The issue of gay intolerance

[LaSalle]

There is considerable confusion about where religious freedom starts and where it ends. Joe the Plumber should, clearly, not discriminate by refusing to fix a broken pipe in the home of a homosexual couple because they are homosexual, any more than he should do this more a co-habiting couple. This does not in any way endorse their behavior; it is Christian concern for our neighbor.

But would Jim the Catholic Florist be supporting a homosexual wedding by knowingly being the florist for a homosexual wedding? Is this wrong? Or is his job to sell flowers, and he cannot be culpable for how they are used? If he sells the flowers, can he also set them up at the church? My opinion is that Jim still isn’t crossing the line, actually - he’s still not in the realm of religious freedom. But it’s definitely more gray. The photographer might be crossing the line, since by photographing he must also be present and witnessing. Witnessing a non-marriage as a marriage seems like a clear breach of Catholic faith. But this is also pretty gray. A Catholic who works with marriage licenses will also be in a sticky situation if presented with a license for homosexual marriage.

I think we are being intolerant if we don’t even want to provide flowers or take photos … let’s look at it this way - substitute ‘gay’ with ‘Muslim’ - Would we be 'supporting Muslim weddings if we’re engaged to provide flowers or take photos of the event? We don’t even bat an eyelid.

So why is it different if the couple is gay?

Then we get back into clear-cut cases: A Catholic church cannot be used for a homosexual wedding ceremony, and any other faith that believes a homosexual relationship cannot be a marriage has the same right to refuse to let their facilities be used for a homosexual wedding ceremony. In-vitro fertilization is another area of conflict - homosexual marriages will create more pressure for Catholic hospitals to perform the procedure.

Correct this is clear cut. We don’t allow our churches to host Muslim weddings.

There are also “slippery slope” concerns, and for me, these are more pressing. If we allow homosexual marriage, why not polygamy? Beastial marriages? Why not incentuous marraiges? Don’t two sisters who love each other dearly and work together to care for their aging parents deserve tax breaks, health insurance benefits, and so on just as much as two homosexuals? Why not similar mother-son relationships, to care for an aging father? What if you want to marry your roommate in college to save a few dollars by filing jointly with two college students in your household? What about if you want to simplify things for your small business by marrying your business partner so you can file jointly?

I think the state will step in to prevent incestuous marriages simply because of the risk of inbreeding and public policy is still a long way off from accepting that. As for the other deviant unions, we already have polygamy, Muslims are allowed to marry up to 4 wives … to them we have no problems when we say ‘That’s your religion, you do whatever you want’. And bestiality … come on … do you really think our govt public would grant that? Seriously?

 

[mardukm]

One argument is that once we allow gays to get married, we will change the definition of marriage. Change for whom? So what?

It was culturally unacceptable to bury people who committed suicide in Christian cemeteries … but we changed that practice, not the doctrine - Suicide remains a sin if it was done willfully and without a psychotic cause.

Marriage is NOT a mere “practice.” It was instituted by the God of Israel and made a Sacrament by our Lord Christ. The Church cannot change what it has no authority to change.

Blessings

 

[LaSalle]

We are as tolerant has scripture intends us to be in this issue, and that is zero. The class “abomination” doesn’t leave too much room to maneuver, and I’m pretty sure God knows what he is saying when he assigned this absolute.

Sure it is an abomination, and we are not to indulge in gay sex. Is it an abomination to take photos of the ‘marriage’ if called upon in a commercial capacity? Not too sure the bible comments on that. How about taking photos of a marriage of another religion who specifically denies Jesus’ divinity?

In fact it would be spiritually suicidal for anyone to white wash the offense, and I see many who aren’t phased by taking on God’s Authority on the matter, and some even go so far as to try to sanctify the abomination further by submitting to the demonic ritual they call a marriage. To be sure, God doesn’t preside at this “wedding”, something else does.

Yeah it sure is spiritual suicide to white wash the offense. Did I say anywhere that I thought gay sex was anything but wrong?

The issue is doctrine and practice. Doctrine cannot change … but how we live with it on a daily basis can. Again, I use how we dealt with other religions when they appeared in Christiandom, how we treated suicides, how we treated slavery et al.

We must resist when forced to marry someone of the same sex or are forced to engage in gay sex … but living in a world hell bent on sin? We live side by side with prostitution, divorce, other religions add any sinful situation here - we just must maintain the straight path, we cannot prevent people from sinning. Jesus always spoke the truth and allowed us to either accept or reject Him freely. He walked among the sinful and never refused to mingle with them. He never partook of their sinful ways, but He never failed to mingle with them.

How to bring them to Him if don’t follow His example?

In times like these one can stand proud that our Church can be counted on not to give in to the secularly correct Sodomic way of life that so many other religions have resigned themselves to. When man has even gone so far as to blindly identify with sin, the eyes of the Church will guide him still. Catholics tap into this strength and resolve by guiding these people back to the Truth, so they know to remain strong and unwavering.

Did you read the part where I said we will never change doctrine?

 

[wasmit]

There is no doubt about it; homosexual sex is just a sin and this will never change - it goes against the moral law and is a church teaching that is infallible.

The issue now is the perception that those who do not support gay marriages/unions are intolerant. I am simply unable to refute why we are NOT intolerant

You are unable to refute it, because holding the opinion that a particular section of the population should be denied finaicial (and other) benefits is quite clearly a bigoted and intolerant position.

It is similar to denying women the right to vote.

To those that are mentioning businesses that are considering denying service to homosexuals, or married homosexuals, do you consider it acceptable to deny service to blacks, or women, or jews, or latino’s?

 

[mardukm]

You are unable to refute it, because holding the opinion that a particular section of the population should be denied finaicial (and other) benefits is quite clearly a bigoted and intolerant position.

Gays in civil unions have the same state/federal benefits as married people. So that argument is misinformed and invalid.

Actually, what is bigoted are homosexuals who want to force religions to redefine themselves, with no respect for conscience, and ask the government to help them to so. THAT is bigotry.

 

[wasmit]

Gays in civil unions have the same state/federal benefits as married people. So that argument is misinformed and invalid.

if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized.
If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state.

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

This clearly shows that civil unions have fewer state/federal benefits than marriages.

 

[mardukm]

if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized.
If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state.

I suppose you bring this up in terms of the financial benefits issue. I think you need to understand the basis of these financial benefits. The decreased taxes of married people are based on two connected social assumptions: (1) that married couples will have more expenses, and thereby will be pumping money into the system more than single persons; AND (2) that the woman did not work to take care of children, and since there was only one breadwinner in the family, then taxes for a married couple should be decreased. A man and woman always have that potential to bring children into the world, and thereby contribute to the maintenance of society. Gay people can’t do that, so I don’t see why gay people should get these tax cuts.

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

A foreign gay person is not prevented from becoming a U.S. citizen in the usual way, so that is not a valid argument.

 

[wasmit]

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

A married couple receives this benefit while a civil-union couple does not.

Therefore, married couples have more gov’t benefits than civil-union couples.

This invalidates your claim that "Gays in civil unions have the same state/federal benefits as married people. "

It’s pretty simple.

 

[mardukm]

A married couple receives this benefit while a civil-union couple does not.

Therefore, married couples have more gov’t benefits than civil-union couples.

This invalidates your claim that "Gays in civil unions have the same state/federal benefits as married people. "

It’s pretty simple.

A couple that does NOT have the capacity to contribute to society in such as a way so as to help maintain the posterity of that society should not be accorded the same benefits as couples who have that ability. Couples who do not have that capacity should be treated exactly like others in the same boat - single people. Like I said, they can become U.S. citizens, so they are not being discriminated against in that way. And such a policy does not prevent them from being a couple. There are other avenues for them to extend their stay here that reflect on their ability to contribute to the society of which they want to be a part - for instance, work visas, or student visas, or green cards.

 

[LaSalle]

A couple that does NOT have the capacity to contribute to society in such as a way so as to help maintain the posterity of that society should not be accorded the same benefits as couples who have that ability. Couples who do not have that capacity should be treated exactly like others in the same boat - single people. Like I said, they can become U.S. citizens, so they are not being discriminated against in that way. And such a policy does not prevent them from being a couple. There are other avenues for them to extend their stay here that reflect on their ability to contribute to the society of which they want to be a part - for instance, work visas, or student visas, or green cards.

I never understood this argument. If the couple does not have the capacity to contribute to society, then the couple should not be accorded benefits? What has capacity got to do with it? I say deny benefits to couples who HAVE the capacity but REFUSE to contribute! hahaha.

Gays are no different from hetero couples who choose not to procreate. The gays may not have the capacity, but that’s irrelevant from a contributory stand point - since both do not wish to contribute. So why penalize capacity?

Besides, why penalize simply because they cannot contribute in just the procreational aspect of a relationship? The contribute in other ways.

All I see is a tenuous secular argument based entirely on religious principles.

 

[LaSalle]

Don’t gays who have civil unions obtain the same benefits as married people? Why must gay people insist on co-opting a term that has always had RELIGIOUS significance?

What I don’t understand is why we would care if gays choose to do this. So what if they want to be known as married? They’ll have their version … and we’ll have the truth!

Can we not treat them like another religious group?? In fact, I know Buddhism doesn’t mind such ‘marriages’ … do we refuse to serve Buddhists too?

 

[wasmit]

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

This invalidates your claim that "Gays in civil unions have the same state/federal benefits as married people. "

 

[mardukm]

I never understood this argument. If the couple does not have the capacity to contribute to society, then the couple should not be accorded benefits? What has capacity got to do with it? I say deny benefits to couples who HAVE the capacity but REFUSE to contribute! hahaha.

Gays are no different from hetero couples who choose not to procreate. The gays may not have the capacity, but that’s irrelevant from a contributory stand point - since both do not wish to contribute. So why penalize capacity?

Besides, why penalize simply because they cannot contribute in just the procreational aspect of a relationship? The contribute in other ways.

All I see is a tenuous secular argument based entirely on religious principles.

The principle is that the government does not get involved in what one decides to do in the bedroom. But it is a simple fact that a man and woman have the capacity to help maintain the longevity of society as a whole, while gay couples DON’T. Having children has always been part of the institution of marriage, even in its most secular form, and benefits from that institution partly stem from that necessity in the social compact for the maintenance of society. Within 20 years, economic theorists assert that there will be a tremendously dangerous disparity between the elderly population that needs to dip into SS benefits, and the younger population who work and contribute to it. Why you feel a certain group of people who cannot even contribute to society in that manner so as to secure the future of a society should be permitted to drain the federal coffers today. Gays will get their share of SS benefits in the future, having contributed to it today. That is equitable.

Besides, NO ONE is penalizing anyone. The idea that gays are being penalized is an utterly arbitrary myth created by the gay community. It reminds me of my little daughter who complains when I give her sister a present for her birthday, “You don’t love me! You hate me!” she rants and raves. I can understand it from a child. Why grown people have that mentality is something I have no sympathy for.

 

[sires6]

No matter how the HUMAN Government sees it, homosexuality is still homosexuality. I can hate robbery but choose to visit, love, encourage and change the robber. And I can fight against the want to change “robbery” into “undirected aggressive property borrowing”. Changing the name of marriage, religious or not, does not change the fact that marriage is about man and woman and not about man and man or woman and woman.

Arguing about financial benefits is like arguing about the paint color on the house that is burning to the ground. Focus on the reality. Marriage is and should be the one bastion of heterosexuality. Divorce is bad, calling homosexual “marriage”, just that is evil. BECAUSE it takes away from the legitimate sacrament. That’s not intolerance.

I don’t want to be intolerant and try very hard to maintain a loving, but not necessarily tolerant attitude, they do NOT want to be intolerant.

If civil unions, which are recognized in most states in some way, and homosexuality, which is granted special status via the Hate Crimes Act and accorded special concerns in ALL government interactions (you cannot discriminate in the case of race, sexual preference or religion), are allowed all these freedoms, WHY do they NEED to be called “married”? What does it matter to this 3% that I don’t want them to be “married”?

And why am I intolerant if I state my opinion and they aren’t if they don’t?

Frustrates me that I have to defend my Truth but they can fall back on “you are just being intolerant and judgmental”. What ever happened to logic?

lifesitenews.com has an interesting article about USF’s President Privett inviting Bishop Dowling to commencement, along with Kamala Harris. He being the Bishop that openly argued FOR condoms, and she being a aggressively pro-homosexual, pro-marriage State Attorney General. When called to the carpet by Catholics, his argument was “The Pope hasn’t sensored him, why should we?” and “You’re just being judgmental and narrow-minded”

No real logic, just “Well, Your feet stink and your mother wears Army Boots!”

 

[mardukm]

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Those who are in civil unions can immigrate to this country just fine. Bad argument.

 

[mardukm]

Arguing about financial benefits is like arguing about the paint color on the house that is burning to the ground.

Why should we not address their “financial argument”? Most homosexuals are perhaps athiests, so you won’t get anywhere with that argument. And most who support the homosexual ideology are proabably athiests too, so your arguments will likewise just fall on deaf ears.

 

[LaSalle]

Besides, NO ONE is penalizing anyone. The idea that gays are being penalized is an utterly arbitrary myth created by the gay community. It reminds me of my little daughter who complains when I give her sister a present for her birthday, “You don’t love me! You hate me!” she rants and raves. I can understand it from a child.

OK perhaps penalize is not an accurate term. Perhaps we should look to see why they are not getting the benefits. Is it because they can’t have kids? Well, they want to adopt the many many orphans out there.

As much as I would hate that to happen … they would, technically, be contributing to the upbringing of kids; taking at least some burden off the Govt’s hands with regards to whoever they adopt.

Do we really want to go there.

Why grown people have that mentality is something I have no sympathy for.

Now, now. No need to get all ad hominem on me!

 

[mardukm]

OK perhaps penalize is not an accurate term. Perhaps we should look to see why they are not getting the benefits. Is it because they can’t have kids? Well, they want to adopt the many many orphans out there.

As much as I would hate that to happen … they would, technically, be contributing to the upbringing of kids; taking at least some burden off the Govt’s hands with regards to whoever they adopt.

Do we really want to go there.

Well, then. At that theoretical point, they can get tax benefits for being parents, so there’s no inequity here.

The fact of the matter is, the tax break for married heterosexual couples is based on the most solid social compact theories. It is a little incentive for people to have kids in order to maintain society. Why would you want to overturn that?

And no, I don’t think we should encourage gay couples to adopt children. If they actually choose to do so, they can get their tax breaks and benefits at that time. I don’t agree with sires6’s argument insofar as it will probably be irrelevant to most to most gay people, but I do agree with the statement that marriage as an institution should be a bastion for heterosexual people alone, even if only for the mere fact that heterosexual couples have a capacity to do something that homosexual couples cannot - i.e., have kids.

Now, now. No need to get all ad hominem on me!

I didn’t think you were the one complaining, but was merely repeating what the gay community claims. In any case, I don’t think it’s an ad hominem. I think that argument from the gay community is just a selfish way to get attention with no basis in fact.- just like my 3-year old daughter. The ad hominem (and hypocrisy) is coming from them for claiming that those who oppose gay marriage are being unfair, insensitive or bigoted.

I mean, remember the Miss U.S.A. debacle? A homosexual judge had the gall to state, “she should have left politics and religion out of it.” SO WHY DID HE ASK THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE? THAT is bigotry and hypocrisy at its worse.

Blessings

 

[brandymmiller]

The issue now is the perception that those who do not support gay marriages/unions are intolerant. I am simply unable to refute why we are NOT intolerant.
\QUOTE]

It is not intolerant to tell someone the truth. Homosexual marriage cannot exist because marriage is a covenant relationship ordered toward the good of the couple and the rearing of children which come from that union. Homosexual relationships, no matter how well they may treat one another, are inherently childless. Now, childlessness alone does not preclude a couple from entering into the covenant of marriage - a childless heterosexual couple still has everything necessary to raise healthy children through adoption. A homosexual couple DOES NOT.

A child comes, by nature, with half of its genes from its father and half from its mother. It needs both a man and a woman in its life in order to help it unpack the meaning of those two very different parts of itself. In vitro fertilization, which is what confuses so many, does not change the nature of the child’s conception. That child still has a father and a mother and needs both to understand how to function in life. Simply put - only a man can teach a boy how to be a man and only a man can teach a little girl how to expect to be treated by men and only a man can teach a child how a man in a heterosexual relationship with a woman should treat a woman. Only a woman can teach a little girl how to be a woman and only a woman can teach a little boy how to expect to be treated by women and only a woman can teach a child how a woman in a heterosexual relationship with a man should treat a man. No homosexual couple, no matter how caring they may seem, can do those things.

Before invitro fertilization, it was universally understood by every culture of which I am aware that marriage belonged to a man and a woman because it was universally understood to be about child rearing which was something that only happened between a man and a woman, although what was expected out of a married couple did vary wildly by culture - some allowing polygamy, some allowing it to be treated as a contract, etc.

 

[PEPCIS]

The issue now is the perception that those who do not support gay marriages/unions are intolerant. I am simply unable to refute why we are NOT intolerant.

The fact is, the Bible is intolerant of homosexuals. If we are to follow the Bible, then we are “intolerant” of homosexuality. What’s the problem?

The problem is one of perception. Christians are AFRAID to be viewed as “intolerant.” The world screams that intolerance is evil. If so, then the Bible is evil. And that should not really come as any surprise to any Christian who should listen to what the denizens of evil are saying.

The Bible is “intolerant” of a lot of things. Do we discontinue to be intolerant of murder and rape, just because the world might think that the Bible is an “intolerant and evil book”? Of course not. As Christians, we embrace the teachings of the Bible.