The Religious Liberty to Support Same Sex Marriage...

[Cosmic Charlie]

...A view from the other side of the hill:

Rev. Emily C. Heath: The Religious Liberty to Support Gay Marriage

I have never seen Christians look more afraid than when they are talking about how churches will be "forced" to perform same-sex weddings should marriage equality become legal. Seriously. It's a fear I've never seen when faced with the very real threats of poverty, child sex trafficking, hunger, or violence. The threat of gay marriage sends some Christians to DEFCON 1, ready to send guards to man the church doors.

Which has always struck me as, frankly, ridiculous. And here's why. Here is how a clergyperson stops a wedding from occurring in their church: they say "no".

 

[WarriorAngel]

Obviously one who isnt Catholic - and obviously following error in the 1st place...
And second someone not so up to date on how history has a way of showing us how things spiral.

yes the road ahead would be bad for Catholics and anyone else who can withstand the trials on the earth til the end [if any others can]

You cannot out lie the past. It might be revised for some - but it stands as proof of the package of moral decay.

 

[sean michael]

About a decade ago, american liberalism launched a premeditated assault on common, normal human interaction by introducing and force feeding this false dichotome that you either support gay marriage, and you're one f the good guys, or you don't, and you're a no good low down big got. I could care less either way. How does it effect me if gays get married? Like Norm used to say on "cheers", is this going to effect the price of beer?

 

[sean michael]

I have a hard time believing gays would go to a catholic church to get married anyway. Trust me, they'll be setting up marriage chaplains everywhere, from gay bars to public restrooms. A gay going to a catholic church to get married would be like a catholic going to a satanic church to buy rosary needs

 

[AvilaSurfer]

The OP is ridiculous. Can I have "religious liberty" to commit any sin I please? Stupid idea.

"Rev." Emily - LOL

 

[WarriorAngel]

Galatians 5:16-17 But I say, walk by the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other: that you may not do the things that you would.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I have a hard time believing gays would go to a catholic church to get married anyway. Trust me, they'll be setting up marriage chaplains everywhere, from gay bars to public restrooms. A gay going to a catholic church to get married would be like a catholic going to a satanic church to buy rosary needs

....public restrooms ?


Really ?

Seriously ?

 

[WarriorAngel]

CC - think 'Mardi Gras' - [if you ever saw or heard such stories] and restrooms might not be that far off, actually.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

...A view from the other side of the hill:

Rev. Emily C. Heath: The Religious Liberty to Support Gay Marriage

Sorry, but you lost me at Rev Emily.

 

[sean michael]

Sure, why not?

 

[QuantaCura]

The Catholic Church doesn't teach an unlimited religious liberty. Religious liberty is limited by the objective moral order and the common good--and not a common good conceived of in a positivist "naturalistic' sense (CCC 2109). Man's spiritual well-being must also be taken into account when determining what benefits the common good (Bl. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, 57).

Such "unions" are contrary to the objective moral order and the common good. The state may tolerate them but it has no authority to sanction or encourage them.

Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

 

[WarriorAngel]

The Catholic Church doesn't teach an unlimited religious liberty. Religious liberty is limited by the objective moral order and the common good--and not a common good conceived of in a positivist "naturalistic' sense (CCC 2109). Man's spiritual well-being must also be taken into account when determing what benefits the common good (Bl. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, 57).

Such "unions" are contrary to the objective moral order and the common good. The state may tolerate them but it has no authority to sanction or encourage them.

Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

QFT

 

[cathoaholicliz]

I read "Rev Emily" and then stopped reading.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sorry, but you lost me at Rev Emily.

 

[truthseeker32]

What most people are missing in this debate is realizing how the ideologies and laws in our society shape and change it. For example, many people believe that people should have a right to look at pornography because, as they claim, their activities do not harm others. I believe this opinion stems from a failure to recognize that "harm" extends beyond readily observable effects like physical abuse. Pornography distorts the users mind, inclining them to see people they are attracted to as objects. It can ruin relationships or prevent the creation of them altogether. Further, it perpetuates the ideology that the "good" in society is merely whatever you want it to be, so long as it doesn't cause immediate harm to others.

Likewise, it is very tempting to think "why not let them get married? It isn't going to affect me!" Perhaps it won't. Perhaps it will be an exception to the rule, but I would wager that just like so many other ideas perpetuated in society (drugs, tobacco, alcohol, casual sex, abortion) gay "marriage" is going to alter society's view of a relationship, a family, and thus will affect the moral perspective of future generations.

I, for one, wish to see marriage as more than just something people have the right to do because they feel like it, and only as long as they feel like it.

 

[sean michael]

Truthseeker, I would agree, IF our state marriage even vaguely resembled the sacred covenant with god that marriage is supposed to be about. Marriage by the state is not covenant, its contract, so its just a non issue to me

 

[truthseeker32]

Truthseeker, I would agree, IF our state marriage even vaguely resembled the sacred covenant with god that marriage is supposed to be about. Marriage by the state is not covenant, its contract, so its just a non issue to me

It sounds as though you are saying "because the current state of marriage in this country is in bad shape we might as well let it get worse."

 

[sean michael]

No, I'm saying the current state of marriage in this country is completely irrelevant to Christianity and whatever secular laws are applied to it are of no consequence to Christianity. 1) state marriage is a contract, which can lawfully be breached by either party, for any reason, or even for no reason at all. 2) state marriage allows for the marriage of satanists, pegans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and all other people typed regardless of their stances for or against Christianity, so supposing Christians should delegate state marriage according to Christian values is a fairy tale that went out the window before it ever had a chance to be real. Christian marriage is not a contract between two people, each party with responsibilities to the fulfilment of the contract, contingent upon the other party fulfilling their responsibilities. True Christian marriage is a covenant, not between a man and a woman, but between a man and god, and between a woman and god. It is a covenant to god, without condition or contingency, to be a godly spouse to the other party, regardless of the other party's responsibilities and performance. There is no simularity to marriage of the state, its like saying gays shouldn't be allowed to hide Easter eggs because that's just for Christians. Why do we hide the eggs on Jesus? Its all duckspeak

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you underestimate the ramifications of gay "marriage." It would essentially create a system like the Civil Rights Act wherein Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant clergy would eventually be required to "marry" these couples or face lawsuits. Now at this early juncture, liberal folks scoff at this and laugh saying this would never happen. If we liken refusal to marry homosexuals to denying an African-American the right to marry or work or have liberties, then it will be akin to fierce racism on the part of the clergy. Churches will be sued to death and fold under or else embrace the sinful lifestyle.

And in the end, homosexuality is a sin. When they adopt children, they indoctrinate the child into the sin and the sin spreads. As they're accepted, gay characters become more common on TV, movies, and in music. Pretty soon our own Christian children see men kissing men on every channel and hear about it right and left. And bisexuality and other such nonsense is spread to a higher degree in the education system and in the public sphere...pretty soon, it's no longer an "option" but a forced embrace.

And it will also open the door to plural marriages and other abominations...just give it time, brother

No, I'm saying the current state of marriage in this country is completely irrelevant to Christianity and whatever secular laws are applied to it are of no consequence to Christianity. 1) state marriage is a contract, which can lawfully be breached by either party, for any reason, or even for no reason at all. 2) state marriage allows for the marriage of satanists, pegans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and all other people typed regardless of their stances for or against Christianity, so supposing Christians should delegate state marriage according to Christian values is a fairy tale that went out the window before it ever had a chance to be real. Christian marriage is not a contract between two people, each party with responsibilities to the fulfilment of the contract, contingent upon the other party fulfilling their responsibilities. True Christian marriage is a covenant, not between a man and a woman, but between a man and god, and between a woman and god. It is a covenant to god, without condition or contingency, to be a godly spouse to the other party, regardless of the other party's responsibilities and performance. There is no simularity to marriage of the state, its like saying gays shouldn't be allowed to hide Easter eggs because that's just for Christians. Why do we hide the eggs on Jesus? Its all duckspeak

 

[Tigg]

I am shocked at the benefits married people have versus no rights that gay people do not have. It is really unfair. Of all these perks given to marrieds can be given to gays, the I believe no marriage. But my trust that congress can do anything is at 0. So I have changed my stance. Let the gays get married and recognized by the feds as married.

And no church should be forced to marry anyone against their teachings.