An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[Polycarp1]

This is the actual realization which split me from being a fundamentalist. Man-led theocracy is a horrible idea.

Bing, bing, bing! We have a winner!

Rule by Christ? I'd love it! Rule by people who claim they're speaking for Christ? Frankly, they should be taken out and shot, because the very fact they claim that disproves that they're following His will -- "Let he who would be greatest among you abase himself...." and all that.

 

[BigBadWlf]

If gay marriage becomes legal, then the government cannot show any partiality to any other marriages that might be, such as pologamy, incest, bigemy, miscegenation,etc.

…Interracial marriages are miscegenation

P.S.- same-sex unions pretty much give the same thing marriages do now. In fact in European countrys same sex unions give almost identical rights as married couples do.

And “colored only” drinking fountains dispensed water just like the fountains white folk drank from

 

[b&wpac4]

If gay marriage becomes legal, then the government cannot show any partiality to any other marriages that might be, such as pologamy, incest, bigemy, miscegenation,etc.

Isn't miscegenation another word for interracial? You are against interracial marriage?

 

[Polycarp1]

If gay marriage becomes legal, then the government cannot show any partiality to any other marriages that might be, such as pologamy, incest, bigemy, miscegenation,etc.

Not true. By law, the government may discriminate where there is a valid governmental reason to do so. For example, ensuring that fair treatment is given persons of Black ancestry in government jobs in areas where there has historically been discrimination against Blacks may require tracking the racial composition of job applicants. Giving women late-pregnancy/childbirth leave while denying it to men may be valid on the basis that the women's bodies undergo issues that men's do not.

The criterion is that the standard for making a valid discrimination must be tied to a valid governmntal purpose -- and if a religious reason is advanced, that reason must pass the Lemon test.

What you're doing is laying down a sheet of sandpaper on level ground and calling it a slippery slope.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Marriage is a union between man and woman in the eyes of God. An unbreakable covenant.

Civil Unions is a union between a man and a(women/men/visa versa) in the eyes of the government. A breakable 'covenant'.


But when you put the label "marriage" on it, everything changes, because marriage in itself is a religious covenant and was a religious sacrament long before the government got they're hands on it.

Marriage was a civil arrangement long before religion got its hands on it. Marriage wasn’t a sacrament until the 16th century. In 1545 the council of Trent decreed that the church would not officially record a marriage (it’s only involvement in the marriage business up until that point) unless the marriage was witnessed by a priest and two others. It was only years later that it was thought to make marriage a sacrament. And this was only for the Catholics. The Protestants didn’t become involved in marriage for another century. In Protestant European countries it was the state who recorded and recognized marriages.

Ref:
M. Kuefler The Marriage RRevolution in Late Antiquity
M. Hirschfiled History of Marriage in Wetern Civilization
S. McSheffrey Marriage, Sex and Civic Culture in Late Medieval London
J. Witte Marriage, Religion and Law in Western Tradition
P. Rosenthal, the Social system of the Marriage Contract

 

[Ridgeback]

I'm sure everyone remembers the defunct bill that state lawmakers brought up in Connecticut to "regulate the Catholic Church under the state" not too long ago. The bill its essence tried to take away the authority from the Bishops to govern the Church and give it to the state to control. The bill didn't pass because public hearings where canceled.

Whats interesting is that the 2 lawmakers who proposed the bill, Andrew McDonald, and Mike Lawlor are (you guessed it) open homosexuals, and ardent activists and proponents of the gay movement. Does anyone just find this an easy coincidence? Or does it show the true colors of the gay community? Is the Church too much for they're consciences to bear that they must try to shut it down and give it to state control?

Bad move on their parts considering it shows to other christians the motives of the Gay agenda. It just shows how much they are a threat to religious freedom and unity.

http://catholicgop.blogspot.com/2009/03/chaput-warns-that-conn-bill-threatens.html

I am against the practice of homosexuality for Biblical reasons but gays have just as much right as anyone else to pursue an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. Theirs is just not mine.

 

[Skaloop]

I am against the practice of homosexuality for Biblical reasons but gays have just as much right as anyone else to pursue an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. Theirs is just not mine.

You're not in favour of stricter controls to prevent embezzlement by church officials? Because that's the agenda of the two guys in the OP.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Isn't miscegenation another word for interracial? You are against interracial marriage?

Excellent job catching that

 

[Ridgeback]

You're not in favour of stricter controls to prevent embezzlement by church officials? Because that's the agenda of the two guys in the OP.

My quote was clear as a bell. Anyone who practices or even thinks about stealing money from their employer is sinning. It doesn't matter what their sexual preference is.

 

[BigBadWlf]

My quote was clear as a bell. Anyone who practices or even thinks about stealing money from their employer is sinning. It doesn't matter what their sexual preference is.

Which brings us back to the question asked of the person who put up the OP…how is stricter controls to prevent embezzlement by church officials part of the mythical gay agenda?

 

[Polycarp1]

Which brings us back to the question asked of the person who put up the OP…how is stricter controls to prevent embezzlement by church officials part of the mythical gay agenda?

Oh, I don't think the gay agenda is mythical -- I just don't think it's anything sinister. Based on my own childhood and youth, I don't like the idea of anyone being subjected to abusive language, bullying, ostracism, discrimination in employment or housing, etc. ad lib.

And the entire story, when not viewed with paranoia, is clearly an effort to write a controversial law with the intent to prevent embezzlement.

 

[Maren]

Oh, I don't think the gay agenda is mythical -- I just don't think it's anything sinister. Based on my own childhood and youth, I don't like the idea of anyone being subjected to abusive language, bullying, ostracism, discrimination in employment or housing, etc. ad lib.

And the entire story, when not viewed with paranoia, is clearly an effort to write a controversial law with the intent to prevent embezzlement.

I think the "gay agenda" is mythical because it seems like gays can't agree on exactly what they want. For example, many gays want nothing less than full and equal marriage. Then there are others (Elton John is often cited) that want nothing to do with marriage, seeing it as an institution that comes with a great deal of baggage. Or maybe to make an even simpler argument, the Log Cabin Republican's agenda is far different than the Stonewall Democrat's agenda.

 

[Norbert L]

Whats interesting is that the 2 lawmakers who proposed the bill, Andrew McDonald, and Mike Lawlor are (you guessed it) open homosexuals, and ardent activists and proponents of the gay movement.

In ancient times people actually wanted one king, the reason being is he could provide security. Protection and a stable society that could pursue a living in relative peace. Rather than have each section of the country divided into self interest groups. Because under those arrangments "feuds" happen when one community wrongs another and the corpse count rises. When with one authority over everyone, it has ablity to intervene, the result being a big reduction in "collateral damage".

Not much has changed with government, one reason it's there is to protect their communities from harming one another. And America having a gay lesbian community, everytime they understand the intent of Christians proclaiming:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites..."

They hear it as an violent attack on their lifestyle and infringement on their constitutional rights. The same one Christians get to use.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They hear anti gay retoric it in the same manner of an attack on them as would Christians who hear about some in Islam supporting and promoting violent Jihad among their fellow American Muslims. They shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Of course Christians and homosexuals don't want that type of Jihad being taught here too and an earthly government seeking to protect it's citizens from one another is in the middle as each side lobbies them.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

And your authority for the above is?

The Church(magestarium). The Apostolic See

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Not true. By law, the government may discriminate where there is a valid governmental reason to do so. For example, ensuring that fair treatment is given persons of Black ancestry in government jobs in areas where there has historically been discrimination against Blacks may require tracking the racial composition of job applicants. Giving women late-pregnancy/childbirth leave while denying it to men may be valid on the basis that the women's bodies undergo issues that men's do not.

The criterion is that the standard for making a valid discrimination must be tied to a valid governmntal purpose -- and if a religious reason is advanced, that reason must pass the Lemon test.

What you're doing is laying down a sheet of sandpaper on level ground and calling it a slippery slope.

and the banning of gay marriage is seen as a "valid reason" by the government currently.

You cannot support gay marriage without having to support polygamy, bigamy, and incest. Either marriage shows partiality or it does not.

If the gays do not support the polygamists and inter-family breeding then they are hypocrites. If your gonna support so called gay marriage at least do it in a non-hypocritical way. I myself can at least declare marriage shows partiality

 

[roflcopter101]

You cannot support gay marriage without having to support polygamy, bigamy, and incest.

Uh, why can't you support just gay marriage?
Additionally, what is wrong with polygamy?
If a person really wants to marry 2 or 5 people, it doesn't do any harm to society, does it?
Bigamy is problematic if the first partner is not aware of the second marriage, and incest may lead to inbreeding depression.

 

[b&wpac4]

Uh, why can't you support just gay marriage?
Additionally, what is wrong with polygamy?
If a person really wants to marry 2 or 5 people, it doesn't do any harm to society, does it?
Bigamy is problematic if the first partner is not aware of the second marriage, and incest may lead to inbreeding depression.

I'd say we would need to rework laws regarding inheritance, shared insurance, and other concerns before we could allow polygamy, but I have trouble seeing why it should be banned forever.

 

[Belk]

I'd say we would need to rework laws regarding inheritance, shared insurance, and other concerns before we could allow polygamy, but I have trouble seeing why it should be banned forever.

Polygamy is currently outlawed not because of any inherent issues in polygamy itself but because historically it has had many issues of abuse. Specifically in that it was used as a method of indoctrinating women from a young age to be submissive, docile, and for all intents and pour poses little more then slaves.

 

[b&wpac4]

Polygamy is currently outlawed not because of any inherent issues in polygamy itself but because historically it has had many issues of abuse. Specifically in that it was used as a method of indoctrinating women from a young age to be submissive, docile, and for all intents and pour poses little more then slaves.

I understand that, I'm just saying that if we were to make it legal, we would have to address the legal ramifications that go along with it.

 

[Belk]

and the banning of gay marriage is seen as a "valid reason" by the government currently.

You cannot support gay marriage without having to support polygamy, bigamy, and incest. Either marriage shows partiality or it does not.

If the gays do not support the polygamists and inter-family breeding then they are hypocrites. If your gonna support so called gay marriage at least do it in a non-hypocritical way. I myself can at least declare marriage shows partiality

No, I am actually capable of coming up with nuanced and reasoned debate for the reasons of my stance. I am, in point of fact, perfectly capable of supporting homosexual marriage while at the same time seeing the inherent issues that keep the three things you keep trying to link it with illegal. You may not be able to see the differences, but we can. Would you like us to explain them to you? They are not terribly difficult or involved.