Why stop same-sex marriage for non-Christians in the United States?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexjpr53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alexjpr53

Guest
I understand why Christian can’t be marrie the same sex. But, why stop non-christians who are gay, want to be married to the same sex ,and has a normal life? There are Christian support anti gay laws in some states and say gays are pedophiles. How are all gays pedophiles? I’m against pedophiles but gay people are just regular people who just love the sex same. Why should the United States not support right for gays? What is the Catholic Church’s view on this?
 
Last edited:
There are numerous threads here about this topic. I would suggest using the search function at the top right of the page to find the answers you are looking for.
 
Nobody’s stopped them. Same-sex marriage is permitted under the civil laws of the USA and gay couples are getting married all over the place. Just not in the Catholic Church.

Also, no one with a brain working claims that all gays are pedophiles.
 
Alexjpr53 said:
I understand why Christian can’t be marrie the same sex. But, why stop non-christians who are gay, want to be married to the same sex ,and has a normal life? There are Christian support anti gay laws in some states and say gays are pedophiles. How are all gays pedophiles? I’m against pedophiles but gay people are just regular people who just love the sex same. Why should the United States not support right for gays? What is the Catholic Church’s view on this?
Click to expand...
Because government laws should be in accordance with the moral law, and granting civil marriages between same-sex couples not only permits but encourages and endorses relationships which are contrary to natural law.

Note: I disagree with calling homosexuals pedophiles. Those are different things.
 
Alexjpr53 said:
I understand why Christian can’t be marrie the same sex. But, why stop non-christians who are gay, want to be married to the same sex ,and has a normal life?
Click to expand...
Society as a whole requires marriages to function. That is how families form, and a family is the foundational unit of a society. Marriage is, by definition, between a man and woman. We all have a say in how the state regulates marriage. Why should the state stop polygamy? Why should the state set lower limits on age in order to get married? Because marriage is important and society needs to get it right.
Alexjpr53 said:
There are Christian support anti gay laws in some states and say gays are pedophiles.
Click to expand...
No one says all gays are pedophiles.
Alexjpr53 said:
Why should the United States not support right for gays?
Click to expand...
Gay people should have the same rights as heterosexual people. Which includes marrying a person of the opposite sex.
 
Last edited:
Another problem is that some homosexual people want to force schools to teach that same sex marriages are normal and morally acceptable. Many parents don’t want their children taught that. In Canada. some priests have been jailed for quoting the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.
It seems that tolerance only goes once direction, and that’s not fair to those who hold other views.
 
Alexjpr53 said:
I understand why Christian can’t be marrie the same sex. But, why stop non-christians who are gay, want to be married to the same sex ,and has a normal life? There are Christian support anti gay laws in some states and say gays are pedophiles. How are all gays pedophiles? I’m against pedophiles but gay people are just regular people who just love the sex same. Why should the United States not support right for gays? What is the Catholic Church’s view on this?
Click to expand...
A better question to ask is Why does the State recognize “marriage” at all? But surely it should at least respect it.

Marriage existed before governments. It is more basic than government. Government does not have the right to redefine it.

The government does not necessarily have to recognize the institution of the Rabbi, though it can. But surely the government should respect it , and not go about making anyone and everyone a Rabbi, whether Jewish or not, and forcing synagogues to accept the government redefinition.
 
Last edited:
Viki63 said:
In Canada. some priests have been jailed for quoting the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.
It seems that tolerance only goes once direction, and that’s not fair to those who hold other views.
Click to expand...
Can you link to this story? I’m sorry if it seems I’m doubting it…I just would like to see what the context was.
Thanks
 
Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else in the US, and some might say even more, considering the direction of our country. They had the right to marry before the Supreme Court forced it’s will on the nation- they could marry someone of the opposite sex, even if they chose not to exercise that right. What the Supreme Court did was redefine marriage in order to grant the right to something that isn’t marriage to those who choose to pursue it.

Marriage is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t. It’s a union between a man and a woman, and homosexuals were always allowed to pursue this (even if they didn’t wish to). It is not a union between two men or two women, no matter what a court says.
 
Canadian here. Sorry, but I really don’t believe that anyone in Canada has been jailed for quoting the bible.
 
The Supreme Court decided that marriage was an “equal rights” issue, in spite of the direct warning from one of the judges that such a decision was on a collision course with a specifically enumerated matter in the 1st Amendment: (in part) " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereo", and the subsequent actions by the various States have shown the truth of the matter.

On the first go-around, the Supreme Court took its usual approach in trying to find a narrow way to resolve the issue, and instead of acknowledging that the case arose on a religious faith matter (the State compelling an action the actor felt was religiously prohibited), the Court upheld the actor on grounds of compelling artistic work. And that State (Colorado) simply turned around and went at it a second time with the same individual, it is clear the Supreme Court did not address the main issue - the power of the State to interfere with religious convictions.

Like it or not, the reality is that the Supreme Court specifically upheld a non-enumerated right over one specifically set up to avoid such an action - to coerce religious compliance against a multi millenia held belief.

It will be up to the Supreme Court to untie the Gordian Knot they have created.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how the Supreme Court decision coerces religious compliance. It remains legal for a church or any other congregation to refuse to do a same sex wedding. No religion is forced to comply, to recognize a same sex marriage,
 
Religion does not exist in a vacuum; it exists (without getting into Philosophy) in the beliefs of individuals. And the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman exists through world religions, and for millenia.

There are a number (at least three prominent ones) in which a business owner has been forced to do business with two homosexuals for their wedding. All three individuals refused to do business with the couples, and all three have had State action taken against them; in at least two of the instances, there were fines in the $100,000+ range - in essence, they were driven out of existence. No evidence was shown that the couple(s) could not have obtained the same service from others (2 were bakeries, one was a florist).

The State in essence said "We don’t care what your religious convictions are, the simple act of opening a business means you have no right whatsoever to a religious conviction nor the right to practice your religion by following your convictions as a business person.

That is plain pure and unadulterated interference with a religious belief under the guise of equal rights. And equal rights have not been interpreted to include religious beliefs.

the issue could be categoruized under the general topic of creating a relion, but that is not likely to make much headway. This is far liklier to run headlong with the State interferring with making a law on establishing a religion.

It effectively says that an individual’s religious beliefs have no significace if they are not a pastor.

The history of the 1st Amendment goes back to Europe in the 16th through early 20th centuries when European governments dictated what people would or could believe and practice. and one minor example was the reasons the Pilgrims migrated to the continent here. Thomas More is another example of the State requiring an individual to forego their religious convictions.

Nothing in the 1st Amendment restricts coercion only against ministers. If you wish to read more, you should read the Supreme Court decision setting up the right o marriage between homosexuals, including the dissenting opinions. The conflict was predicted, and came as predicted.
 
Last edited:
The issue of religious rights of businesses to discriminate has been decided a long time ago. So if a business owner says that according to his religion it would be a sin to serve a black, according to US laws, he does not have the right. If he says he cannot sell flowers to a couple for an interracial wedding, or for an interfaith wedding, or for a wedding where one is divorced, he does not have the right. So this has nothing to do with the recent decision of the Supreme Court allowing same sex marriages. Businesses are simply not allowed to do some types of discrimination, regardless of religion. For pastors, it is allowed. A pastor can refuse to do an interfaith wedding, for example. It was decided a long time ago, that to allow businesses some types of discrimination, would make things too unfair in America. Of course there were differences of opinion on that. It was an issue in the presidential race between Goldwater and Johnson. It was why Goldwater rejected the Civil Rights Act. It went against his libertarian principles.
 
Last edited:

Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?

“If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?” The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life...
catholicexchange.com catholicexchange.com

If you google “Canadian priests jailed,” several articles come up. This one doesn’t mention jail, though I have heard someone was jailed, but it seems pretty comprehensive.
 
This is the crux of the issue and I have no idea how to resolve it!
Someone has a deeply felt religious belief but in the operation of his BUSINESS , I don’t think he should have a right to discriminate. Otherwise Jewish restaurants could refuse to serve menstruating women or Muslims refuse to serve Jews or pick your group…

I have a problem with a business open to the general society being able to discriminate and I know that can conflict with their PERSONAL beliefs. I have no problem with private organizations or religions doing so. It will be interesting how this works out.
 
Why should they be forced? Shouldn’t they be in control of their business?
 
It’s interesting. The Jewish deli’s don’t serve ham, but it’s a business, not a religious organization. I wonder if there is a difference in them and a baker not selling certain verbiage on their cakes. Ive not heard secular society outraged at the ham being omitted even though it’s a business, not a religious organization. Do you think that’s on its way or is ham not a hot enough topic for it to matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top