What 10 Priests Say About Gay Marriage

[DrTaffy]

Race is not a behavior. That’s the difference.

Gender is not a behaviour either. Marrying someone of another race or the same gender is a behaviour. But really none of your business if you are not one of the two people involved and they are consenting adults.

Why you think that stubbornly ignoring this simple point will achieve anything other than making Catholicism look bad is beyond me.

Besides, either we live in free society where people can choose who to do business with or we don’t and the government makes us.

Or there are restrictions on doing business. Such as obeying laws on health and safety, fair financial practice and non-discrimination against protected persecuted minorities.

PS—what do you get out of defending so-called gay “marriage” anyways?

Why does it offend you so much that others defend minorities? You keep sending me messages in this vein. If you don’t like the posts, don’t read them.

DrTaffy;12697873:

You truly do not understand. There is no religious teaching that participating in an inter racial event is considered cooperation with sin.

Not in your religion, now, maybe. But religious arguments were used against interracial marriage, and many people still hold such beliefs.

You know this is a Catholic Forum. If you have an issue with another religion, take it up with them.

I have an issue not with Catholics per se (most of whom support gay marriage) but with those trying to force their religious beliefs on homosexuals who do not share your beliefs. As such the parallel with people trying to force their religious objections to interracial marriage on couples who did not share them is very apposite.

 

[casslean]

I have an issue not with Catholics per se (most of whom support gay marriage) but with those trying to force their religious beliefs on homosexuals who do not share your beliefs. As such the parallel with people trying to force their religious objections to interracial marriage on couples who did not share them is very apposite.

"What one person sees as having the strength of moral convictions is just sanctimonious intolerance to another. As with a lot of things, it depends on perspective. "

“Unless tolerance engages the incomprehensible, the contemptible or the detestable, it is nothing much more than indifference. It isn’t a line. It’s a process. And it’s one that invites and almost requires a level of discomfort.”

– Justice Jamie Campbell, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Trinity Western University v Nova Scotia Barristers Society, 2015 NSSC 25

These were the words that opened and closed the decision which overturned the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society’s decision not to accredit graduates of the proposed TWU law school unless the school removed its community covenant which prohibited same-sex relationships. Justice Campbell reminds us that tolerance is a two-way street. Christians have to be tolerant of beliefs different than theirs, but it isn’t one-sided. Others have to be tolerant of the beliefs of Christians.

Public policy that ignores either set of rights is not tolerant; it is simply a different kind of intolerance.

 

[DrTaffy]

These were the words that opened and closed the decision which overturned the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society’s decision not to accredit graduates of the proposed TWU law school unless the school removed its community covenant which prohibited same-sex relationships. Justice Campbell reminds us that tolerance is a two-way street. Christians have to be tolerant of beliefs different than theirs, but it isn’t one-sided. Others have to be tolerant of the beliefs of Christians.

Public policy that ignores either set of rights is not tolerant; it is simply a different kind of intolerance.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with legal recognition of SSM? After all, prohibiting recognition of same sex marriage even for those religious or non-religious groups who accept it just because your religious or non-religious beliefs reject it is hardly ‘tolerance’. I am not sure what you are saying here.

 

[casslean]

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with legal recognition of SSM? After all, prohibiting recognition of same sex marriage even for those religious or non-religious groups who accept it just because your religious or non-religious beliefs reject it is hardly ‘tolerance’. I am not sure what you are saying here.

What do you mean by “legal recognition of SSM”? I disagree with SSM, and I think it was a poor public policy decision, but I acknowledge that it is the law. I just don’t agree that, by virtue of it being the law, people should not have still have the right to disagree with it and to decide not to be involved with it if it violates their own moral precepts to do so.

 

[LisaA]

What do you mean by “legal recognition of SSM”? I disagree with SSM, and I think it was a poor public policy decision, but I acknowledge that it is the law. I just don’t agree that, by virtue of it being the law, people should not have still have the right to disagree with it and to decide not to be involved with it if it violates their own moral precepts to do so.

This has been my over riding issue with SSM. I honestly don’t care if Bob and Joe sleep together, own a home together or share health benefits. What I DO care about is the way gay activists use “marriage” as a cudgel to oppress the rights of others. Further those who simply say “I believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman” are threatened, demands for their removal from the public square ensue, and they are called the most filthy names.

 

[DrTaffy]

What do you mean by “legal recognition of SSM”?

I mean same sex marriage being legally recognised.

Given that other religions happily marry same sex couples, should those marriages be given the same legal weight as your Catholic marriages?

As far as being forced to be ‘involved’, there is a real issue of striking a balance between freedom of religion and protection of persecuted minorities. AFAIK no one is forced to take part in the ceremony itself.

Being ‘forced’ to sell a cake when you have voluntarily set up business selling cakes in the public arena is, IMO, a reasonable balance. Like being ‘forced’ to serve lunch to black people if you have set up a restaurant.

 

[LisaA]

As far as being forced to be ‘involved’, there is a real issue of striking a balance between freedom of religion and protection of persecuted minorities. AFAIK no one is forced to take part in the ceremony itself.

Being ‘forced’ to sell a cake when you have voluntarily set up business selling cakes in the public arena is, IMO, a reasonable balance. Like being ‘forced’ to serve lunch to black people if you have set up a restaurant.

As an avowed atheist you clearly have no understanding of how a religious person views participation in a sinful act. Don’t extrapolate your non-belief into something that is universal.

As to the Bakery Suits, you either deliberately fail to distinguish or maybe do not understand the difference between public accommodation…allowing any sort of customer to enter your business and purchase some sort of ready made item and participation in the ceremony through artistic efforts required to tailor a specific wedding cake to a specific couple being married. Perhaps as an Atheist male homosexual, you don’t understand the importance of the wedding cake both as a part of the wedding and as a symbol of sharing a life together. Ask any bride and beyond the dress and flowers, the cake is very much a part of the outward expression of the couple and the image they wish to portray… The colors, the decorations, the little bride and groom on the top all say something about the couple and require much more creativity and effort than just buying a ready made cake out of the glass case. The cutting of the cake, the sharing of the first bite symbolizes the beginning of a new life where two become one. It IS important and always part of the wedding photos with celebration and applause to follow.

Participation in the religious sense is probably not obvious to an atheist. If I drive a friend to the abortion clinic, I am participating in her abortion. I don’t have to BE the abortionist. That the baker must use his or her artistic ability to tailor the cake to a particular couple, a particular event with particular requests by the parties and very likely delivery and set up, yes this IS material participation.

You are completely wrong to make an analogy of blacks at the soda fountain. In that they were denied public accommodation to purchase a product “off the shelf.” Further as one of these old cases just popped up in the news, it was noted that they youth who were arrested for sitting at the soda fountain counter were not charged with an action but simply for being black. No one is preventing gays and Lesbians from entering the bakery.

Further the complete ease of simply finding another baker makes these cases little more than a form of agitation. No one is being denied lifesaving medical care. They might have to whip out their iPhone and do a 10 second search to find another baker. Somehow the anguish of not having your choice in bakers seems rather contrived given that it goal is to deny religious freedom to another.

 

[ChainBreaker]

PS—what do you get out of defending so-called gay “marriage” anyways?

I don’t support marriage between two people of the same gender.

I support and respect the legal basis that allows for a State Marriage between two people of the same gender because it is logically consistent with a secular legal system that does not enforce culture with culture. The state Protects Gay people for the very same reasons that it protects religion. Nobody has right to force there beliefs on people or discriminate for any reason.

You seem to be under this delusion that religion has a special place when it comes to legal questions.

So long as you are not being forced to be gay yourself i really don’t see a basis for thinking that religious rights are being undermined.

 

[davidv]

I don’t support marriage between two people of the same gender.

I support and respect the legal basis that allows for a State Marriage between two people of the same gender because it is logically consistent with a secular legal system that does not enforce culture with culture. The state Protects Gay people for the very same reasons that it protects religion. Nobody has right to force there beliefs on people or discriminate for any reason.

You seem to be under this delusion that religion has a special place when it comes to legal questions.

So long as you are not being forced to be gay yourself i really don’t see a basis for thinking that religious rights are being undermined.

This sound a lot like “I am not my brother’s keeper”.

With this this attitude, how are we be salt and light to the world as Jesus instructed us to be?

 

[DrTaffy]

As an avowed atheist you clearly have no understanding of how a religious person views participation in a sinful act.

Well, nice to see that you are not judging me!

 

[ChainBreaker]

Perhaps as an Atheist male homosexual, you don’t understand the importance of the wedding cake both as a part of the wedding and as a symbol of sharing a life together.

I didn’t realize that doctor taffy was a homosexual?

 

[ChainBreaker]

This sound a lot like “I am not my brother’s keeper”.

With this this attitude, how are we be salt and light to the world as Jesus instructed us to be?

I don’t care what it sounds like to you; I am simply stating the reality of whats happening insofar as Legal rights are concerned.

If you want to be your brothers keeper, you have a right to evangelize.

 

[DrTaffy]

I didn’t realize that doctor taffy was a homosexual?

Neither did DrTaffy. Clearly Lisa knows best.

 

[LisaA]

Neither did DrTaffy. Clearly Lisa knows best.

I believe you had stated you were homosexual. Further I do not believe any heterosexual man would be such an apologist for homosexual behavior and imagined ‘rights.’ One generally doesn’t get too exorcised unless one’s own ox is being gored. BTW I don’t believe you are a doctor but maybe you’d like to educate me on who is the real “DrTaffy.”

 

[casslean]

I believe you had stated you were homosexual. Further I do not believe any heterosexual man would be such an apologist for homosexual behavior and imagined ‘rights.’ One generally doesn’t get too exorcised unless one’s own ox is being gored.

I really don’t think that sort of comment is warranted, necessary, or helpful to the discussion. I know there have been a number of individuals who did self-identify as homosexual in this thread, and it is easy to get confused. Perhaps simply admitting one’s mistake would be the better path to take?

In my experience, the ability to intelligently and rationally debate these issues is often hampered by people devolving to unsubstantiated personal attacks on the opposing side. We might all do better at understanding the other side if we leave such attacks out of the discussion.

 

[LisaA]

I really don’t think that sort of comment is warranted, necessary, or helpful to the discussion. I know there have been a number of individuals who did self-identify as homosexual in this thread, and it is easy to get confused. Perhaps simply admitting one’s mistake would be the better path to take?

In my experience, the ability to intelligently and rationally debate these issues is often hampered by people devolving to unsubstantiated personal attacks on the opposing side. We might all do better at understanding the other side if we leave such attacks out of the discussion.

You are correct. I do believe the poster had indicated he was homosexual in a previous thread. He does a lot of posting so it’s possible I mis-remembered.

 

[Bradski]

As an avowed atheist you clearly have no understanding of how a religious person views participation in a sinful act.

That the baker must use his or her artistic ability to tailor the cake to a particular couple, a particular event with particular requests by the parties and very likely delivery and set up, yes this IS material participation.

First up, I think it’s a little insulting to suggest that because someone doesn’t believe in your God that h/she has no understanding of how Christians perceive sin. I don’t know about the good Doctor, but I was brought up as a Christian and I’m well aware of it.

Secondly, you are making an argument that puts you at the start of a very steep and slippery slope. I think it might have been you earlier that hypothetically asked what would happen if the baker were asked to provide an anti gay cake. It doesn’t take much thought to realise that would then be asked to participate in something illegal and would be fully in his rights to refuse. Likewise if it was an anti-Christian cake or one to celebrate the Holocaust.

Maybe you think the baker should have a list of questions to ensure that anything he produces is not going to be used in any way in a marriage with which he disagrees. If the icing is ‘Mike and Terry’ are they a mixed couple? Two women? Two guys? He needs to know!

What about the guy who supplies the flour for the cake. Should he ask if the baker is going to make a cake for a gay wedding? Can he refuse to sell it? And the guy who delivers the flour. Can he refuse the delivery if he knows it will be used to promote homosexuality? Or who services the van. Or the guy who supplies the oil to the guy who services the van which deliver the flour which makes the cake which is maybe for a gay marriage.

 

[Bradski]

I believe you had stated you were homosexual. Further I do not believe any heterosexual man would be such an apologist for homosexual behavior and imagined ‘rights.’

So if support women’s right then I must be a woman. Or a Christian if I supoort freedom of religion. And if supoort asnimal rights, I must be…well, I’m not sure there.

Maybe a simnple ‘sorry, I was wrong’ would have sufficed.

 

[LisaA]

First up, I think it’s a little insulting to suggest that because someone doesn’t believe in your God that h/she has no understanding of how Christians perceive sin. I don’t know about the good Doctor, but I was brought up as a Christian and I’m well aware of it.

Secondly, you are making an argument that puts you at the start of a very steep and slippery slope. I think it might have been you earlier that hypothetically asked what would happen if the baker were asked to provide an anti gay cake. It doesn’t take much thought to realise that would then be asked to participate in something illegal and would be fully in his rights to refuse. Likewise if it was an anti-Christian cake or one to celebrate the Holocaust.

Maybe you think the baker should have a list of questions to ensure that anything he produces is not going to be used in any way in a marriage with which he disagrees. If the icing is ‘Mike and Terry’ are they a mixed couple? Two women? Two guys? He needs to know!

What about the guy who supplies the flour for the cake. Should he ask if the baker is going to make a cake for a gay wedding? Can he refuse to sell it? And the guy who delivers the flour. Can he refuse the delivery if he knows it will be used to promote homosexuality? Or who services the van. Or the guy who supplies the oil to the guy who services the van which deliver the flour which makes the cake which is maybe for a gay marriage.

Ah another atheist claiming he understands the way religious people define “participation.” Since the poster claimed that the baking of a cake for a gay wedding was not "participating " my post explained why, from a religious point of view it WAS participating. As I said, I do not know if he was deliberately ignoring what had been said or simply didn’t understand. Either way if he or if you had read the post, you would understand the perspective.

Further you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the facts of these cases. It was clear that the bakers, photographers, B&B owners etc were deliberately being set up. They were told this was for a gay “wedding” or honeymoon, they made it very clear they were aware to proprietor was a Christian and would possibly refuse.

Once more if you 'd read the post and had an understanding of what does or does not qualify as participation you would not have advanced such specious examples regarding the supplier of the flour. Read and respond to the actual argument.

 

[LisaA]

So if support women’s right then I must be a woman. Or a Christian if I supoort freedom of religion. And if supoort asnimal rights, I must be…well, I’m not sure there.

Maybe a simnple ‘sorry, I was wrong’ would have sufficed.

But that would not have been correct.