What do I say about this? (concerning gay marriage)

[laircy]

“Gay people should not be forced to abstain from physical love-- or marriage-- because it’s wrong according to someone else’s religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights. When a straight couple gets married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter. Why should the church all of a sudden have a say because it’s a gay couple?”

I wasn’t, by the way, even suggesting that anyone be “forced” to abstain, merely that it is the right thing to do. To the rest, I don’t know how to respond.

 

[WesleyF]

“Gay people should not be forced to abstain from physical love-- or marriage-- because it’s wrong according to someone else’s religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights. When a straight couple gets married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter. Why should the church all of a sudden have a say because it’s a gay couple?”

I wasn’t, by the way, even suggesting that anyone be “forced” to abstain, merely that it is the right thing to do. To the rest, I don’t know how to respond.

“A grown up man and a 11 year old girl should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it is wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

“A man and his daughter should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it’s wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

“A brother and sister should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it’s wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

You see the problem?

 

[laircy]

“A grown up man and a 11 year old girl should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it is wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

“A man and his daughter should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it’s wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

“A brother and sister should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it’s wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

You see the problem?

I see the problem, but they’d probably just say something along the lines of “It’s not the same!” or “How dare you compare it to that!” Or worse, they might even agree…

 

[WesleyF]

“Gay people should not be forced to abstain from physical love-- or marriage-- because it’s wrong according to someone else’s religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights. When a straight couple gets married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter. Why should the church all of a sudden have a say because it’s a gay couple?”

I wasn’t, by the way, even suggesting that anyone be “forced” to abstain, merely that it is the right thing to do. To the rest, I don’t know how to respond.

When a government defines marriage, that definition of marriage is binding upon not just gay people, but everyone. The government tells its citizens - this is the law; this is what is right. Therefore, as a citizen, I have a say in deciding what rules or laws are passed in the country. Don’t I have a say in what is right and what is wrong, especially when I as a citizen shall be required to abide by it? This is a democracy.

I should not be forced to accept gay people’s definition of marriage. That’s why I am against the government imposing such a definition.

**I believe that homosexual activity is disordered. If someone wants to engage in it, they are free to do so, provided I am not forced to accept that activity as being morally right. If someone wants to do “gay marriage”, they are free to do so, provided I am not forced to accept that definition of marriage. **

Some examples -

The government has legalized pornography, but it has not bound me by law to accept that pornography is morally right. (I can still voice my opinion to make pornography illegal though, but it is still not as grave an issue, because it doesn’t require me to accept it as something that is morally right.)

The government has legalized abortion, and it has bound me by law to accept it as morally right (HHS mandate). Therefore I fight against it.

 

[TEPO]

“Gay people should not be forced to abstain from physical love-- or marriage-- because it’s wrong according to someone else’s religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights. When a straight couple gets married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter. Why should the church all of a sudden have a say because it’s a gay couple?”

I wasn’t, by the way, even suggesting that anyone be “forced” to abstain, merely that it is the right thing to do. To the rest, I don’t know how to respond.

Well, most people forget that the Church is not the Pope and a handful of Bishops… The Church is millions of citizens from around the globe who have the “right” to influence politics however their conscience instructs them just like anyone else.

The last sentence of the question seems to hint that Catholics should’nt have a say in marriage because it’s typically a governmental contract… Well, there are Catholics who actually work in/for/as the government. So why would’nt the church have a say.

 

[WesleyF]

And all the talk about “rights” is just a cheap tactic to avoid the issue. Who decides what are rights and what are not rights? I don’t subscribe to gay people’s definition of “rights”. If the government decides what are rights and not rights, then I have a say in it too.

Let me be very frank here - I believe homosexual activity is an absolutely perverse form of sex. By elevating such relationships to the stature of “marriage”, the government tells us to believe that such activities are not perverse at all, but on par with natural sex between a man and a woman.

I’ll fight that to my last breath.

 

[Dejagirl]

When a government defines marriage, that definition of marriage is binding upon not just gay people, but everyone. The government tells its citizens - this is the law; this is what is right. Therefore, as a citizen, I have a say in deciding what rules or laws are passed in the country. Don’t I have a say in what is right and what is wrong, especially when I as a citizen shall be required to abide by it? This is a democracy.

I appreciate your points, but wanted to clarify that we are not a democracy but a Republic. I hear this said often. Here is the difference:

In a Democracy, the Majority has unlimited power over the Minority. This system of government does not provide a legal safeguard of the rights of the Individual and the Minority. It has been referred to as “Majority over Man”.

In a Republic, the Majority is Limited and constrained by a written Constitution which protects the rights of the Individual and the Minority. The purpose of a Republic form of government is to control the Majority and to protect the God-given, inalienable rights and liberty of the Individual. The United States of America is founded as a Republic under the Constitution.

I point this out not to be nit picky, but there is a signifcant difference and as our people continue to be lured down a socialist path, I think it’s important the we understand why our country was founded as a “Republic” and why this is such a great blessing from God.

I should not be forced to accept gay people’s definition of marriage. That’s why I am against the government imposing such a definition.

I believe that homosexual activity is disordered. If someone wants to engage in it, they are free to do so, provided I am not forced to accept that activity as being morally right. If someone wants to do “gay marriage”, they are free to do so, provided I am not forced to accept that definition of marriage.

Some examples -

The government has legalized pornography, but it has not bound me by law to accept that pornography is morally right. (I can still voice my opinion to make pornography illegal though, but it is still not as grave an issue, because it doesn’t require me to accept it as something that is morally right.)

The government has legalized abortion, and it has bound me by law to accept it as morally right (HHS mandate). Therefore I fight against it.

 

[Todd_Easton]

“A man and his daughter should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it’s wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

“A brother and sister should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it’s wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

You see the problem?

You left out polygamous unions…and unions between humans and non-humans.

Government’s interest (and religion’s interest) in regulating marriage has less to do with love and more to do with insuring that there is a next generation of healthy citizens. One way the government does this is by limiting marriage to those unions which can potentially produce the most genetically-diverse offspring, namely non-incestuous, monogamous, heterosexual unions. Homosexual unions produce no offspring at all; incestuous unions and even polygamous unions produce a less genetically-diverse population than non-incestuous, monogamous, heterosexual unions.

 

[Dejagirl]

I’m not sure I can provide you with a good answer, but I would suggest when faced with such questions/situations, at that very moment say a prayer and ask our Lord and Blessed Mother for guidance. Our Catholic faith is being attacked relentlessly today - and it’s being encouraged by our President and his administration. I never thought we would live in such times as these.

Always remember that there must be much goodness in our faith or the devil wouldn’t be working so hard to destroy it… and no matter how tough our fight may seem, we must never give up. After all, nothing can compare to Christ’s battle while on earth and how he suffered for us.

 

[cessnawag]

“Gay people should not be forced to abstain from physical love-- or marriage-- because it’s wrong according to someone else’s religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights. When a straight couple gets married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter. Why should the church all of a sudden have a say because it’s a gay couple?”

I wasn’t, by the way, even suggesting that anyone be “forced” to abstain, merely that it is the right thing to do. To the rest, I don’t know how to respond.

When the son of god is sent to start a church on earth and gives Peter the keys to heaven. That is when you listen. Take it or leave it.

 

[Seira]

“A grown up man and a 11 year old girl should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it is wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

“A man and his daughter should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it’s wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

“A brother and sister should not be forced to abstain from physical love or marriage because it’s wrong according to someone else’ religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights.”

You see the problem?

11 year olds aren’t allowed to vote because they are minors & minors can make decisions like marriage or voting or going into the army on their own or even w/ parental consent. Not to mention pedophilia is a crime. That’s the law. Homosexuality: not a crime. That’s also the law. Also, incest is also a crime even if between consenting adults. Jofferey… enough said. Polygamy is actually something that was quite common in the times of the old testament. Also they’re consenting adults & not close relatives. So they might have a case. Beastiality? Again has to be consenting adults. An animal is not a human. Not allowed to vote, or go to war, doesn’t not have rights like a human. That’s why there’s human rights & animal rights. Animals can’t give consent. I don’t see the problem. The world isn’t going to end because gays are able to file joint taxes. Again, nobody’s forcing you to accept it… just tolerate it. Nobody’s forcing you to accept a black president either, but you should tolerate it because he was sworn into office. Fight if you like, but I think their are much bigger problems to tackle.

 

[NeedImprovement]

“Gay people should not be forced to abstain from physical love-- or marriage-- because it’s wrong according to someone else’s religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights. When a straight couple gets married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter. Why should the church all of a sudden have a say because it’s a gay couple?”

I wasn’t, by the way, even suggesting that anyone be “forced” to abstain, merely that it is the right thing to do. To the rest, I don’t know how to respond.

The arguments of those promoting the homosexual agenda, commonly gay activist arguments, usually begin with a lot of buit-in deception. The objective, as several analysts say , is simple : define the terms, and you win the argument . It helps to pick out the deception in these “definitions” at the beginning . . . as you did with this one -

. . . I wasn’t, by the way, even suggesting that anyone be “forced” to abstain, merely that it is the right thing to do. To the rest, I don’t know how to respond.

They imply you are “forcing” them - that’s what they want to call it and that’s what they want you to call it (actually, when they come back from Disneyland, one might remind them that if anyone has been currently “forcing” someone to do something, it’s the government - not the Church).

Considering this part

". . . When a straight couple gets married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter.

• caused a few examples to jump out at me :

• One of the objectives is to get even those who disagree, to call it gay (ahem) “marriage” , when in fact, it will never be marriage. There is a continuous initiative to try and condition society into accepting it by densensitizing us through sheer repetition.
• The more essential thrust of the statement, is the attempt to assert/establish that marriage is a “right”. Marriage has never been a “right” , although more than several govenments now have legislation in effect, “forcing” us to accept, against the better judgement of our consciences , the depraved notion that same sex -]marriage/-] is some how a right. dts
• And while we’re at it, why should we ever have to refer to them as a *“straight” couple *- instead of *a man and a woman *? . . . if not for the purpose or appearance of trying to “force” some type of moral equalizer upon us to prevent us from seeing the difference . . . between the commitment of a man and a woman as they pledge themselves to each other before God, that they might fulfill His and their desire to “become one flesh” and to “be fruitful and multiply”, and the other - closed to the transmission of life and disordered ?
• To say that , when a man and woman " get married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter. Why should the church all of a sudden have a say because it’s a gay couple?" - is a lie in so many ways. The Church speaks out on all moral matters concerning the truth . Doesn’t the Church tell us that contraception is immoral and that abortion is murder ? Doesn’t the Church speak on the validity of marriages if She grants annulments, indults ? The truth of the matter is that the Church speaks out both inside and outside of marriage, and that would also include, excluding homosexual unions

.

The entire premise is specious. My favorite part of it is:

“Why should the church all of a sudden have a say…?”

Anyone living in the real world sees this sentiment expressed and implemented daily in the government and in the media. The truth, is quite the opposite of what the gay activists claim. It is the Church who is being persecuted - and they have a hand in it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

If they actually desired some of the Church’s reasoning, instead of condemning the Church to promote their own agenda , the homosexual militants would find it in this definition :

From Father John Hardon, S.J. , Modern Catholic Dictionary

Marriage

As a natural institution, the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

The state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage.

Christ elevated marriage to a sacrament of the New Law. Christian spouses signify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which exists between Christ and his Church, helping each other attain to holiness in their married life and in the rearing and education of their children.

Link to Modern Catholic Dictionary

 

[Seira]

11 year olds aren’t allowed to marry because they are minors & minors can’t make decisions regarding marriage, voting, or going into the army on their own or even w/ parental consent. Come to think of it anyone over 18 having sex w/ a minor = rape. Why is that? Minors are under the age of consent. Meaning they’re not in a position to make such a decision. In otherwords that can’t possibly give consent. Also, pedophilia is a crime. That’s the law. Homosexuality: not a crime. That’s also the law. Incest is also a crime, even when between consenting adults. Joffery… enough said. Polygamy is actually something that was quite common in the times of the old testament. Also they’re consenting adults & not close relatives. So they might have a case. Beastiality? Again has to be consenting adults. An animal is not a human. Not allowed to vote or go to war. They don’t have rights like a human. That’s why there’s human rights & animal rights. Animals can’t give consent. I don’t see the problem. The world isn’t going to end because gays are able to file joint taxes. Again, nobody’s forcing you to accept it… just that you should tolerate it because it’s already happening whether you want to believe it or not. Nobody’s forcing you to accept a black president either, but you should tolerate it because he was sworn into office. He’s your president whether you choose to believe it or not. Fight if you like, but I think their are much bigger problems to tackle.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I find post # 11 to be rather offensive in certain aspects - not so much because it defies Church teaching on same sex issues - ( an outline of which we are asked to read before posting ) - we’re kind of accustomed to those attacks , but predominantly because it has equated being black with having an inclination that is “objectively disordered” .

. . . I don’t see the problem. The world isn’t going to end because gays are able to file joint taxes. Again, nobody’s forcing you to accept it… just tolerate it. Nobody’s forcing you to accept a black president either, but you should tolerate it because he was sworn into office.

uch:

It does a disservice to african Americans . Unfortunately, bigoted mentality has also been expressed by the openly gay federal judge Vaughn Walker , who overturned proposition 8, stripping Californians of their right to vote , imposing instead his own views on the state’s people.

Again, equating being black, with having an inclination that is “objectively disordered” is offensive.

Consider the words of Bishop Harry R. Jackson jr.,senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland, and founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC) in an excerpt from the CNN article Same-sex Marriage Will Hurt Families, Society

" The implicit comparison Judge Vaughn Walker made between racism and opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all who remember the reality of Jim Crow ."

 

[WesleyF]

11 year olds aren’t allowed to vote because they are minors & minors can make decisions like marriage or voting or going into the army on their own or even w/ parental consent. Not to mention pedophilia is a crime. That’s the law.

Who defines these laws? What about the rights of those who want to engage in such sexual activity? If a man and a 11 year old girl want to have sex, what basis do we have to stop them? They could also say their “rights” are being infringed upon. Who defines who has what rights?

Also, incest is also a crime even if between consenting adults.

Again, who defines it is a crime?

Again, nobody’s forcing you to accept it… just tolerate it.

Nope. If a law is made, then I am bound by the government to accept it. It is the government telling me what is right and what is not right. Then, if I teach my kids that marriage is only between a man and a woman, I could be sued. It’s an infringement upon my rights.

Fight if you like, but I think their are much bigger problems to tackle.

I will continue to fight. Infringement upon my personal rights is no small problem.

 

[WesleyF]

I find post # 11 to be rather offensive in certain aspects - not so much because it defies Church teaching on same sex issues - ( an outline of which we are asked to read before posting ) - we’re kind of accustomed to those attacks , but predominantly because it has equated being black with having an inclination that is “objectively disordered” .

Ya, this is something that the gay marriage supporters often do, as though it’s as simple an issue as discriminating against someone because of the color of his skin. It’s not the same. What is more interesting is that the percentage of African American people who reject gay “marriage” is quite large. So even they don’t see it the way the gay marriage supporters would like to see it.

 

[snarflemike]

11 year olds aren’t allowed to vote because they are minors & minors can make decisions like marriage or voting or going into the army on their own or even w/ parental consent. Not to mention pedophilia is a crime. That’s the law. Homosexuality: not a crime. That’s also the law.

Homosexuality was a crime in many of our lifetimes, so “it’s a crime” isn’t a compelling argument anymore. Laws change, especially when those making the laws can or will no longer defend them.

 

[WesleyF]

Homosexuality was a crime in many of our lifetimes

I think we must be careful with our terminology. Homosexuality by itself wasn’t a crime. It was simply a disorder. It was homosexual activity that was a crime.

 

[steve_b]

“Gay people should not be forced to abstain from physical love-- or marriage-- because it’s wrong according to someone else’s religious beliefs. It is a blatant infringement upon their human rights. When a straight couple gets married, the government is the one who grants the marriage, and the church has no say in the matter. Why should the church all of a sudden have a say because it’s a gay couple?”

I wasn’t, by the way, even suggesting that anyone be “forced” to abstain, merely that it is the right thing to do. To the rest, I don’t know how to respond.

What I would say to anyone who is interested enough to listen

emphasis mine

*[1 Cor 6: 9-10] *
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, * 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

for clarification, that means active homosexuality

If someone is going to ignore that warning after they have been given the truth then they show they are more interested in their “rights” than their soul.