Your Religion and Stance on Gay Rights

[Alexia2000]

Simple; any two people of consenting age and of sound mind should be able to form a civil partnership. The age of consent is different in different parts of the world; I do not know if the Bible states what the age of consent is. Definition of insanity also differs; someone bungee-jumping appears pretty much insane to me, but hey-ho, I am no expert; let medical experts decide if there is doubt

Someone said that gays too have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite gender; conversely, I have never heard gays deny the right to heterosexuals not to marry someone of the same gender

Once we believe that the only true marriage is between a man and a woman in a Catholic Church, the rest then becomes irrelevant in terms of spirituality; even if the Civil Partnership between same gender couples is called a marriage by the whole world, it wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) make a blind bit of difference to Catholics

We as Catholics cannot impose our beliefs on those who do not believe; neither should the non-believers be able to impose their beliefs (or lack thereof) on us. Nobody is forcing us to marry same-gender couples in Catholic Churches; what gives us the right to stop them from ‘marrying’ outside of our belief

I am in a Civil Partnership; I also believe in the Catholic faith. Even if the Catholic Church were to one day start blessing same-sex partnerships, my partner and I will not be availing ourselves of that ‘golden opportunity’, for spiritually, we know, that it won’t be right. Well, it won’t be right for us two

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Simple; any two people of consenting age and of sound mind should be able to form a civil partnership.

OK. Is that partnership a marriage? Not in all cases.
Alexia:

Someone said that gays too have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite gender; conversely, I have never heard gays deny the right to heterosexuals not to marry someone of the same gender.

I’m not sure I follow. The point I was trying to make is that marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual support AND the creation and raising of children. For a same-sex union to be called a marriage, the definition that has been attached to the term for all of history will have to be changed. It’s not about barring groups from marrying. It’s about maintaining the institution has it has always been.
Alexia:

Once we believe that the only true marriage is between a man and a woman in a Catholic Church, the rest then becomes irrelevant in terms of spirituality; even if the Civil Partnership between same gender couples is called a marriage by the whole world, it wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) make a blind bit of difference to Catholics.

But it does make a difference because now Catholics, who have simply held to the truth of what marriage means, become the villains and the bigots while the “rest of the world” accepts a lie.
Alexia:

We as Catholics cannot impose our beliefs on those who do not believe; neither should the non-believers be able to impose their beliefs (or lack thereof) on us. Nobody is forcing us to marry same-gender couples in Catholic Churches; what gives us the right to stop them from ‘marrying’ outside of our belief

It’s not about imposing “Catholic” beliefs on anyone. It’s about maintaining the truth of what marriage is (and is not). That definition is true whether or not a person is Catholic.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ralphinal]

We are losing sight of the ONLY reason that the state has any say in marriage laws at all. Marriage laws are there to protect women (who traditionally had few rights in the law) and children (who cannot care for themselves). Marriage laws had to do with property laws, inheretance, and child and spouse care.

Now, that being the case, do both members of a homosexual union have equal legal rights? Yep. Property and inheretance laws can be changed (and need to be changed, anyway). Child care becomes the only real issues, for the low percentage of homosexual couples with children. As courts and states have already dealt with issues of unmarried couples and thier children, there is no issue here, either.

So, all that leaves is this “the person they love” issue. As I have stated before, love is not on the marriage license. The lack of love does not invalidate or negate a marriage. Many people are not “in love” with their spouse or married to the person they “love.”

 

[edwest2]

Let’s leave the State out of this, OK? To answer the original topic: gay marriage is a disordered state. That’s it.

People, right now, around the world, are doing whatever they want. They don’t need my persmission. At the same time, when two biologically incompatible people want the right to be in a state that is reserved for two biologically compatible people then there is a problem.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

Simple; any two people of consenting age and of sound mind should be able to form a civil partnership. The age of consent is different in different parts of the world; I do not know if the Bible states what the age of consent is. Definition of insanity also differs; someone bungee-jumping appears pretty much insane to me, but hey-ho, I am no expert; let medical experts decide if there is doubt

Someone said that gays too have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite gender; conversely, I have never heard gays deny the right to heterosexuals not to marry someone of the same gender

Once we believe that the only true marriage is between a man and a woman in a Catholic Church, the rest then becomes irrelevant in terms of spirituality; even if the Civil Partnership between same gender couples is called a marriage by the whole world, it wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) make a blind bit of difference to Catholics

We as Catholics cannot impose our beliefs on those who do not believe; neither should the non-believers be able to impose their beliefs (or lack thereof) on us. Nobody is forcing us to marry same-gender couples in Catholic Churches; what gives us the right to stop them from ‘marrying’ outside of our belief

I am in a Civil Partnership; I also believe in the Catholic faith. Even if the Catholic Church were to one day start blessing same-sex partnerships, my partner and I will not be availing ourselves of that ‘golden opportunity’, for spiritually, we know, that it won’t be right. Well, it won’t be right for us two

Yes.

Why would any Catholic care whether two Buddhist men or two atheist women marry (or are granted civil unions)? Is it the worry that they might move next door?

 

[ralphinal]

Yes.

Why would any Catholic care whether two Buddhist men or two atheist women marry (or are granted civil unions)? Is it the worry that they might move next door?

No. It has to do with the mandate that we were given y Christ to spread the Good News. It has to do with no overlooking sin just to keep people happy

 

[John21652]

This question is open to all.

Me personally, am Agnostic, a bit Skeptical yet optimistic and open to the spiritual ideas of others.

I see no issue with homosexuals, and think that they deserve the exact same right as heterosexuals under the law.

However, I don’t believe the state has the right to say what “marriage” is, and needs to name it’s current marriages “civil unions” for all types of partnerships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Marriage is a very different meaning to people. To some it means the holy union of one man and one woman. To others it may mean absolutely nothing. To me it means a vow of commitment between two consenting peoples who share their love for each other faithfully, a bond that has lasted since the dawn of man.

This is open to people of all different religions (or lack of) and opinions.

I would like to draw the attention of everyone to an article on how the United Nations is used as an agent of influence to manipulate and change the way national governments govern their constituents.

The article is -
The United Nations Marxist Agenda.

It describes the processby which UN resolutions are drawn up, discussed and made acceptable to the disparate national governments which participate in the discussions. Many of the delegates are not democratically elected, as we may think, because many of them are representatives of NGOs with specific agendas. The article explains this in greater detail, so I will spare you a repeat of what you can read for yourself. However, the author tells us this -

Quote:
 	 		 			 				The Marxist agenda is one of global scope: its proponents will not  rest until they have eradicated every last remnant of  pre-sexual-revolution morality. Since the 1960s, they have acquired  powerful instruments to achieve this aim: They manipulate the  complicated and non-transparent bureaucracy of the UN (they fondly refer  to it as "the system"), which exerts powerful pressure on the  governments of the world. Through this bureaucracy they aggressively  advance their cause, initiating attacks at every opportunity on the core  values of family-based societies, especially the Judaeo-Christian  values that have shaped Western civilization.

It does not take an Einstein to see that the Judeo-Christian societies of the west are slowly crumbling before our very eyes. White anted from within by the adoption of so called ethical values which really have no place as mainstays in of our cultural edifices. In fact, they are undermining our cultural edifices brick by brick, with each change seemingly innocuous until one steps back and realises the foundations of the house are causing the whole to lean a little more each day. We have seen the institution of marriage weakened bit by bit, the role of religion in society weakened bit by bit, the value of unborn children weakened bit by bit, until suddenly, we open our eyes and notice that the totality of the new morality is really no morality at all. That is, unless one is willing to introduce terms such as relativism and human rights into the argument as a means of excusing the changes. The changes may suit certain individuals whose hedonism is being given free reign, but in terms of society, the social cohesion bought about by shared values is weakened and made less and less.

 

[larkin31]

No. It has to do with the mandate that we were given y Christ to spread the Good News. It has to do with no overlooking sin just to keep people happy

Then I assume that you oppose laws that grant tax-exempt status to all pagan religions, and that you write your congresspersons to change the laws to forbid divorce and to forbid the sale of contraceptives. It is one thing to oppose a practice ethically. It is another to prevent the practice legally.

I actually think that you are just picking on this sin, and that your answer is bogus as written.

 

[ralphinal]

Then I assume that you oppose laws that grant tax-exempt status to all pagan religions, and that you write your congresspersons to change the laws to forbid divorce and to forbid the sale of contraceptives. It is one thing to oppose a practice ethically. It is another to prevent the practice legally.

I actually think that you are just picking on this sin, and that your answer is bogus as written.

Actually, I oppose ALL tax-exempt laws for religions, including my own. I have several reasons for it, but the two biggest are equity and the fact that these laws limit what can be taught by the churches. As for the other ones, neither of the examples that you gave were EVER stated as predating governments to the point of being sacred and beyond government definition by the United States Supreme court as marriage was in Grizwald v Connecticut.

The historical fact is, and this is what the pro-homosexual union folks miss, that marriage was a religious union that the state added laws to in order to protect those without a voice. To be quite honest, there is no logical reason for the United States to have any marriage laws today other than the ban on multiple marriages and the ban on incestuous. Everything else can be handled under current laws or with simple new legislation

 

[larkin31]

Actually, I oppose ALL tax-exempt laws for religions, including my own. I have several reasons for it, but the two biggest are equity and the fact that these laws limit what can be taught by the churches. As for the other ones, neither of the examples that you gave were EVER stated as predating governments to the point of being sacred and beyond government definition by the United States Supreme court as marriage was in Grizwald v Connecticut.

The historical fact is, and this is what the pro-homosexual union folks miss, that marriage was a religious union that the state added laws to in order to protect those without a voice. To be quite honest, there is no logical reason for the United States to have any marriage laws today other than the ban on multiple marriages and the ban on incestuous. Everything else can be handled under current laws or with simple new legislation

I wasn’t asking what you “oppose,” but rather what you actively seek legal prevention of or injunctions against.

Are you stating that as long as Catholics can control who marries, that you do not care who would be granted civil unions?

 

[ralphinal]

I wasn’t asking what you “oppose,” but rather what you actively seek legal prevention of or injunctions against.

Are you stating that as long as Catholics can control who marries, that you do not care who would be granted civil unions?

Right now, the only things that I actively seek legal prevention of are abortion and improper government activities in my profession.

Again, it has nothing to do with Catholics. Can you give me one reason, ONE, based on any sort of historical legal rational that should allow homosexual unions? Further, an you give me one reason, ONE, that if we allow that, we should not allow multiple marriages, marriage between blood relations, lowering the age of concent, and the marriage between humans and non-humans?

You seem to want to force this into a Catholics being mean kind of thing. It is not. It is the fact that there is no valid legal reason to allow homosexual unions that could not be fixed in another way (and should be because it would affect more than homosexuals)

 

[larkin31]

Right now, the only things that I actively seek legal prevention of are abortion and improper government activities in my profession.

Again, it has nothing to do with Catholics. Can you give me one reason, ONE, based on any sort of historical legal rational that should allow homosexual unions? Further, an you give me one reason, ONE, that if we allow that, we should not allow multiple marriages, marriage between blood relations, lowering the age of concent, and the marriage between humans and non-humans?

You seem to want to force this into a Catholics being mean kind of thing. It is not. It is the fact that there is no valid legal reason to allow homosexual unions that could not be fixed in another way (and should be because it would affect more than homosexuals)

I saw that you labeled yourself “Roman Catholic,” so I did not ask you about, say, the Muslim point of view. And you appeared to be making a religious argument.

I do not seek civil unions for, say, a mother marrying a son, so I do not feel compelled in any way to defend incest (or bestiality). Polygamy has some merits to its argument, and, as you know, both Biblical figures and many cultures world-wide have permitted multiple wives. I tend to oppose it because the nature of the relationship tends to be about increasing patriarchal authority and too often shows patterns often the victimization of some of the women.

Gay marriage is defined as that between two consenting adults of the same gender. The ONLY argument against expanding the right to include gays is (1) the weight of tradition and (2) Biblical/cultural mores opposed to homosexuality. What I believe is that both reasons are no longer sufficient justification particularly because cultural opposition to homosexuality is on the decline, and as such, “tradition” will no longer be enough reason to keep a clearly recognized class of non-abusive, non-criminal adult sexual orientation from equal treatment under the law. If the behavior that defines the group is NOT criminal, then one cannot simply state that it is still a reason to deny equal treatment. The weight of tradition is heavy, for sure. But it will finally yield as our sense of justice continues to broaden, as it has for the last 250 years or so.

 

[ralphinal]

I saw that you labeled yourself “Roman Catholic,” so I did not ask you about, say, the Muslim point of view. And you appeared to be making a religious argument.

Fair enough

I do not seek civil unions for, say, a mother marrying a son, so I do not feel compelled in any way to defend incest (or bestiality). Polygamy has some merits to its argument, and, as you know, both Biblical figures and many cultures world-wide have permitted multiple wives. I tend to oppose it because the nature of the relationship tends to be about increasing patriarchal authority and too often shows patterns often the victimization of some of the women.

What about multiple husands (you are right about the issues of polygamy). And WHY should those things not be allowed? If concenting adults who otherwise are not breaking any laws want to wed, why should they be prohibited?

Gay marriage is defined as that between two consenting adults of the same gender. The ONLY argument against expanding the right to include gays is (1) the weight of tradition and (2) Biblical/cultural mores opposed to homosexuality. What I believe is that both reasons are no longer sufficient justification particularly because cultural opposition to homosexuality is on the decline, and as such, “tradition” will no longer be enough reason to keep a clearly recognized class of non-abusive, non-criminal adult sexual orientation from equal treatment under the law. If the behavior that defines the group is NOT criminal, then one cannot simply state that it is still a reason to deny equal treatment. The weight of tradition is heavy, for sure. But it will finally yield as our sense of justice continues to broaden, as it has for the last 250 years or so.

See, here is the disconnect. I am saying that the government should not be in the marriage business at all. Period. Marriage has always been religious in nature. As such, they have no right to define what is and is not marriage. The United States Supreme Court agrees as well. There is unequal treatment not because of marriage laws per se but because of other laws, which the government should be involved in. For example, there should be no inheretance tax. If I want to leave everything to a life partner, they should get it free and clear. Palamony and child support do not require marriage. The government should step out of the marriage business, save those issues that are for the public good (no incestuous marriages for example).

Oh, and I know quite well where this is headed. The first time a Catholic priest refuses to sign a gay marriage license, there will be all kinds of junk about how it is a hate crime, civil rights are being violated, and the Church should be forced to comply. If you doubt me, look into the legislation that was before the Mass. state legislature a few months ago that would have required the Catholic Church to have all clerical postings and teachings cleared by a government committee.

 

[mariahloves]

I was going to say something about the fact that at least in an America we supposedly have a democracy with a gov’t by the people and for the people, but it’s obvious our “government” doesn’t care about what the majority thinks when it comes to issues like you know, healthcare…but I was going to say if the majority doesn’t agree with gay marriage why should we allow it. It doesn’t matter though. Our opinions matter little, it’s all about special interest and $$$. Gay rights activists I think need to switch their tactic to bribing congress since that works so well.

So it’s true there really isn’t a secular argument against gay “marriage” or civil unions or whatever you want to call it.

 

[mariahloves]

I’m not sure they want attention, though I would wager they want acceptance, and can our laws deny them?. Your points are valid arguments against civil unions, but I don’t see the state getting involved in adultery in marriages. Not to be snide, but I would need to see additional evidence to prove that their fight is indeed “bogus.” I’ll grant you that their relationships tend to collapse more, but maybe there would be more incentives if civil unions were allowed.

Well if you’ve ever seen a gay pride parade you’ll get what I mean about attention. It’s an extremely ridiculous event that serves no other purpose but to get attention. Gay men are extremely promisicuous and get HIV/AIDS at ridiculously higher rates than heterosexual men. I highly doubt legalizing gay marriage/civil unions will ever solve this problem. It would just make things even more complicated than they already are.

 

[larkin31]

Well if you’ve ever seen a gay pride parade you’ll get what I mean about attention. It’s an extremely ridiculous event that serves no other purpose but to get attention. Gay men are extremely promisicuous and get HIV/AIDS at ridiculously higher rates than heterosexual men. I highly doubt legalizing gay marriage/civil unions will ever solve this problem. It would just make things even more complicated than they already are.

Have you ever seen the antics of Mardi Gras or the behavior of Spring Break? And lesbians don’t get AIDS, for the most part. And world-wide, AIDS is a greater heterosexual infection than a homosexual one.

Indeed, the situation is very complicated, but everyone agrees that marriage is a stabilizing, positive factor for couples and communities. Extending it to gays would continue to do the same for more couples.

 

[larkin31]

Fair enough

What about multiple husands (you are right about the issues of polygamy). And WHY should those things not be allowed? If concenting adults who otherwise are not breaking any laws want to wed, why should they be prohibited?

I am not asking for either of these situations. Why do I need to argue for them?

See, here is the disconnect. I am saying that the government should not be in the marriage business at all. Period. Marriage has always been religious in nature. As such, they have no right to define what is and is not marriage. The United States Supreme Court agrees as well. There is unequal treatment not because of marriage laws per se but because of other laws, which the government should be involved in. For example, there should be no inheretance tax. If I want to leave everything to a life partner, they should get it free and clear. Palamony and child support do not require marriage. The government should step out of the marriage business, save those issues that are for the public good (no incestuous marriages for example).

I have no objection to this. Would you also agree that the gov’t, then, is also not required to legally acknowledge any/all “marriages” simply because a church conducted it? The govt will continue to issue legal “civil unions” of some sort or another. Are you opposed to that?

Oh, and I know quite well where this is headed. The first time a Catholic priest refuses to sign a gay marriage license, there will be all kinds of junk about how it is a hate crime, civil rights are being violated, and the Church should be forced to comply. If you doubt me, look into the legislation that was before the Mass. state legislature a few months ago that would have required the Catholic Church to have all clerical postings and teachings cleared by a government committee.

I grew up in a minister’s household. He denied marriage requests from time to time among heteros, and a few times from gays (who wanted it done on the sly as a “blessing” of sorts). I, for one, have no problems at all of letting churches turn away whom they wish. They already do, along religious lines.

 

[ralphinal]

I am not asking for either of these situations. Why do I need to argue for them?

Because the same reason to approve of this change in society can also be used for others.

I have no objection to this. Would you also agree that the gov’t, then, is also not required to legally acknowledge any/all “marriages” simply because a church conducted it? The govt will continue to issue legal “civil unions” of some sort or another. Are you opposed to that?

Actually, I see no need for any sort of government anything at all. The government does not have to approve of other contracts. Why should one concerning cohabitation be any different? Again, the only reason they are in the marriage business was to protect those with no legal say (women and children). There is no reason for them to be in the marriage business in any way

I grew up in a minister’s household. He denied marriage requests from time to time among heteros, and a few times from gays (who wanted it done on the sly as a “blessing” of sorts). I, for one, have no problems at all of letting churches turn away whom they wish. They already do, along religious lines.

Under the current system, yes. However, once you say that there is no legal reason for the state to deny it, and as long as you allow religious groups to actually perform the job for the state, you run into a problem. You see the issue now with conscience clauses in Catholic hospitals and Catholic Doctors who do not want to perform abortions. There are those in the government that say that they must no matter what the believe

 

[Swan]

I was going to say something about the fact that at least in an America we supposedly have a democracy with a gov’t by the people and for the people, but it’s obvious our “government” doesn’t care about what the majority thinks when it comes to issues like you know, healthcare…but I was going to say if the majority doesn’t agree with gay marriage why should we allow it. It doesn’t matter though. Our opinions matter little, it’s all about special interest and $$$. Gay rights activists I think need to switch their tactic to bribing congress since that works so well.

So it’s true there really isn’t a secular argument against gay “marriage” or civil unions or whatever you want to call it.

The US has a long tradition of promoting egalitarianism. Slaves were vastly outnumbered, yet we freed them. Blacks were and are outnumbered, yet we passed the Civil Rights Act. Catholics are outnumbered but we have freedom of religion. If your argument is that minorities should have no rights, I’m afraid it’s a poor one.

 

[The_Geographer]

I love this vocabulary building game. Good word.

in·im·i·cal (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gi...eve.gif-khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)*adj.***1. ** Injurious or harmful in effect; adverse: habits inimical to good health.
**2. ** Unfriendly; hostile: a cold, inimical voice.

[Late Latin inimicalis, from Latin inimicus, enemy; see ** enemy*.]
in·imhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifi·cal·ly* adv.