It's so wrong...

[GoingByzantine]

...to claim to stand for freedom and equality, and then when you finally get the rights you fought so hard for, you turn right around and persecute others for their opinions and beliefs. The same political activists who were being spit at are now spitting on others (literally).

This is what partisan politics has done to our country, there is no middle ground, there is no room for moderate or rational views. America is a war zone between two dangerous ideologies, both claim to represent freedom, but neither really does.

Shame.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Give me a break. Over 150 million people support gay marriage in this country. You have one "incident" that only the alleged victim saw, that he did not report to the police, and that he rushed on the air on the anti-gay propaganda outlet he works for to "report" about. Clearly that's worth several threads and you tarring the 60% of the country that supports gay marriage as hypocrites who are trying to persecute you- oh, wait, it's not. There are people who act out of line on all sides of every debate. Most gay marriage advocates are 100% peaceful. I can't say the same thing about FOX News and their support for any war they can stir up.

You know who is persecuted in this country? Gays. Why don't you do a web search on "Matthew Shepard"?

Or hey, just read this:

http://www.matthewshepard.org/our-story/matthews-story

 

[GoingByzantine]

Harsh. This thread is not about one incident, it is about many. I have already said I am fine with secular gay marriage (I am part of the 60%); I am espousing my own view that neither liberalism or conservatism seems to respect free speech.

I hope someone understands what I am trying to say, and if they don't understand, I hope that they at least respect me as a fellow human being.

 

[LoAmmi]

I do find it sad that so many jerks exist within every group you can imagine.

 

[SolomonVII]

Harsh. This thread is not about one incident, it is about many. I have already said I am fine with secular gay marriage (I am part of the 60%); I am espousing my own view that neither liberalism or conservatism seems to respect free speech.

I hope someone understands what I am trying to say, and if they don't understand, I hope that they at least respect me as a fellow human being.

I understand what you are saying.
And I guess I would be part of the 40 on that particular issue.

 

[GoingByzantine]

I understand what you are saying.
And I guess I would be part of the 40 on that particular issue.

I respect your opinion, and your character.

I don't ever ascribe to a "majority rules" policy, the opinion of the 40% is just as important as the 60%, and when it comes to sacramental marriage I am sure that our opinions would be aligned.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Harsh. This thread is not about one incident, it is about many. I have already said I am fine with secular gay marriage (I am part of the 60%); I am espousing my own view that neither liberalism or conservatism seems to respect free speech.

I think most liberals respect free speech. Obviously, there are always exceptions. But, in general, free speech is a value that liberals commonly hold. We've started organizations like the ACLU that's entire purpose is to defend civil rights and freedom of speech.

I hope someone understands what I am trying to say, and if they don't understand, I hope that they at least respect me as a fellow human being.

I meant no disrespect to you as a human being. I just felt like the original post was an attempt to overgeneralize in a malicious way against a whole group of people. Perhaps you didn't intend it that way, but that's the way it reads, as though we are supposed to think based on very thin allegations against one or two people, that the entire gay rights movement is hypocritical and trying to persecute people.

Persecution would be if gay rights groups tried to ban straight marriage or ban the churches the opposed gay marriage or something, which they are not trying to do. I don't think heterosexuals are being persecuted in America for their heterosexuality.

 

[SolomonVII]

I respect your opinion, and your character.

I don't ever ascribe to a "majority rules" policy, the opinion of the 40% is just as important as the 60%, and when it comes to sacramental marriage I am sure that our opinions would be aligned.

Respect and tolerant discussion of the opinion of the 40 is much more important in the free society than it would be for the opinion of the 60.
I suppose I have said enough on what marriage is over the past week. I don't need to say any more here. To the extent that people here uphold the traditional understanding of marriage, and are now seen by fellow Catholics as illogical, and otherwise inane, it does beg the question of why they would even believe in the Catholic understanding of marriage in the first place.
But that is what demonization of the other side always does to the discussion.

My own opinion is if the traditional definition of marriage is rejected as the actual definition of marriage for a society, then far better for that society than all marriage laws be scrapped, and it be left completely to individual choice. There is no longer any particular interest for a society to promote marriage that does nothing to sustain the next generation of that society.

The new definition of marriage is less than useless for defining any kind of society.

But that is my opinion. The Catholic Church itself did seem to want Catholics to fight for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage for society,as far as I know, but support from 40/100 of their members is not going to carry the day as far as the politics of the matter goes.

 

[GoingByzantine]

I apologize Fish and Bread if I gave you that impression, I can see why you would think that I meant it that way. I know that every movement has its good seeds and bad seeds, so I am not trying to generalize everyone. I want people to stop fighting, and to respect one another.

 

[parousia70]

My own opinion is if the traditional definition of marriage is rejected as the actual definition of marriage for a society, then far better for that society than all marriage laws be scrapped, and it be left completely to individual choice.

Traditional definition of Marriage?

Like, polygamy? or marriage only within your race/religion?

Do those documented "traditions" that human beings in varying cultures have applied to the "Actual definition" of marriage... for millennia.... count?

There is no longer any particular interest for a society to promote marriage that does nothing to sustain the next generation of that society.

1) Population will continue to increase.
Scripture teaches that the generations of man are perpetual.
(Ps 145:13; Dan 4:3,34; Dan 7:14,18,27; Lk 1:33)
Marriage equality can't circumvent that.

2)As society has been promoting, supporting,indeed CELEBRATING marriage for sterile people for decades, and subsequent generations have been sustained...your fears are factually unfounded.

3) Society ought be particularly interested in promoting equality. Such is sustaining.

 

[GoingByzantine]

You will all note that I put three symbols in my signature. The one on the left represents Native American Rights, a cause I truly care deeply about. I note that the flag also promotes peace and love. The middle symbol is self explanatory. The one on the right is the libertarian porcupine, with a bold message. Do not tread on people. People have souls, feelings and values.

That is why I say shame to those who one second fight for freedom, but the next second they turn around and become oppressors themselves. This is a problem in both liberalism and conservatism, honestly in any political "ism". I have libertarian leanings, but I am more than an ideology, we are all more than ideologies; we are humans.

 

[SolomonVII]

Traditional definition of Marriage?

Like, polygamy? or marriage only within your race/religion?

Do those documented "traditions" that human beings in varying cultures have applied to the "Actual definition" of marriage... for millennia.... count?

The Catholic church is not racist, and suffice to say I am not a Muslim.
It should be clear to most authentic readers, exactly what a Catholic speaking of traditional marriage does and does not mean by that term.
Of course that is what this thread addresses, which is how people have such contempt for those who they disagree with that they will exaggerate the position of the other absurdly, to the point of demonization even.
Learn what the Catholic church teaches on marriage, and then you might be in a position to respond fairly.

 

[parousia70]

It should be clear to most authentic readers, exactly what a Catholic speaking of traditional marriage does and does not mean by that term.

Should it? Solomon had 700 Wives...We Catholics can't get more "traditional" than the Old Testament can we?

Regardless, You were speaking in the context of Society as a whole, not just us Catholics. Traditional, Sacramental Catholic Marriage for Catholics has not changed as a result of this ruling, nor will it. And this ruling no more disconnects civil marriage from any of it's traditions than did Loving Vs. Virginia.

If the state required Catholic Priests to Marry two Jews, or two Muslims, or two atheists, your argument might have some weight.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Should it? Solomon had 700 Wives...We Catholics can't get more "traditional" than the Old Testament can we?

And as a result Solomon fell out of God's grace and accepted his wives pagan idols into His heart and nation.

On the other point, since when is being a secular citizen more important than being a Catholic? The liberal clique has done nothing but celebrate and mocking anyone who doesn't celebrate this victory of the godless.

 

[MikeK]

Respect and tolerant discussion of the opinion of the 40 is much more important in the free society than it would be for the opinion of the 60.

Absolutely it is, and that should be rather at the core of the liberal movement. Our society doesn't really focus on things like sexism against males or predjudice against whites for that reason, the privilaged majority doesn't need the protections that minority groups do. Any honest liberal would fight as hard from this point forward to proect the rights of those who oppose same sex marriage as they did over the last 30 years for the growing group that supported it and came to be a majority. They won't, but they should.

 

[Armoured]

Give me a break. Over 150 million people support gay marriage in this country. You have one "incident" that only the alleged victim saw, that he did not report to the police, and that he rushed on the air on the anti-gay propaganda outlet he works for to "report" about. Clearly that's worth several threads and you tarring the 60% of the country that supports gay marriage as hypocrites who are trying to persecute you- oh, wait, it's not. There are people who act out of line on all sides of every debate. Most gay marriage advocates are 100% peaceful. I can't say the same thing about FOX News and their support for any war they can stir up.

You know who is persecuted in this country? Gays. Why don't you do a web search on "Matthew Shepard"?

Or hey, just read this:

http://www.matthewshepard.org/our-story/matthews-story

Remember this?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27456042/#.VZERJfmqpBc

 

[SolomonVII]

Should it? Solomon had 700 Wives...We Catholics can't get more "traditional" than the Old Testament can we?

Regardless, You were speaking in the context of Society as a whole, not just us Catholics. Traditional, Sacramental Catholic Marriage for Catholics has not changed as a result of this ruling, nor will it. And this ruling no more disconnects civil marriage from any of it's traditions than did Loving Vs. Virginia.

If the state required Catholic Priests to Marry two Jews, or two Muslims, or two atheists, your argument might have some weight.

Of course it should.
My argument only has weight with people who have genuine respect for people who disagree with them though.
My agument has nothing to do with Catholic priests being required to marry anybody.
It has everything to do with people skewing what other people say as to make them out to be racists or any other sort of evil people in order to dismiss them out of hand, rather than deal with what they are actually saying.

That is what your argument does, and as such is serves as a great example of the kind of egregious behavior that the OP was addressing.

 

[parousia70]

It has everything to do with people skewing what other people say as to make them out to be racists or any other sort of evil people in order to dismiss them out of hand, rather than deal with what they are actually saying.

That is what your argument does, and as such is serves as a great example of the kind of egregious behavior that the OP was addressing.

Maybe I missed it... I'll re quote what I said so you can show us how it 1) is not factual & 2) makes other people out to be racists or evil, as you contend:

Regardless, You were speaking in the context of Society as a whole, not just us Catholics. Traditional, Sacramental Catholic Marriage for Catholics has not changed as a result of this ruling, nor will it. And this ruling no more disconnects civil marriage from any of it's traditions than did Loving Vs. Virginia.

 

[parousia70]

On the other point, since when is being a secular citizen more important than being a Catholic?

More important to who? Me? it isn't.
To my Jewish neighbor? it probably is.
To my atheist neighbor, it absolutely is.

 

[parousia70]

The liberal clique has done nothing but celebrate and mocking anyone who doesn't celebrate this victory of the godless.

In a free society, you don't get to legislate your own personal protection from mockery.