can never become a Catholic in good standing if he/she intends to remain active. It’s just not possible because such a person could not, by definition, make a valid Confession.

Same goes for active devil worshipers, adulterers, murderers, etc. But you already know these things.

You say you are a Catholic, so you also know that the statements of the Holy Father which you use to sign off, viz:

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage… it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time”,
and
“The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.”

can be misleading to the uninformed when presented without context, especially in posts about black and white Church doctrine. The Holy Father is not telling us that it’s wrong to not search for “nuance or different understandings” regarding specific sins like gay marriage or abortion. (That’s the job of orthodox, competent Catholic theologians, and preferably not in public). It’s clear all he is saying is that we have many fish to fry, not just those two.

So, my friend, why in your posts do you keep probing and advocating for cracks, nuance or different understandings of Catholic doctrine? As badly as you seem to want it, there simply are no Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Branches of Catholicism.

Sy, you can put words in my mouth, but there is nothing in my above post that would cause an objective reader to conclude that I said the Church considers certain people to be a lost cause. That’s just your attempt to avoid the consequences that the Church teaches will befall grave sinners who know but reject said teaching and intend to and do continue their ways of living. As you admit, my actual words were:

“You know very well that, for example, a practicing homosexual can never become a Catholic in good standing if he/she intends to remain active. It’s just not possible because such a person could not, by definition, make a valid Confession… Same goes for active devil worshipers, adulterers, murderers, etc.”

So now, Sy, how do you twist those words to mean that I said the Church gives up on such poor sinners, and that I misrepresented Church teaching? Then you have the gall to add, “This is after all supposed to be a Catholic answers forum”.

You bet it’s a Catholic forum, and it’s why you are reading this Catholic answer now. You began this pot stirring by taking bibcat’s words out of context. He was responding to another poster who asked:
“Why would a same-sex couple seek marriage in the Catholic Church when the couple knows very well that the Church strictly opposes SSM? While homosexuals have their understandable arguments concerning civil rights and their legitimate place in society, it seems to me there is some sort of ugly motivation involved when a group seeks ‘acceptance’ by a religion group and its clergy when their stated behavior is contrary to the firm religious beliefs of that religious organization.”

As you are well aware, Sy, that is the context in which bibcat opined that to expect gays to stop putting pressure on the Church to change its beliefs would be a lost cause. And that’s when his words were twisted out of context into just another false impression of how gays are persecuted by some un-Catholic acting Catholics on this Forum.
Sigh. I’m just going to leave it at this. You actually were closer when you said “if” they remain active and we can disagree on another poster’s words. Peace to you.
 
Including those who believe in traditional marriage.👍
If by “traditional” you mean between a man and a woman which by your posts I will just assume you do, then indeed. Nothing in the new definition forbids that. My suggestion in fact would be for 2 people of opposite sexes who love each other so much that they can’t stand the thought of not being together the rest of their lives, to go for it.
 
No they have the legal capcity to marry…sorry

But that ain’t the law…sorry

Nope, under the law they are married…sorry

Just don’t confuse the law and it’s definitions with the definitions from other disciplines and you won’t be…

Nah - just say, “They are married…have a cookie.”

Or, don’t worry about it…It is a marriage. The Church rejected Civil Union and so pushed this unwittingly. Now…it is what it is…
“If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg”Abraham Lincoln

No, two persons of the same sex have *no capacity *to marry. Marriage is an actual human relationship rooted in the capacity of humans to procreate and in the reason that the sexual faculty exists. Marriage is not an arbitrary or an artificial construct. It is impossible for it to exist between two persons of the same sex.

The verdicts of the the Supreme Court do not change reality. Humans are persons from the moment of conception, whether the Supreme Court recognizes it or not. Black persons had been voting citizens of the United States prior to the Dred Scott decision, and the flawed decision handed down in that case did not change that.

Persons of the same sex cannot marry each other, and nothing the Supreme Court says can change that. The government can treat an unborn person lie a disposable blob of cells that his or her parent is free to have extracted like a bad tooth and it can treat two persons of the same sex as if they were married, but that does not make any of the premises for those actions true.

This decision changed what the phrase “civil marriage” means for practical purposes under the law. It did not change the actual meaning of marriage itself. That is impossible.
 
“If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg”Abraham Lincoln

No, two persons of the same sex have *no capacity *to marry. Marriage is an actual human relationship rooted in the capacity of humans to procreate and in the reason that the sexual faculty exists. Marriage is not an arbitrary or an artificial construct. It is impossible for it to exist between two persons of the same sex.

The verdicts of the the Supreme Court do not change reality. Humans are persons from the moment of conception, whether the Supreme Court recognizes it or not. Black persons had been voting citizens of the United States prior to the Dred Scott decision, and the flawed decision handed down in that case did not change that.

Persons of the same sex cannot marry each other, and nothing the Supreme Court says can change that. The government can treat an unborn person lie a disposable blob of cells that his or her parent is free to have extracted like a bad tooth and it can treat two persons of the same sex as if they were married, but that does not make any of the premises for those actions true.

This decision changed what the phrase “civil marriage” means for practical purposes under the law. It did not change the actual meaning of marriage itself. That is impossible.
Could what the state provides be called a civil union and what the Church provides be called the Sacrament of Matrimony?
 
Could what the state provides be called a civil union and what the Church provides be called the Sacrament of Matrimony?
Too late.

The gay crowd fought for the use of the word **marriage **and that is what they achieved. Someone remarked that religious opposition to civil union drove this movement ahead; maybe that is true, or not; but in any case, the bus has sailed.

Still, the civil society does not and has never dealt in sacraments.

ICXC NIKA
 
Could what the state provides be called a civil union and what the Church provides be called the Sacrament of Matrimony?
Civil governments count tails as legs whenever they want. They can call any contract they want a marriage and they can treat anyone they want as married. That does not change the nature of marriage and it does not mean that the capacity for marriage or the meaning of martiage is actually some artificial construct totally at the mercy of lawmakers. A marriage, like a person, has a reality and a dignity that is beyond the ability of humans to change by the rule of law.

The law can treat an eagle as if it were an infant or an infant as if it were a pet. It isn’t the law that is automatically true, though. There are realities that are beyond legislation. Marriage is one of them.
 
Too late.

The gay crowd fought for the use of the word **marriage **and that is what they achieved. Someone remarked that religious opposition to civil union drove this movement ahead; maybe that is true, or not; but in any case, the bus has sailed.

Still, the civil society does not and has never dealt in sacraments.

ICXC NIKA
Buses don’t sail.😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top