T
The_Geographer
Guest
Of course we feed slaves? It would also be immoral not to feed homosexuals
- Status
T
The_Geographer
Guest
Marriage is uniquely a Catholic institution established by Christ himself. He elevated Marriage to a sacrament, not a union. This is why Catholics are required to go through their bishops to get married. The civil courts are a separate program all together that should, in our view, reflect the same union between a man and a woman that God wants for all mankind. The bible says that laws are made for the lawless. God’s law always trumps man’s law. For those that have not learned yet:
Christian => Catholic = Church of Christ
Christian => Catholic = Church of Christ
L
larkin31
Guest
Only in the most superficial way. You can say the same about letting ANY humans marry…
They are in it because the church and the state for centuries had a very cozy relationship. Most churches want the state to reinforce their own particular set of values, and their are many Biblical sexual mores. It is difficult for churches simply to let go of this reinforcement from gov. But I do not disagree with you. It just is not easy.
Isn’t this about federal money ultimately and how it can be spent?
L
larkin31
Guest
Marriage was a serious religious rite for Jews long before Jesus.
T
The_Geographer
Guest
But NOT sacramental as it still is not sacramental today, unless they convert to Catholicism. Yes, I know what you mean.
L
larkin31
Guest
Al this states, really, is this: “Catholic marriage did not exist before Jesus.” Well, of course not!
I am not sure how this is relevant at all to the issue at hand.
T
The_Geographer
Guest
L
larkin31
Guest
What does it matter when Catholic marriage began?
T
The_Geographer
Guest
Read again.
R
ralphinal
Guest
True, but are you willing to say that a brother and sister cannot marry but two men can? Or that since some places allow for 12 year olds to marry, we should to?
But it could be. Put in fair inheritance laws. Put in legal understandings of who is and is not contractually connected. It could be done easier than that farce of a medical insurance bill that was just done. We make it harder than it is.
In what way?
L
larkin31
Guest
Can we stop this line of questioning? I already defined EXACTLY what form of marriage I am arguing for. I see no need to explain why other forms are not legitimate; I am not asking for those forms. If you don’t see the difference between an adult lesbian woman and a 12-yr-old child, then I don’t feel like bothering to explain.
Or expand marriage/civil union to include consenting adults of the same gender. Do you actually object to the gov handing out civil unions to anyone? What difference does it make to anyone married in a church or mosque, etc? Again, what do you care?
T
The_Geographer
Guest
Exactly why I haven’t continued to post. You are defending this life style that has a proven record of self-destructive behavior, statistally speaking. I also know of a time when Cajun’s were attempting to get minority status as a subculture. It was denied…and for good reason. It a easily deduced that homosexuals are far more financially better off than those with families. That is why this issue has finally seen the light of day. The Gay Agenda is PUSHING its way to light by mere force just to try to be accepted in society. They want everyone to SHUT UP about their life styles. Those of us who hold to traditional values, especially rooted in Judaio-Christian traditions as illustrated in our scripture, are deeply offended by this and have an obligation to stand up against immoral acts like this, especially when our tax dollars may end up paying for the devastation it will produce in our society. This is an attack on Christianity, not a push for so called “Rights”. We receive it as an attack on the family. John the Baptist was very verbose against King Herod’s public sinful acts that were legal in the Roman Empire, but immoral in the Jewish faith. Father John lost his head for standing up for what is right. We will do the same in the end. And therefore we believe that a great judgment is coming, whether in this day or the next upon those that martyr those of us who stand up for objective truth.
L
larkin31
Guest
Explain this claim of “proven,” please, and what you mean by “statistics.” Which “statistics,” and how are they relevant?
This is “deduced”? How is that possible? And how does this matter for gay marriage?
What “devastation in society”? What alarm bell are you ringing here? Are lesbians tearing down buildings, blowing up schools, in your town? This is virtually paranoiac.
See above.
A
Alexia2000
Guest
You do not understand because you do not get the bigger picture
We (homo-gay lesbians) may not be tearing down buildings or blowing up schools but we do hold hands and give each other hugs
R
ralphinal
Guest
I DO see the difference. The arguement that is being presented by so many in this, however, does not establish one. For example, if it is about two concenting adults, then incestuous relationships cannot be barred. If it is about rights that other peoples provide, the age limits need to be dropped. If it is about ending laws that prevent personal happiness that is not at the expense of others, multiple marriages need to be considered.
Yes, because we need less government not more. Once again, there is NO NEED to have the government involved in marriage unless it is for the protection of those without rights or to protect society. If you can establish that homosexuals cannot own property, vote or make medical or educational choices for themselves, or that it is inherently harmful to society not to allow them to wed, you have a basis.
The only thing that more government does is create more government and oppress people
T
The_Geographer
Guest
Traditional Values Coalition
traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf
Alliance Four Life Ministries
alliance4lifemin.org/articles.php?id=31
trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
Concerned Women for America
cwfa.org/articles/959/CWA/family/index.htm
Google this for a real eye opening report: “American Medical Association” “Dr. Ralph H. Harder” HPV
I found numerous articles about the destructive behavior related to homosexual activity. Interestingly, the arguments of those fighting for gay rights and marriage were feeble at best. Further, as a practicing Christian, defined as one that follows the precepts of the Church, I can never submit to this behavior as okay, as long as I don’t have to do it. Further, I have been on the overly aggressive receiving end of gays trying to “proselytize” [recruited] me to this behavior simply for making statements of how I can see how a person can find someone from the same sex attractive if they allow themselves to venture down that path. The part they failed to hear is that if they allow their consciences go recklessly wild. I was practicing love the sinner, hat the sin.
At this stage of the argument I really don’t care to hear any more arguments for same sex marriage. It’s a close book for me and only requires mass position at this stage of the Gay Agenda. I will not tolerate anyone forcing alternate life styles on my children as acceptable. Therefore, I will continue to be a thorn in the side of anyone or organization that attempts to do this to my children. “I stand upon the word of God” on this issue, not man’s philosophy and lustful desires.
L
larkin31
Guest
You’re over-simplifying the argument in each case in order to use a smear-by-association tactic (or “slippery-slope”). What you mention above involves clear victimization, or abuse, or criminal behavior. Being gay does not, nor does engaging in gay intimacy or partnering for life.
The harm is the lack of equal protection of the law. The harm is the injustice to gays. That is all one needs to have a law changed.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Yes Alexia but you might also come to the rescue of a child in a burning bldg or give someone CPR and save their life.
R
ralphinal
Guest
The thing is that humanity has proven that the slippery-slope argument is not a falicy but a fact. I have never said that being gay or chosing that life is the same or in any way abusive or criminal
But they have equal protection. Everyone has the same marriage rights in America. The specific issues at hand are the results of the desire to change those rights. This can and should be done by other means, for many reasons.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I couldn’t agree more. The term “Matrimony” means “the making of a mother”. As a Catholic I cannot deny what God has revealed. “… male and female he created them”. It is simply impossible for persons of the same sex to enter into marriage because their “union” can never result in the “making of a mother”. God did not institue marriage
simply for the purpose of companionship. We were to “be fruitful and multipy.” If I am to be true to my faith, then I cannot accept gay marriage or even “unions”. That does not mean that I believe in any way that gays should be discriminated agains or treated any differently outside of the institution of marriage.
I do fear that our society is leaning in the direction of “normalizing” gay relationships. There is a danger there simply for the fact that it does, slowly, effectively degrade the institution of marriage. To be fair, so do heterosexual relationships outside of marriage.
When the true family becomes unrecognizable our society is doomed.
If one just takes an honest look at the human body, we don’t have to “wonder” what is right according to natural law. A male is made the way he is in order to give his seed. The female is made specifically to receive his seed and the result of this union is life.
This union is impossible outside of a heterosexual union and impermissible outside of marriage.
I agree also
- Status