Why do gays want marriage? What do they hope gain from it?

[Seeker1961]

You’re not looking good enough, you choose to entertain your bias against religious freedom instead of searching.

Arrested for reading the Bible and thrown in jail: PENNSYLVANIA thanks to homosexuals
jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Police%20State/bible_banned_and_labeled_as_hate.htm

Canada court rules Bible as hate speech: (yes, about homosexuality)
wnd.com/2003/02/17314/
(you know what governments do against people who do “hate speech” - fines and jail time)

In addition Canada has a law on the books - up to 5 years in prison (same reason)
wnd.com/2004/04/24407/

Bible is hate speech in california: (guess why?)
rense.com/general78/calif.htm

Washington state bishop warned to shut up about anti-gay marriage issue: (no freedom of speech or religion if you are a Catholic, says the homosexuals!)
news.yahoo.com/washington-state-catholic-bishop-warned-over-anti-gay-021202054.html

Case after case this happens in Europe and Canada where homosexuals go their agenda pushed through.
truthtellers.org/hatelawsflyermailer.pdf

Homosexuals can force people to not only NOT say something against homosexuality, but also force you to speak on their behalf! Compulsory speech!
volokh.com/2012/04/04/may-the-government-force-you-to-print-ideological-materials-you-dont-want-to-print/

So no freedom of speech or religion allowed for Catholics and other Christians. First shut down the speech. First step. Then force others to speak on the gays behalf, against their beliefs.

What are you talking about federal funds?

I’m talking about discriminating by the government against the Catholic Church because of religious dogma.

Illinois cancels foster care referral contracts:
articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/15/nation/la-na-gay-adoptions-20111115

Massachusetts shuts down adoptions by Catholic Charities (no federal funds here!)
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm

And this is happening AROUND THE COUNTRY
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41680

Feel free to ignore the facts here. Homosexuality is used as a battering ram by cultural Marxists to force their beliefs on others and to shut down any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle - this means shutting down Catholic and Christian groups who help others but don’t have the “correct viewpoints”

First Amendment is dying in the USA.

In case you missed my actual question: you asserted that Churches were being sued by gay people who wanted to get married there. You still have not provided evidence that this has ever occurred in any of the US states that have already legalized gay marriage.

You also have not provided any evidence that organizations who refused federal funding were required to close. All of the cases you listed above involved organizations that wanted to continue to receive federal funding. I could not find any cases where an organization refused federal funds and was forced to change their operating rules.

You proved A point, but not the same one you originally made. You also brought in cases from other countries that do not have the same Constitution to support your claim that the First Amendment is dying in the US.

Changing your thesis when you can’t support it isn’t fooling anyone.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I don’t and you know better than that.

You are a straight guy, right? If and when you marry, do you want it to be a civil union or a marriage? I was assuming marriage.

All “marriages” as far as the state is concerned are just civil contracts between the couple and the state. So is/will be yours. Your religion makes it marriage. For other people, other things make it marriage, their religion or their cultural understanding. But it’s still nothing more tan a civil contract as far as the state is concerned.

So, why should there be a separate set of laws for one kind of civil union and another for a different kind?

 

[Faithdancer]

And this is why cultural Marxists use homosexuals to shut down freedom of speech and religion in every country gay marriage or homosexual laws are on the books.

Yes, and I’m sure that unrepentant sinners of many kinds externalize their guilt, shame, etc. and blame it on the Church.

Oh, if only the Church would approve of my immoral lifestyle! Then I wouldn’t have to feel guilty about it!

 

[Julia_Mae]

lifesitenews.com/news/angry-queers-smash-church-windows-in-portland

speroforum.com/a/17513/Gays-vandalize-San-Francisco-church

I’m going to need a scorecard pretty soon to tell who I am speaking to. So, here’s the history:

Julia Mae;9747211:

Bob Catholic said: The gay agenda, including "gay marriage" is a tool to shut down the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches by using “hate crime” and anti-discrimination laws

.

So, all these gay folks, over these last three decades of fighting for marriage, what they all secretly want is not marriage but to destroy the Catholic Church? That is their primary goal?

For some of them, it is.

Now, my objection is to the idea that gay people want to be married as a “tool to shut down the Church.” No, they just want to get married like anyone else.

Bob Catholic’s original assertion was that they will use “hate crime” and anti-discrimination laws to do that.

The examples provided are of vandalism. That means the perpetrators are engaging in hate crime, not accusing someone else of doing so. None of this means any gay person decided to fight for the right to marriage for the sole purpose of destroying anyone’s church.

It means people get angry and lose control. That’s bad, but it’s not conspiracy.

 

[pete_29]

You are a straight guy, right? If and when you marry, do you want it to be a civil union or a marriage? I was assuming marriage.

All “marriages” as far as the state is concerned are just civil contracts between the couple and the state. So is/will be yours. Your religion makes it marriage. For other people, other things make it marriage, their religion or their cultural understanding. But it’s still nothing more tan a civil contract as far as the state is concerned.

So, why should there be a separate set of laws for one kind of civil union and another for a different kind?

Why shouldn’t there be? They are two different things. One is a marriage between a man and a woman, the other is a civil contract between two people of the same sex. I think if you redefine the term Marriage, you open the door to a whole bunch of legal problems.

 

[Seeker1961]

Yes, and I’m sure that unrepentant sinners of many kinds externalize their guilt, shame, etc. and blame it on the Church.

Oh, if only the Church would approve of my immoral lifestyle! Then I wouldn’t have to feel guilty about it!

If you aren’t part of a Church that condemns what you do, why would you feel guilty about it?

I CHOSE to make a commitment to the Catholic Church, so I had to CHOOSE to give up any homosexual relationships. It’s been nearly 20 years and I don’t regret my CHOICE for a minute. However, while I was NOT part of the Catholic Church, I didn’t feel guilty about what I was doing. It was only as I started to feel a pull back to the Church of my childhood that I realized that what I was doing was wrong in the eyes of that Church.

There are plenty of gay people who have found churches that accept them, and they don’t feel the least bit guilty about what they do. There are plenty of gay people who have chosen not to be a part of any church at all. They are advocating for the legal right to marry because the State is not the Church-at least it isn’t supposed to be according to the Constitution. You know that pesky “no establishment” thing. As long as there is even ONE religion that does not condemn gay marriage, then the state siding with a church that does condemn it is establishing that church in a position higher than those that do not condemn it.

Of course, your mileage may vary on this…I’m just speaking as someone who has lived on both sides of the aisle.

 

[rfournier103]

To be seen as ‘normal?’ To have their lifestyle not just tolerated, but accepted as normal?

Perhaps if they live like us, we’ll see them as actually being like us. After all… If it walks like a married couple, and it talks like a married couple… etc…

Maybe they just like hyphenating their names?

I guess they’d have to hyphenate. Which one is the man???

 

[BobCatholic]

You also have not provided any evidence that organizations who refused federal funding were required to close. .

I never mentioned anything about federal funding. In fact, the cases I talked about were NOT about Federal funding at all. It was about states saying “thou shalt not discriminate against gays” and therefore they could not even do adoptions.

Please explain why it is OK for the government to say “thou shalt not practice your faith if it disagrees with our political agenda.”

I am also aware that the federal government (as well as state and local governments) have this pattern of offering to buy people’s and organizations’ civil rights and thus totalitarianism will come by way of government finances. First make sure people are out of work, and thus they need the services of private social organizations. Then private social service organizations are pressured to accept funding to help people or else. Then make the government funding contingent on PC thuggery (“Thou shalt not practice your faith. Thou shalt not have free speech.”). Result: Totalitarianism and rising poverty.

In case you missed my actual question: you asserted that Churches were being sued by gay people who wanted to get married there.

I amend my statement. I assert that Churches WILL be sued by gay people. It is only a matter of time.

 

[rfournier103]

I never mentioned anything about federal funding. In fact, the cases I talked about were NOT about Federal funding at all. It was about states saying “thou shalt not discriminate against gays” and therefore they could not even do adoptions.

Please explain why it is OK for the government to say “thou shalt not practice your faith if it disagrees with our political agenda.”

I am also aware that the federal government (as well as state and local governments) have this pattern of offering to buy people’s and organizations’ civil rights and thus totalitarianism will come by way of government finances. First make sure people are out of work, and thus they need the services of private social organizations. Then private social service organizations are pressured to accept funding to help people or else. Then make the government funding contingent on PC thuggery (“Thou shalt not practice your faith. Thou shalt not have free speech.”). Result: Totalitarianism and rising poverty.

I amend my statement. I assert that Churches WILL be sued by gay people. It is only a matter of time.

Yup. I see THAT ONE commin’. I think that’s why people are fighting hard against it now. If they don’t fight now, in the future the government may try to force us to stomach something we really don’t see as moral.

I suppose we can fight now, or fight later…

 

[Seeker1961]

I never mentioned anything about federal funding. In fact, the cases I talked about were NOT about Federal funding at all. It was about states saying “thou shalt not discriminate against gays” and therefore they could not even do adoptions.

Please explain why it is OK for the government to say “thou shalt not practice your faith if it disagrees with our political agenda.”

I am also aware that the federal government (as well as state and local governments) have this pattern of offering to buy people’s and organizations’ civil rights and thus totalitarianism will come by way of government finances. First make sure people are out of work, and thus they need the services of private social organizations. Then private social service organizations are pressured to accept funding to help people or else. Then make the government funding contingent on PC thuggery (“Thou shalt not practice your faith. Thou shalt not have free speech.”). Result: Totalitarianism and rising poverty.

I amend my statement. I assert that Churches WILL be sued by gay people. It is only a matter of time.

Your version of the future is pretty dark. I’m sorry you live with such a vision, it must be quite a burden.

 

[Hokomai]

Go to this website:

www.irs.gov

Check out the tax on single status versus the tax on married filing jointly status. The tax table should be somewhere in the form 1040 instructions.

The second big benefit would be the ability to add a legal spouse to a health insurance policy.

Every one of the other benefits of marriage listed was already available: Anyone can identify any person they want as their health care proxy, anyone can buy property jointly with another person, and so forth. All you need to do is draw up the appropriate documents with your attorney. And in most (if not all) states, single people can already adopt, providing they pass the background screening.

None of this is meant in any way to disparage true human emotion between two people. But I think the economic benefits in terms of taxes and health insurance coverage are what the pro gay marriage contingent is really interested in.

You can test this assumption by asking if gays in countries in which there is no benefit to marriage “in terms of taxes and health insurance” also want to marry. They do, so the assumption is wrong.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Why shouldn’t there be? They are two different things. One is a marriage between a man and a woman, the other is a civil contract between two people of the same sex. I think if you redefine the term Marriage, you open the door to a whole bunch of legal problems.

This was your question:

Then why all the hubbub about calling it a “marriage”?

Because it is marriage, legally, in the eyes of the state, which is the point. Now, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, because that’s just a word that refers to a civil contract. no one’s marriage is anything other than a civil contract in the reality of the law.

Only personal beliefs make it “marriage.” Your personal belief is that no thing called marriage can exist between between two persons of the same gender.

Do you know all the grounds for annulment in the Church? Annulment meaning a declaration that the marriage never existed? Way more than being the same gender. yet, those people who made that civil contract with the state called it marriage, were recognized as married, and got wedding gifts, quite likely. Church says: no marriage existed.

Can we agree this is correct: As a matter of law there is no difference between the marriage of same gender couples and opposite gender couples.

 

[rfournier103]

Now, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, because that’s just a word that refers to a civil contract. no one’s marriage is anything other than a civil contract in the reality of the law.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I never mentioned anything about federal funding. In fact, the cases I talked about were NOT about Federal funding at all. It was about states saying “thou shalt not discriminate against gays” and therefore they could not even do adoptions…

Of course they could have, they just had to obey Federal Law. They did not choose to obey Federal Law. This was their choice entirely. The Feds pulled the program money, and looked for another provider to award the contract to.

Catholic Charities of Massachusetts is free to provide all kinds of adoption services. I’m sure many Catholics and others would love a private agency that will not place a child with a gay couple. They went out of business because without Federal money they couldn’t operate. Maybe they should have had their own budget and maybe Catholic should step up and support ta hat instead of insisting the Federal Government subsidize their religion.

 

[DeSanto]

I’m not asking about the moral issues of same sex marriage. What I am wondering is, why is this such a big deal for homosexuals? What are they trying to accomplish?

Equality.

 

[pete_29]

This was your question:

Because it is marriage, legally, in the eyes of the state, which is the point. Now, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, because that’s just a word that refers to a civil contract. no one’s marriage is anything other than a civil contract in the reality of the law.

Only personal beliefs make it “marriage.” Your personal belief is that no thing called marriage can exist between between two persons of the same gender.

Do you know all the grounds for annulment in the Church? Annulment meaning a declaration that the marriage never existed? Way more than being the same gender. yet, those people who made that civil contract with the state called it marriage, were recognized as married, and got wedding gifts, quite likely. Church says: no marriage existed.

Can we agree this is correct: As a matter of law there is no difference between the marriage of same gender couples and opposite gender couples.

No.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I asked this:Can we agree this is correct: As a matter of law there is no difference between the marriage of same gender couples and opposite gender couples.

You answered this:

No.

Which begs the question: in a state that allows same sex couples to marry, what is the difference under that state’s law between their marriage and that of a straight couple?

 

[BobCatholic]

Of course they could have, they just had to obey Federal Law. They did not choose to obey Federal Law. This was their choice entirely. The Feds pulled the program money, and looked for another provider to award the contract to.

Catholic Charities of Massachusetts is free to provide all kinds of adoption services. I’m sure many Catholics and others would love a private agency that will not place a child with a gay couple. They went out of business because without Federal money they couldn’t operate. Maybe they should have had their own budget and maybe Catholic should step up and support ta hat instead of insisting the Federal Government subsidize their religion.

Please show me where the stuff I talked about had anything to do with federal funding. I never talked about it, so I’m wondering why are you on this “federal funding” thing.

The state said “thou shalt not disagree with our homosexual policy” Catholic Charities said “we practice the Catholic faith” and the state said “you are not allowed anymore”

This was nothing about federal funding. Zero. Nada. It was a state (not the Feds!!) shutting down the Catholic Charities.

 

[BobCatholic]

Now, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether,

I agree.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and governments performing religious ceremonies violate separation of Church and State doctrine. So the state really has no authority to declare someone married or not.

And the state also cannot declare if someone is validly married or not as a matter of judgment. The state does not make this judgment if someone is validly baptized, validly circumcised, validly ordained, validly performing a religious ritual.

Either SOCAS exists or not. But what I see is SOCAS is only one way. Church can’t tell the state what to do but the state can tell the Church what to do.

 

[Seeker1961]

I agree.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and governments performing religious ceremonies violate separation of Church and State doctrine. So the state really has no authority to declare someone married or not.

And the state also cannot declare if someone is validly married or not as a matter of judgment. The state does not make this judgment if someone is validly baptized, validly circumcised, validly ordained, validly performing a religious ritual.

Either SOCAS exists or not. But what I see is SOCAS is only one way. Church can’t tell the state what to do but the state can tell the Church what to do.

Again, I must question where the state is telling the CHURCH what to do. The state CAN tell organizations that have Church affiliations what to do-especially when they accept funding from said state.

I need to see more evidence to believe that the government is telling a CHURCH that they must have marriage ceremonies for gay couples, or that they must change their teachings on gay relationships. I understand that your personal worldview says that this will come, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually happening now or that it is imminent.

I would like to see the state outside of marriage too, but I doubt highly anyone is going to want to take those benefits away from straight couples in order to avoid legalizing gay relationships. It’s going to be far easier to give benefits to 3% of the population than to take them away from 97% of the population.