The issue of gay intolerance

[LaSalle]

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.

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

I think we should treat them the same way we treated the other religions when they first appeared in Christiandom … we must have felt threatened and we probably didn’t want their influence in our midst. I mean, I think we’ll lose more Catholics to the Protestants and Muslims than to gays! If we can get along with the Protestants and the Muslims in our midst… hey …

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.

 

[neophyte]

I’m baffled by this concept of “gay marriage”. Homosexuals aren’t prohibited in any way from getting married, the problem is that they don’t wan’t to get married - they’re homosexual. They don’t want to be in an intimate relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

What they’re really asking for is to have marriage redefined as something it’s not. It’s as if they’d have arsenic redefined as beef wellington, or Agent Orange redefined as fertilizer.

This accusation of being “intolerant” is just a fuzzy bat. Intolerent of what? Intolerant of homosexuals, as if I’d have them treated as less than human merely because I insist on the correct definition of words? Nonsense. That accusation is the product of sloppy thinking.

 

[Newbie2]

Ah, but you forget the social component of the entire “gay marriage” discussion.

While we as religious "could tolerate" (but wouldn’t, as Catholics at least) the idea of so called gay marriage, in the social arena we would be and are incrementally being forced to accept it.

While it may not affect my business as a veterinarian, let’s say Joe the Printer or Bob the caterer or Larry the florist refuses to have anything to do with gay marriages. You think they, the gay community will just shop elsewhere? No, Joe, Bob and Larry will get sued right out of business.

But back to the religious argument. Are you suggesting that we just cave in because we’re slapped with an Intolerant label?

 

[buffalo]

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

 

[Mark77]

**Again, we are not intolerant,it is just the opposite.Unfortunately, we allow the loud and often hateful narrative of the media and much of our grossly misinformed society, including many self proclaimed “Catholics?”, to paint us as such.
**
The Church does not single out gays. All sins, such as sex between a man and a woman outside of marriage, are treated exactly the same. The sin is condemned and the sinner is loved and encouraged to change, to stop or at least to attempt to stop the sinful behavior, for his own good and the good of everyone in the world.

This is just another step in the incremental indoctrination agenda of the secular “progressive” relativists. Their mantra is; “Nothing is wrong, if you say that something is wrong you are intolerant, small-minded, a bigot, a racist…”.

**Well, there is right and wrong and every action has consequences that effect others.
**
As buffalo quoted from Archbishop Sheen;

“Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.”

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Mark77]

Ah, but you forget the social component of the entire “gay marriage” discussion.

While we as religious "could tolerate" (but wouldn’t, as Catholics at least) the idea of so called gay marriage, in the social arena we would be and are incrementally being forced to accept it.

While it may not affect my business as a veterinarian, let’s say Joe the Printer or Bob the caterer or Larry the florist refuses to have anything to do with gay marriages. You think they, the gay community will just shop elsewhere? No, Joe, Bob and Larry will get sued right out of business.

But back to the religious argument. Are you suggesting that we just cave in because we’re slapped with an Intolerant label?

Catholic Charities in Boston has already been forced to close it’s Adoption Agency because of the threat of discrimination lawsuits from homosexual (PC=gay, it sounds so happy and fun! i want to be ‘gay’ too!) couples. How many families and children are being denied a chance at adoption because of a small minority, 3-5% of the population?, forces their beliefs on us?

**There are numerous agencies that will accommodate homosexual adoptions, but we are forced to go against our moral beliefs or be sued out of business.
**
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Once “homosexual (gay) marriage” (oxymoron) is legal, the Catholic Churches will be sued if they deny the use of their facilities for weddings, etc…

Then comes hate speech laws that will silence Priests and others from stating the Teachings of the Church on **homosexual acts (not people who struggle with homosexuality!); **

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC2357).

Hate Crime (another oxymoron, all crimes are hateful!) Laws will be next. If a lunatic who is even remotely “Catholic” commits a crime, then the attorneys will swoop in smelling the blood ($$$$$) in the water and sue the Church for hate crimes…

We must stand up for love and for the Truth. If someone you know and love wants to do some self-destructive behavior that is dangerous and significantly increases their risk of dying from a disease, like shooting up heroin and sharing the dirty needles, wouldn’t you try and stop them? Of course you would, no matter how angry they were at you, no matter what names they called you, you must tell them the Truth, no matter how unpopular it may be!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Ambrose]

How do you define tolerance ? A useful definition I heard was that being “tolerant” consisted in not using force or imtimidation against those who are different than you. By that standard there’s no way the Church is intolerant of gays.

I’m not so sure gays, or at least some of them are as tolerant of the Church.

 

[rossum]

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 seen as intolerant because you are seen as denying gays something that you have. Allowing gays to marry does not have any direct impact on heterosexual marriage so it is difficult to produce any non-religious reasons for not allowing it. You are in a similar position to those who argued against allowing interracial marriage before Loving v Virginia; you are seeking to deny other people something which you have and which will have minimal impact on you if they are allowed to have it. You are seen as being a dog in the manger.

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

One way to approach the issue might be to split marriage into two parts, religious marriage and legal marriage. Say r-marriage and l-marriage for convenience.

R-marriage is defined by the different religions. Christians can only have one r-marriage spouse at a time, while Muslim men can have up to four r-marriage wives at a time. I am not sure if the fundamentalist Mormons have an upper limit at all. These r-marriages are specific to the given religion, or denomination within a religion.

L-marriage is defined by the government for the purposes of taxation, insurance, hospital access rights etc.

On the principle of “render unto Caesar” it would seem sensible for the elected government to define l-marriage. Currently the US does not recognise all forms of r-marriage such as Muslim or Mormon second and subsequent wives or gay r-marriages performed by the MCC. If the elected government, at State or Federal level, wishes to adjust the definition of l-marriage then that is their perogative and voters may take action for or against any proposed change.

The definition of r-marriage is left to the individual religions or denominations. If gays wish to have an r-marriage then they can go the the MCC, or any other gay friendly denomination, and have one there. There is no need for the government to interfere with r-marriage at all. It does not do so now and should not do so in future.

I suspect that some of the heat in this debate is due to people thinking that a change to l-marriage will automatically require a change to r-marriage. This is not the case as is shown by the fact that the government allows Moslem, fundamentalist Mormon and MCC r-marriages to continue when they do not conform to the common definition of l-marriage. The government is under no obligation to recognise all r-marriages, just as different religious denominations are not under any obligation to recognise either l-marriages or r-marriages by other denominations.

The laws of l-marriage are already different from those of Catholic r-marriage; l-marriage allows divorce, while Catholic r-marriage does not. I cannot see any reason why any change to l-marriage should result in a change to Catholic r-marriage.

I think we should treat them the same way we treated the other religions when they first appeared in Christiandom … we must have felt threatened and we probably didn’t want their influence in our midst. I mean, I think we’ll lose more Catholics to the Protestants and Muslims than to gays! If we can get along with the Protestants and the Muslims in our midst… hey …

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.

That seems to me to be a good approach. You do not have to spend a great deal of energy on l-marriage, it already fails to meet the Catholic standards for r-marriage. Perhaps better to divert your energies into something more important to you.

For myself I cannot see any major problems with this change; we have gay Civil Partnerships in the UK and there has been almost no impact from that except for the actual people involved. Divorce is probably a greater threat to marriage than introducing gay marriage yet there seems to be much less energy spent on countering divorce than on countering gay marriage. Perhaps reconsidering priorities might be useful.

rossum

 

[LaSalle]

While we as religious "could tolerate" (but wouldn’t, as Catholics at least) the idea of so called gay marriage, in the social arena we would be and are incrementally being forced to accept it.

While it may not affect my business as a veterinarian, let’s say Joe the Printer or Bob the caterer or Larry the florist refuses to have anything to do with gay marriages. You think they, the gay community will just shop elsewhere? No, Joe, Bob and Larry will get sued right out of business.

Why refuse to serve gays? first of all, that’s going against catholic teaching. We’re supposed to treat them fairly. I may not agree with a Muslim. but I certainly would serve him on a social and commercial arena. This refusing to serve someone who is gay is precisely the discrimination we want to avoid.

But back to the religious argument. Are you suggesting that we just cave in because we’re slapped with an Intolerant label?

Did we cave in by allowing people who committed suicide to be buried in Christian cemeteries?

I’m not suggesting changing our doctrine, that is not possible. So there is no caving in just because we allow them to marry whoever they want.

In any case, I would really appreciate it if you can show me why it’s only a label and not real intolerance.

 

[LaSalle]

Again, we are not intolerant,it is just the opposite.Unfortunately, we allow the loud and often hateful narrative of the media and much of our grossly misinformed society, including many self proclaimed “Catholics?”, to paint us as such.

I think they do that because they see us as being rigid and not allowing gays marry whoever they want. We’re not gay yet we insist that they cannot marry. It’s not as if we’re forbidding the catholic gays to marry, we’re forbidding ALL gays to marry. They cannot understand why we would want to interfere in other people’s lives. If you want to marry the opposite sex, go ahead … why stop them from marrying the same sex just because OUR God says it’s wrong?

Our Church believes that only we have the full truth, yet we still live harmoniously with people of other religion. And similarly, while we love them, we also know that they don’t have the true religion, why can’t we do the same thing with the gays?

The Church does not single out gays. All sins, such as sex between a man and a woman outside of marriage, are treated exactly the same. The sin is condemned and the sinner is loved and encouraged to change, to stop or at least to attempt to stop the sinful behavior, for his own good and the good of everyone in the world.

Yet, I don’t see such a big stink raised when non married couples co-habit. Is it because while we hate the sin, we have become tolerant of those who co-habit? Doesn’t that compromise marriage as well?

This is just another step in the incremental indoctrination agenda of the secular “progressive” relativists. Their mantra is; “Nothing is wrong, if you say that something is wrong you are intolerant, small-minded, a bigot, a racist…”.

There’s a difference - it’s not that we must say nothing is wrong. Gay sex IS wrong. So is Muhamed and Islam. But we still love the Muslims and live with them. We just won’t become Muslims. Can you see where I’m coming from?

Will we be seen as intolerant if we went around saying that we must not accept Muslims at a commercial and social arena because theirs is a false religion?

**Well, there is right and wrong and every action has consequences that effect others. **

Yes, there is. So we should purge Islam from out community as well?

 

[LaSalle]

Catholic Charities in Boston has already been forced to close it’s Adoption Agency because of the threat of discrimination lawsuits from homosexual (PC=gay, it sounds so happy and fun! i want to be ‘gay’ too!) couples. How many families and children are being denied a chance at adoption because of a small minority, 3-5% of the population?, forces their beliefs on us?

**There are numerous agencies that will accommodate homosexual adoptions, but we are forced to go against our moral beliefs or be sued out of business.
**
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Once “homosexual (gay) marriage” (oxymoron) is legal, the Catholic Churches will be sued if they deny the use of their facilities for weddings, etc…

Then comes hate speech laws that will silence Priests and others from stating the Teachings of the Church on **homosexual acts (not people who struggle with homosexuality!); **

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC2357).

Yes, this is the problem. But instead of fighting against allowing gays to marry whoever they want (do you even think this will ever succeed?) we should be fighting to be bring some common sense to the courts and to use the laws of free speech to allow us to say what we want and believe what we want. How is it that white extremists can continue to say what they want and we cannot?

Hate Crime (another oxymoron, all crimes are hateful!) Laws will be next. If a lunatic who is even remotely “Catholic” commits a crime, then the attorneys will swoop in smelling the blood ($$$$$) in the water and sue the Church for hate crimes…

We must stand up for love and for the Truth. If someone you know and love wants to do some self-destructive behavior that is dangerous and significantly increases their risk of dying from a disease, like shooting up heroin and sharing the dirty needles, wouldn’t you try and stop them? Of course you would, no matter how angry they were at you, no matter what names they called you, you must tell them the Truth, no matter how unpopular it may be!

Here’s the problem - we can all see that shooting up is harmful. That’s why we agree that it shouldn’t be done.

The science can say all it wants about smoking but people still smoke. The same can be said about anal sex, but we still see old gays walking around. Also, I’m sure you know that while a lot of gays are promiscuous not all are and the ‘monogamous’ ones do not face the same health risks. The science just isn’t that compelling about gay sex

 

[LaSalle]

You are seen as intolerant because you are seen as denying gays something that you have. Allowing gays to marry does not have any direct impact on heterosexual marriage so it is difficult to produce any non-religious reasons for not allowing it. You are in a similar position to those who argued against allowing interracial marriage before Loving v Virginia; you are seeking to deny other people something which you have and which will have minimal impact on you if they are allowed to have it. You are seen as being a dog in the manger.

Yes, thank you. Ambrose … what rossum said.

I suspect that some of the heat in this debate is due to people thinking that a change to l-marriage will automatically require a change to r-marriage. This is not the case as is shown by the fact that the government allows Moslem, fundamentalist Mormon and MCC r-marriages to continue when they do not conform to the common definition of l-marriage. The government is under no obligation to recognise all r-marriages, just as different religious denominations are not under any obligation to recognise either l-marriages or r-marriages by other denominations.

The laws of l-marriage are already different from those of Catholic r-marriage; l-marriage allows divorce, while Catholic r-marriage does not. I cannot see any reason why any change to l-marriage should result in a change to Catholic r-marriage.

That seems to me to be a good approach. You do not have to spend a great deal of energy on l-marriage, it already fails to meet the Catholic standards for r-marriage. Perhaps better to divert your energies into something more important to you.

Yes, it does look like a good approach! Emphasis mine.

For myself I cannot see any major problems with this change; we have gay Civil Partnerships in the UK and there has been almost no impact from that except for the actual people involved. Divorce is probably a greater threat to marriage than introducing gay marriage yet there seems to be much less energy spent on countering divorce than on countering gay marriage. Perhaps reconsidering priorities might be useful.

rossum

I think you’ve hit the nail on its head!

 

[ConallCernach]

I think that my major concern with gay marriage is that it’s not marriage. Nor do I understand the point of marriage with no regard for having children. I don’t know why non-religious people would go through the whole gaggle-bit of marriage. =p

Pax

Of course one answer is tax benefits.

 

[hippyprincess]

The church certainly is intolerant; it’s clear that God hates gays, calling them an abomination.

The main problem in the equation is the presence of the word “marriage.” Marriage is the uniting of two bodies under the eyes of God. A union unites two people in the eyes of the state, for legal benefits.

The gay community is not asking for their union to be acknowledged in the eyes of the church, they really just want the state and federal benefits that they’re being denied because they aren’t straight.

It shouldn’t be up to a religion’s intolerance to decide who recieves federal benefits. Seperation of church and state; hopefully someday we’ll have it in entirety.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There is no such thing as gay marriage regardless of what any country does in its civil law.

That however doesn’t mean that a country becomes better by enshrining into law the insacred bond of two mortal sinners living in mortal sin together and blessing such an abomination.

Sodom and Gommorrah were dealt with by God.

Does anyone even read the bible?

Exactly what part of “abomination” and “will not inherrit” do people not understand?

If Jesus wouldn’t marry two gay people then it shouldn’t be the law of any country.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Many of the same people who can’t understand something as simple as that also can’t understand that it is wrong to murder the unborn.

But I really don’t think any of those two groups are invicibly ignorant and can’t fathom the natural law that is written on every human heart.

People need to pray for our nation–when it gets to the point where you have to explain why such abominations are wrong–then you know that Satan is alive and well in the USA.

Satan supports gay marriage.

Why would anyone want to be on his side?

 

[hippyprincess]

T here is no such thing as gay marriage regardless of what any country does in its civil law.

Right, marriage is a church term, not a state term.

That however doesn’t mean that a country becomes better by enshrining into law the insacred bond of two mortal sinners living in mortal sin together and blessing such an abomination.

Yet we give the right of health care to serial killers, murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, all of which are obviously worse offenses than being homosexual.

Sodom and Gommorrah were dealt with by God.

Yet Judas, who commited incest, rape, and many other mortal offenses was not. Also, doesn’t God have a policy of forgiveness? Why does it apply to some and not to others?

Does anyone even read the bible?

Federal law is not governed by a religion.

Exactly what part of “abomination” and “will not inherrit” do people not understand?

That’s not EVERYBODY’s opinion. Abomination is in the eyes of the beholder. Obviiously it’s not an abomination to everyone.

If Jesus wouldn’t marry two gay people then it shouldn’t be the law of any country.

Um, what? Laws aren’t written because Jesus would or wouldn’t do something.

What is so hard to understand about that?

What’s hard to understand is the logic behind it. Freedom of religion, laws aren’t going to specifically tailored to one specific religion. That’s unfair and unjust.

Many of the same people who can’t understand something as simple as that also can’t understand that it is wrong to murder the unborn.

What are you talking about? Abortion and gay marriage are two seperate issues, leave them at that.

But I really don’t think any of those two groups are invicibly ignorant and can’t fathom the natural law that is written on every human heart.

Obviously not every thinks exactly the same. It’s something called INDIVIDUALISM, and I pride myself on that. There are things that are indisputably wrong, sure, but to claim someone is immoral for being homosexual, an immutable fact, is perverse.

People need to pray for our nation

How about, instead of praying, people actually DO something to fix what they believe is wrong? Freedom of speech. There were wars over it, and I intend to use it in practice.

–when it gets to the point where you have to explain why such abominations are wrong–

Again, not everyone believes it is wrong. JUst because YOU think it is, doesn’t mean it actually is.

then you know that Satan is alive and well in the USA.

“Satan” is alive in the USA because people are… homosexual? Please explain that logic.

Satan supports gay marriage.

What? Satan is a concept, not a doctrine.
I’d like to see a quote from “The Book of Satan” explaining his stance.

With love,
hippyprincess

 

[Ambrose]

“Satan is a concept, not a doctrine” Wow. Explain evil please. And whether you want to admit it or not, marriage should **NOT **be based on ideology but in reality. Whether you believe in God or not, it has been about one man one woman since anything has ever been recorded on the subject.

Of course someone of your ilk I’m sure thinks that marriage is a mere human construct so, whatever. I’m not really sure how tolerant you are, after all some pushing this agenda have done & said some pretty bad stuff to us who oppose it.

Et tu brute ?

 

[edwest2]

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.

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

I think we should treat them the same way we treated the other religions when they first appeared in Christiandom … we must have felt threatened and we probably didn’t want their influence in our midst. I mean, I think we’ll lose more Catholics to the Protestants and Muslims than to gays! If we can get along with the Protestants and the Muslims in our midst… hey …

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.

Here is your answer:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

Once gay sex is legalized, then all sexual orientations will demand their “rights.”

The Sexual Revolution of the late 1960s was about sex. The Hippies said, “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” Now, they want any mix or match sexual arrangement, label that a “family,” get money and estates out of it and survivor benefits.

Once that happens, we’ll have this:

Divorce Court:

Your honor, all 45 of the participants of this action are here, including the three plaintiffs.

Judge: Alright, I want all biological children of the party of the first part to pick up a number one sign, all parties of the second part to pick up a number two sign and all parties of the third part to pick up a number three sign.

And…

Hi, my name is Jim. This is my sister and that’s my other sister. And those are my two cousins, I think. And that’s my real mom and that’s my other mom. And that’s my real Dad, but he left so he could live with his boyfriend. Those two ladies over there adopted me but I left after I turned 18.

And let’s not forget the ‘zoos,’ these are the people who abuse animals.

And you, as a Christian, are supposed to accept all this as not only legal but A-OK. Even though it is clearly against natural law and moral law.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You are seen as intolerant because you are seen as denying gays something that you have. Allowing gays to marry does not have any direct impact on heterosexual marriage so it is difficult to produce any non-religious reasons for not allowing it. You are in a similar position to those who argued against allowing interracial marriage before Loving v Virginia; you are seeking to deny other people something which you have and which will have minimal impact on you if they are allowed to have it. You are seen as being a dog in the manger.

One way to approach the issue might be to split marriage into two parts, religious marriage and legal marriage. Say r-marriage and l-marriage for convenience.

R-marriage is defined by the different religions. Christians can only have one r-marriage spouse at a time, while Muslim men can have up to four r-marriage wives at a time. I am not sure if the fundamentalist Mormons have an upper limit at all. These r-marriages are specific to the given religion, or denomination within a religion.

L-marriage is defined by the government for the purposes of taxation, insurance, hospital access rights etc.

On the principle of “render unto Caesar” it would seem sensible for the elected government to define l-marriage. Currently the US does not recognise all forms of r-marriage such as Muslim or Mormon second and subsequent wives or gay r-marriages performed by the MCC. If the elected government, at State or Federal level, wishes to adjust the definition of l-marriage then that is their perogative and voters may take action for or against any proposed change.

The definition of r-marriage is left to the individual religions or denominations. If gays wish to have an r-marriage then they can go the the MCC, or any other gay friendly denomination, and have one there. There is no need for the government to interfere with r-marriage at all. It does not do so now and should not do so in future.

I suspect that some of the heat in this debate is due to people thinking that a change to l-marriage will automatically require a change to r-marriage. This is not the case as is shown by the fact that the government allows Moslem, fundamentalist Mormon and MCC r-marriages to continue when they do not conform to the common definition of l-marriage. The government is under no obligation to recognise all r-marriages, just as different religious denominations are not under any obligation to recognise either l-marriages or r-marriages by other denominations.

The laws of l-marriage are already different from those of Catholic r-marriage; l-marriage allows divorce, while Catholic r-marriage does not. I cannot see any reason why any change to l-marriage should result in a change to Catholic r-marriage.

That seems to me to be a good approach. You do not have to spend a great deal of energy on l-marriage, it already fails to meet the Catholic standards for r-marriage. Perhaps better to divert your energies into something more important to you.

For myself I cannot see any major problems with this change; we have gay Civil Partnerships in the UK and there has been almost no impact from that except for the actual people involved. Divorce is probably a greater threat to marriage than introducing gay marriage yet there seems to be much less energy spent on countering divorce than on countering gay marriage. Perhaps reconsidering priorities might be useful.

rossum

Then you have entirely missed the point. Gays in the United States want 100% equality with heterosexual marriage, NOTHING less. They cite nonsense arguments like separate but equal as if they had a different skin color.

As this article clearly states - all they want is any type of mix and match sexual relationship for all ‘orientations,’ including bestiality:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

God forbid.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Then you have entirely missed the point. Gays in the United States want 100% equality with heterosexual marriage, NOTHING less.

And what is the problem with that? In terms of l-marriage it is up to the state to decide. In terms of r-marriage if gays want a church wedding they can go to the MCC. I cannot see a change being forced onto the Catholic definition of r-marriage; there have been no moves to force the Catholic church to recognise civil divorces, despite that directly affecting far more people than gay marriage.

They cite nonsense arguments like separate but equal

Why is that nonsense? Don’t you have something over there which says “all men are created equal”? Why do you disagree with that sentiment?

As this article clearly states - all they want is any type of mix and match sexual relationship for all ‘orientations,’ including bestiality:

In the OP LaSalle said “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.” Why do you think that throwing around stupid accusations of bestiality will help your side be seen as less intolerant? You sound as bad as Fred Phelps, which takes some doing. You are not looking good here ed; you appear to be part of the problem that LaSalle is trying to solve rather than trying to work towards a solution. By all means oppose gay marriage, but you would do better not to do so in such a shrill and nasty way.

rossum