B
Bishop93
Guest
Righteous Gentile…My dad is Jewish and I’m gonna soon begin my conversion to Judaism.
I completely support gay marriage.
I completely support gay marriage.
- Status
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
Indeed, it is, unless one actually believes that there is a god named Zeus who changes himself into swans or birds of prey. If Zeus(or Jupiter, if you wish) exists at all beyond the imagination, he does so as a demon.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Why?
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Zeus exists indeed. Do you think people that had visions of Zeus were all liars? I believe they were genuine, but as you say, perhaps Zeus wasn’t sincere when he said who he was: a demon. After all, the demons can transform into an angel of light. What can stop them to imitate a pagan god?
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
-]/-]
Indeed.
S
Swan
Guest
I haven’t been on this thread for a while and just wanted to thank you for responding to comments about an earlier post of mind which some found offensive. Also, thanks for your comments in the posts that resulted from that response, such as the one above. You’ve saved me a lot of typing.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
as one of bestiality, adultery, and homophilia.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Did I see someone quote themselves on that last post, or did I hallucinate that?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Why not?
The alternate option is to support why you would withhold some people from things, for your own religious reasons that change in time.
Your religious mores change, this you can not deny.
L
larkin31
Guest
my pleasureI haven’t been on this thread for a while and just wanted to thank you for responding to comments about an earlier post of mind which some found offensive. Also, thanks for your comments in the posts that resulted from that response, such as the one above. You’ve saved me a lot of typing.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
Yes, I sometimes do that when I cannot edit a previous statement.Did I see someone quote themselves on that last post, or did I hallucinate that?
E
edwest2
Guest
First, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by a group refererred to as the GayPA. There was no science behind the decision, just a vote.I haven’t been on this thread for a while and just wanted to thank you for responding to comments about an earlier post of mind which some found offensive. Also, thanks for your comments in the posts that resulted from that response, such as the one above. You’ve saved me a lot of typing.
Second, it is not a civil rights issue. As one black individual wrote, “I know people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”
Plans are already in place for Beyond Gay Marriage:
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri
Anyone want to know how same-sex marriage will impact their family and children? You can find out here:
massresistance.org/
The State has taken away parental rights and is saying it’s OK to expose little kids in public school to gay storybooks before they have the intellectual and emotional maturity to understand the material.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
D
dianaiad
Guest
The problem is the issue of legal rights, which are NOT religious beliefs. “Marriage,” I believe, should be strictly a religious term, addressing morality, religious more’s and ideas, and definitions of what God wants the relationship to mean. THAT changes according to the belief system describing it. Catholics think of marriage in one way, Mormons another…belief systems that see no problem with same sex unions quite another.
One religion simply does not have the right to impose THEIR definition of marriage upon another.
What the government does, however, is quite a different thing. It’s in charge of deciding who gets tax breaks and other strictly mortal and legal privileges, and that should be entirely separate from the religious and moral ideas regarding marriage. Governments should NEVER be allowed to interfere in what a religion calls “marriage,” and religion should never be allowed to tell the government what privileges it can grant to legally binding contractual arrangements. Doing that IS forcing ones own definition of ‘marriage’ on other people.
The solution is incredibly simple, and is one that is followed by many other nations (at least in part.) You have two ceremonies. One legal…for the government, and one religious. The legal one would be called “civil unions” and would apply to ALL government sanctioned joinings, heterosexual, homosexual, or (for the purpose of getting the survival benefits, etc. brothers living together or sisters…or brother/sister non sexual relationships. This should be contract based ONLY.
Then the couple can go to the church of choice and get married. That way the Catholics do not have to recognize same sex marriages, and the Mormons don’t–but those belief systems that DO recognize unusual relationships as marriage can do so. Everybody wins.
The government can’t force a religion to toe the line, and a religion can’t mess with contracts that have no religious significance–like survival rights, visiting rights, insurance and property rights.
I know, it’s too simple and has the supreme disadvantage of not allowing one religious group to control everybody else, or for the government to go after a religious group for having a different idea of what marriage is.
Can’t have that, can we? Control seems to be the goal of all.
Diana
E
edwest2
Guest
Everybody wins?
Next up are the Polys, the Bis, and the Zoos. Translation: polyamorous, bisexual and bestiality.
Where do lines get drawn? Apparently nowhere.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
Next up are the Polys, the Bis, and the Zoos. Translation: polyamorous, bisexual and bestiality.
Where do lines get drawn? Apparently nowhere.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ah, the good old slippery slope. The problem with it, of course, is that a; it is a fallacy and b; your objections to the first two are proof of my contention that control is the ultimate aim for pretty much everybody who is advocating government control of ***marriage. ***
For instance: “polyamorous’…including polygamy and polygyny…as long as they aren’t Catholic and you don’t consider them married, nor would you be required to consider them married, what’s it to you? In fact, 'polyamory” is alive and well…and considered sinful–pretty much everywhere. Having lots of lovers and committing adultery is not supposed to be a good thing for anybody, is it? However, if they are not Catholic, they don’t answer to Catholicism, and if they aren’t Mormon, they don’t answer to Mormonism, and if they aren’t…well, you get the picture.
If they wish to become Catholic, they have to abide by your view of things before they can join, right? If the government can’t make you take 'em, what’s it to you?
“bisexual” again, same thing. Neither Catholics nor Mormons would approve of any of it, and the same principles apply.
“bestiality.” I have not yet seen where animals can sign contracts or give meaningful consent to anything–nor do I know of a religion that accepts bestiality. It’s considered animal abuse and is, and will probably remain, against the law.
Just, by the way, as it will remain against the law to form civil unions or marriages between any two parties if one of them can’t legally give consent. If it does not, THEN we can start agitating for changes in the law, but not for specific religious reasons.
As a Mormon, I have considerably less excuse for accepting such things, religiously; our view of marriage is too intertwined with our view of salvation. My objection to all this…stuff…is BECAUSE I don’t want my religious view of marriage to be over-ridden by either the government OR another religious opinion enforced by the government.
In fact, my position on this is completely from the view of ‘I won’t tell you how to run your religion, and you don’t get to tell me how to run mine." The reason I want the concept of ‘civil unions’ and "marriage’ separated is to keep the government from telling MY church that a married (according to the government)homosexual couple MUST be given the same employment/religious rights as a couple who is married according to our beliefs.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
E
edwest2
Guest
So, you’ve fallen for the “control” argument.
Let’s look at “gay rights” for a moment. I just ask that you consider doing a bit of research before accepting something as a foregone conclusion. What is homosexuality and why was it removed as a disorder in 1973? Was science involved? No. It was done by nonscientific vote.
All laws discriminate against behaviors. Laws limit or exclude certain behaviors. You can drink but you can’t drive drunk.
I’ve been hearing the “Hey. What’s it to you?” and the variant, “What the big deal?” for years now. Many years.
This is a Catholic forum, so Catholics provide Catholic Answers. Why are you surprised? If Catholic Answers offend you then why post here?
I know that right now, around the world, people are doing whatever they want. But, unless you want to live in an anything goes country, I suggest you look at your own beliefs.
Don’t you know what’s going on in Massachusetts right now? If you lived there and sent your kids to public school, your kids will be required to read gay storybooks. Little kids without intellectual or emotional maturity. Your government is already involved in gay indoctrination and you can’t opt out. Got that?
Don’t Mormons send out people to win converts to the faith? Do you believe Mormons should vote according to their beliefs? If not, why not?
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
D
dianaiad
Guest
“fallen for?” This has been my position for a considerable number of years. It’s an argument that I make, not that I have ‘fallen for.’ In fact, my Mormonism gives me a rather interesting view of it. After all, the reason that six of my eight great great grandfathers spent time in prison, and their families torn apart–and their wives and children forced into a poverty that they did NOT suffer while they were allowed to be together, is because self-righteous religious bigots whose lives were neither impacted nor even touched by our beliefs decided that THEY had the right to tell US how to believe and behave.
The FLDS compound in Texas…that was a need to control things by the Texas CPS and the local Baptists. As it turns out, the level of child abuse within the compound was less than 2% of the abuse found in the neighborhoods surrounding it, but because the Baptists (and the CPS…) didn’t like the religion, the compound was raided and families broken and permanently damaged.
Who cares? Whether it is a predisposition that is confirmed by choice, or whether it is a simple choice, it’s not your problem, or MY problem. It’s their problem. It only becomes our problem when it impacts OUR freedom to practice our religions–and that’s what my suggestion would keep from happening. We can only control what we do, and our religions only have the right to discipline the members of our religions. We do NOT have the right to do anything to anybody else.
That’s true…because drunk drivers can kill the innocent; that is, they impact the lives of those who have no choice. Homosexual couples only hurt themselves and those who make similar choices.
[/quote]
But you aren’t listening, are you? Think about it; what IS it to you? What right do you have to regulate the religious behaviors and choices of those who do not share your beliefs?
cont. on next post…
[/quote]
D
dianaiad
Guest
Get the topic back on track, m’friend. Doing as I suggests ensures that Catholics can remain Catholics–that is, that the Catholic church in America has the absolute right to regulate behavior within the Catholic church; the government can’t come in and tell you that you HAVE to accept homosexual marriage, which is what would happen if the government allows homosexual marriages. “Marriage” is too important, and its definition is far too tied to religion and morality, for the government to have a hand in it. It DOES, however, have a right to regulate civil rights: that is, who can have survival rights, who can get insurance—the sort of things that “married” couples are entitled to according to civil laws. As long as this sort of priviledge and right is tied to the word “marriage,” then the government can dictate to religions what can, and cannot, be defined AS ‘marriage.’
So…get the government out of marriage and into contracts. Civil contracts. That way a couple can get married in a church (and perhaps choose not to get the government civil contract) or get the civil contract and not get married, or do both–but no church is bound by what the government dictates, and the government isn’t bound by what any one religion, or group of religions, dictate.
Yes, I can. It’s called ‘homeschooling…’ and as an online teacher, I’m very much in favor of doing just that. I’m actually more worried about the folks in the south who insist upon teaching creationism in the schools, if you want to know the truth, and the cure for THAT is homeschooling, too.
edwest2:
Yep, and that IS the proper way to get people to behave as you want them to behave; that is, teach them and let them make their own choices. They should behave as Mormons if they want to become Mormons. Tell me—would you appreciate us going to the polls and passing a law that, say…prohibits some aspect of Catholic worship? Lighting candles in the church, for instance, (fire hazard…) or a law against displaying crosses? (and no, we wouldn’t do that. I’m just sayin’…)
That is what the gay rights advocates want to do; by asking the government to allow gay marriage,
they are attempting to force us to adhere to their standards. By fighting against it, we are attempting to deny them rights that have nothing to do with religion or morals. The only way to solve it is to separate the concepts: civil unions, which would allow those strictly contractual and legal rights that two people should be able to get, and “marriage,” which has primarily religious and moral meanings. “Marriage” should have NO legal rights attached to it, but be reserved only to religions. “Civil Unions” should be completely separate from the concept of marriage, and religions should have no (name removed by moderator)ut into them. Couples with any sense would want both, but it would be their choice.
Yep. …and as long as the vote is for or against gay MARRIAGE, I 'm voting against it.
[/quote]
Your question is telling me that you aren’t getting my point at all.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
D
dianaiad
Guest
Dunno. I"ve been arguing this for years, and I get flack from both sides. Any ideas?
- Status