The Religious Liberty to Support Same Sex Marriage...

[truthseeker32]

I gotcha, but I disagree. My brain is not a democracy. I have, at the door of my debate room inside my mind, what I call the threshold of stupidity. If, for example, we do not agree that murder is wrong, you have not crossed the threshold of stupidity, and therefore are not in the debate room, capable of reasonably debating a simple subject

Where is the line, or in your case, how stupid does an opinion have to be for you not to consider it? Lets take killing another human for example. It is easy to call someone crazy if they don't see anything wrong with murder, but what about abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment? Are these all too stupid to make it to the debate floor? If not, why not? What are the factors that divides one of these issues from straight murder?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I fail to see why God would hold me accountable, Sean. I have always been a loud voice in my community against the gay agenda, against abortion, against divorce and cohabitation, you name it. I have always made my opinions known and have tried, as a married man, to be a good husband to my lady, and a good dad to my 3 precious little children. I also strive to be a good teacher as well. I don't side with these sins, nor do I ever act like a shrinking violet with them. I pray God's mercy on judgment day for my many other sins, but as far as the gay agenda and other social ills, I don't think I have any rainbow glitter on my hands that will make me tied to their guilt?....or perhaps I don't understand your statement regarding Christian culpability with this matter?

Gurney, you have some very good points, and lets face it, until the past decade, we as Christians have lived without any of the hardships or persecutions most Christians have faced in most countries at most periods of time. We are spoiled to have nothing to do but bask in the awesomeness of god and share his love and majesty with the world around us. These persecutions are coming, and not in a small trickle, but in an avelanche, and it isn't the gays fault, or the miscreant, god holds you and I, the beleivers, accountable, not the heathen.

 

[sean michael]

Where is the line, or in your case, how stupid does an opinion have to be for you not to consider it? Lets take killing another human for example. It is easy to call someone crazy if they don't see anything wrong with murder, but what about abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment? Are these all too stupid to make it to the debate floor? If not, why not? What are the factors that divides one of these issues from straight murder?

These are all, in my opinion, forms of playing god, deciding who lives and dies on a generic level, deciding I deserve to live but others do not make me an elitist, deciding I can kill a baby instead of being responsible for my behavior makes me a Lowlife, none of these scenarios, in my reality, warrant even allow for a thoughtful debate. Its kinda like, the only way to win a war with a Muslim is to kill him, because he believes as long as I'm alive, and he's alive, its his duty to kill me. There is no debating with an elitist who is so stupid he actually thinks himself more worthy of life than others, or an irresponsible moron who thinks they are the victim of a baby they created willingly. Capital punishment is a bit different, becauseyoure talking about somebody's death as the result of their own responsibility. In fact I find it mind blowing the the same idiots who attend abortion rights rallies, attend vigils for death row inmates who murder entire families. Save the poor murderer, kill that evil baby!

 

[sean michael]

I fail to see why God would hold me accountable, Sean. I have always been a loud voice in my community against the gay agenda, against abortion, against divorce and cohabitation, you name it. I have always made my opinions known and have tried, as a married man, to be a good husband to my lady, and a good dad to my 3 precious little children. I also strive to be a good teacher as well. I don't side with these sins, nor do I ever act like a shrinking violet with them. I pray God's mercy on judgment day for my many other sins, but as far as the gay agenda and other social ills, I don't think I have any rainbow glitter on my hands that will make me tied to their guilt?....or perhaps I don't understand your statement regarding Christian culpability with this matter?

I don't mean you are responsible for gays being gay. I mean god said, if my people will turn from evil and walk in my ways, I will heal their land. He didn't say if the gays stop being gay, or the crooks stop stealing, or the pimps stop pimping, he said if HIS PEOPLE will do the right thing, he will heal their land. I did a study on this and heard a sermon, years ago, before my life became a blurry memory, and it quite convinced me that it is how Christians behave, and not miscreants, that determines how gods hand works within a nation and a people.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Gotta love political correctness. It makes soooooo much sense

The Catholic Church has spoken on this issue. Homosexual persons are to be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. It's in the Catechism, paragraph 2358.

Then again, if only for the entertainment value, you can go here.

The Westboro Baptist Chipmunks - YouTube

 

[Needing_Grace]

The problem is that that word attacks the person. As Catholics, we believe that it is the act, not the inclination that is sinful. As such, an attack against a person because of their orientation, which they cannot help, is wrong. We can, and should call homosexual acts sinful, but should not attack the person in the process. Such could harden their hearts and drive them further away from the love of Christ.

Preach it brother.

 

[Needing_Grace]

I don't mean you are responsible for gays being gay. I mean god said, if my people will turn from evil and walk in my ways, I will heal their land. He didn't say if the gays stop being gay, or the crooks stop stealing, or the pimps stop pimping, he said if HIS PEOPLE will do the right thing, he will heal their land. I did a study on this and heard a sermon, years ago, before my life became a blurry memory, and it quite convinced me that it is how Christians behave, and not miscreants, that determines how gods hand works within a nation and a people.

Somehow you're implying that gay (defined as people are predominantly sexually attracted to members of the same sex) people can't be God's people, too.

The Church disagrees with you. We are called to chastity, according to our state in life, same as you. We can do the right thing by trusting in Christ, receiving His Sacraments by which He pours unfathomable grace upon us. He forgives our sins. He receives us as adopted, chosen sons. Because of what we're about to remember in a couple of days.

Because of what that sacrifice gained for us, we are called to live our lives in accordance with Christ's Word and He enables us to do so because of His mercy and grace.

BTW, America is NOT ancient Israel. The Church Catholic is the Covenant People of God, not the United States or any other nation.

 

[WarriorAngel]

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.

One shouldnt just look at the given rights - one should ask - why are they given rights.

I have been trying to explain why - it is because 'heterosexual' marriages are for the common good of the culture - the society.
It is thru their union - [and togetherness not separation] that children are produced and given a steady relationship which ensures a mentally stable society/strong country.

Anything less - will bring in a lot of chaos - a lot of mental issues in this country we cannot even begin to comprehend.
Yes we have instability now - given the 'fornicators' living together and children being put here and there and everywhere...

Do we really need to open the doors for more?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

One shouldnt just look at the given rights - one should ask - why are they given rights.

I have been trying to explain why - it is because 'heterosexual' marriages are for the common good of the culture - the society.
It is thru their union - [and togetherness not separation] that children are produced and given a steady relationship which ensures a mentally stable society/strong country.

Anything less - will bring in a lot of chaos - a lot of mental issues in this country we cannot even begin to comprehend.
Yes we have instability now - given the 'fornicators' living together and children being put here and there and everywhere...

Do we really need to open the doors for more?

And any of this has, what, exactly, to do with equal marriage ?

You HAVE to, if you are to maintain the argument, address a simple question in the above analysis that have NEVER adequately been addressed by ANYONE, ANYWHERE, making that argument:

If the above is true then why are those rights afforded to heterosexuals who are marriage and DO NOT have children ?

The rights of marriage do not follow nor are they dependent on whether or not the marriage produces children. The are vested at the moment of the marriage.

Therefore, it would seem, that your argument is specious. The rights are afforded the married couple and not dependent on whether children are produced.

Where am I wrong ?

Answer that question and you too can be in front of the Supreme Court because the best legal minds Tea party money can buy can't answer it.

 

[sean michael]

Somehow you're implying that gay (defined as people are predominantly sexually attracted to members of the same sex) people can't be God's people, too.

The Church disagrees with you. We are called to chastity, according to our state in life, same as you. We can do the right thing by trusting in Christ, receiving His Sacraments by which He pours unfathomable grace upon us. He forgives our sins. He receives us as adopted, chosen sons. Because of what we're about to remember in a couple of days.

Because of what that sacrifice gained for us, we are called to live our lives in accordance with Christ's Word and He enables us to do so because of His mercy and grace.

BTW, America is NOT ancient Israel. The Church Catholic is the Covenant People of God, not the United States or any other nation.

Like your friend earlier, you had to go out of your way to find what I said to mean gays aren't gods people. Obviously to anybody reading objectively, I was implying it isn't those living against gods will that are called to action by god, but those living accordingly. For the purpose of this debate, it matters not if homosexuality is a sin, only if we are to treat gays differently than straights. God made the sun to rise on the just and the wicked alike, and the rain to fall on the just and the wicked alike. We are not to treat people differently even if we think they are wicked, and since that's the only argument I need to make, I don't get into my personal feelings about gays with religious people because its pointless. Gods people are the people who live their lives as gods people. Sexual orientation is not on the questionnaire. Being able to quote catholic doctrine doesn't make somebody gods people, and being gay doesn't make somebody not gods people. Your fruits will bear your witness

 

[sean michael]

Oh, and I'm not called to chastity. The bible instructs not to withhold sex from the spouse except for ritual cleansing. I'm not sure where you found Christianity to be called to chastity, have you read Paul's take on that?

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

The whole premise of the article can end up being quite hypocritical if you ask but one question of the author. If other churches' views shouldn't play into law defining who can and cannot be married, then shouldn't you support the right of the LDS to practice polygamy?

Really that is the articles argument taken to it's logical conclusion. They would be better served putting forth legal arguments for gay marriage.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Oh, and I'm not called to chastity. The bible instructs not to withhold sex from the spouse except for ritual cleansing. I'm not sure where you found Christianity to be called to chastity, have you read Paul's take on that?

Chaste according to our state in life. So if your single or dating don't have sex and if your married only have sex with your spouse.

 

[sean michael]

Chaste according to our state in life. So if your single or dating don't have sex and if your married only have sex with your spouse.

Thank you, that is far more palletable

 

[sean michael]

The Catholic Church has spoken on this issue. Homosexual persons are to be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. It's in the Catechism, paragraph 2358.

Then again, if only for the entertainment value, you can go here.

One of those chipmonks ws habitually out of key. And why does god always use so much reverb? Is he self conscious about his voice?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the problem with a lot of the discourse here is the use of terminology. "Gays" and "orientation" are problematic verbage to describe things. For one thing, the Catholic Church properly describes homosexuality as a "disordered" lifestyle. That's a fact. The term "gay" seems to indicate an innate and God-given intrinsic nature to the person, and, as such, we would be compelled to see it as good. But it is not good, nor is it proper, nor is it intrinsic. After the Fall, humanity has suffered in a myriad of ways sexually and in the way we view and live with each other. Same-sex attraction is a result of the Fall, and it is a complex disorder. The term "same-sex attraction" is a solid one in that it describes the disorder without attaching an intrinsic identity to the person as "GAY!"

"Orientation" is also problematic because it also implies an intrinsic, intentional, God-given situation for the individual.

The more we hear these terms day in, day out, we buy into the malarky that modernity has managed to pump into our brains, the rubber stamp on a sinful challenge. Defining people as sexual categories is sketchy thinking.

And when we're at a point, truly at a point, where we see two men practicing sodomy together or lesbians in their activities, when you really truly think about what they do together, how totally it goes against nature despite the attraction from the disorder, when one truly meditates on the vile nature of how it mocks real sexuality, no Christian with any informed sense of Church, ecclesiology, theology, or Biblical knowledge could ever be ok with it.

Like your friend earlier, you had to go out of your way to find what I said to mean gays aren't gods people. Obviously to anybody reading objectively, I was implying it isn't those living against gods will that are called to action by god, but those living accordingly. For the purpose of this debate, it matters not if homosexuality is a sin, only if we are to treat gays differently than straights. God made the sun to rise on the just and the wicked alike, and the rain to fall on the just and the wicked alike. We are not to treat people differently even if we think they are wicked, and since that's the only argument I need to make, I don't get into my personal feelings about gays with religious people because its pointless. Gods people are the people who live their lives as gods people. Sexual orientation is not on the questionnaire. Being able to quote catholic doctrine doesn't make somebody gods people, and being gay doesn't make somebody not gods people. Your fruits will bear your witness

 

[sean michael]

Somehow

BTW, America is NOT ancient Israel. The Church Catholic is the Covenant People of God, not the United States or any other nation.

If by catholic, you mean universal, I would agree. If, by catholic, you mean the religion that was hijacked by Rome in 313 a.d., I would have to laugh and assume you very presumptious

 

[WarriorAngel]

And any of this has, what, exactly, to do with equal marriage ?

I have over the years given three reasons why gay marriage is unsound for society.

1-Obviously - it's against God [Who created nature BTW]
2-Its against nature and will never produce children.
3-Because it doesnt produce children - governments have always catered to and relied on heterosexual couples to produce strong nations - hence all the rights they are given.

Sure folks could 'fornicate' but they receive no special rights because governments need 'mentally stable' societies and strong nations for defense. Which comes only through a mother and father. Let's not kid ourselves to pretend otherwise.

Its really no secret.

You HAVE to, if you are to maintain the argument, address a simple question in the above analysis that have NEVER adequately been addressed by ANYONE, ANYWHERE, making that argument:

If the above is true then why are those rights afforded to heterosexuals who are marriage and DO NOT have children ?

Because not every doctor is right for one thing [ppl have conceived later] - and because nature intended men and women to 'fit' one another - it's really a no brainer to know - even if the couple is unable to reproduce [and usually a rare circumstance] they are still able to provide homes for children thru adoption and maintain a much needed partnership of a father and mother - whereas children develop more sound having both role models.

The rights of marriage do not follow nor are they dependent on whether or not the marriage produces children. The are vested at the moment of the marriage.

You are simply in error CC.
This is modern day opinions clouding history.

Historically heterosexuals were [whats the word here] - given high incentive to marry and produce children - hence the tax laws and codes [which is an agreement with the family] to produce children for even MORE incentive - with deductions.

These 'rights' or rather incentives put in place to induce marriage among couples [wow how lost we have become today] - in order to procure more children - who in turn ensures a strong viable nation and defense.

You cannot be a strong nation if you cannot reproduce future generations.
And moreover - the governments follow moral law because it produces a more stable society.

Homosexuals marrying for the very incentive given for reproduction and stable home life - is usurping and quantifying that which cannot even begin to be the same.

Therefore, it would seem, that your argument is specious. The rights are afforded the married couple and not dependent on whether children are produced.

Where am I wrong ?

Answer that question and you too can be in front of the Supreme Court because the best legal minds Tea party money can buy can't answer it.

You are wrong because it goes against nature. It goes against God. It goes against the normal flow of reproduction for the common good.

The rate of 'infertility' is so low - it hardly even makes a scratch in the general overall fertility.

Yet still - keeping in mind the stability of a country depends on the mental stability.
A mother and a father are a right of every single human being who is produced through nature and nature itself condemns the act. For if nature did not condemn the act - it would have been open to the act for reproduction.

Studying MA - the fact a baby in the womb already is being created while beginning the beginning of the next creation - is a miracle and astounding.

Every single part of the reproduction of males and females are created for the other. The sperm is created specifically for the egg of the woman.
The egg is produced specifically for the sperm.

As babies in the womb - these organs are already significantly preparing for 'meeting' the other - and anything else that blocks the use as such - does so in a heinous way. The sperm is not meant to be abused - its sole purpose is to fertilize the woman. It is the life of someone who could have been. To place the sperm in places it was not intended for - is unspeakable.

The reproductive system speaks for itself. If ppl were meant to subvert their sexuality in perverse ways - the organs would be neutral - but when studying them - they really are not. So nature will never intend for the abuse of these organs. It comes down to sheer brute carnality and perversion.

To state these folks have every right as heterosexuals to 'marry' supplants what marriage is in the first place. It is natures intended [God given laws] use for man and woman to reproduce with their sexual organs.
Everything else is perverse - and will never qualify as acceptable.

As i said if nature intended this - we wouldnt be man and woman - our organs wouldnt be made for the opposites. There would only be one gender - and probably self producing at that.

Which leads us back to God - because a Creator had to create the man and woman - because some explosion could not have created the perfect unity and two distinct genders from chaos.




I could go on - you know i could.

Already explained all this before - but 'me thinks' you didnt read it.

 

[sean michael]

I think the problem with a lot of the discourse here is the use of terminology. "Gays" and "orientation" are problematic verbage to describe things. For one thing, the Catholic Church properly describes homosexuality as a "disordered" lifestyle. That's a fact. The term "gay" seems to indicate an innate and God-given intrinsic nature to the person, and, as such, we would be compelled to see it as good. But it is not good, nor is it proper, nor is it intrinsic. After the Fall, humanity has suffered in a myriad of ways sexually and in the way we view and live with each other. Same-sex attraction is a result of the Fall, and it is a complex disorder. The term "same-sex attraction" is a solid one in that it describes the disorder without attaching an intrinsic identity to the person as "GAY!"

"Orientation" is also problematic because it also implies an intrinsic, intentional, God-given situation for the individual.

The more we hear these terms day in, day out, we buy into the malarky that modernity has managed to pump into our brains, the rubber stamp on a sinful challenge. Defining people as sexual categories is sketchy thinking.

And when we're at a point, truly at a point, where we see two men practicing sodomy together or lesbians in their activities, when you really truly think about what they do together, how totally it goes against nature despite the attraction from the disorder, when one truly meditates on the vile nature of how it mocks real sexuality, no Christian with any informed sense of Church, ecclesiology, theology, or Biblical knowledge could ever be ok with it.

A lot of good, well thought out analysis here. Of course, I still haven't closed the book on the debate of whether some people are born gay by nature. I have gay friends who are as repulsed by the idea of heterosexual behavior as I am by homosexual behavior. I don't allow scripture to contradict scripture. Rather, scripture must qualify scripture. Most scriptural references to homosexual behavior is not attributed to n inherantly homosexual person, but rather to straight people engaging in homosexual behavior, as well as other more bizzar craziness.

I must always consider three things when taking a position. 1) scripture. 2) personal experience and knowledge. 3) my knowledge of god and how it weighs agaist its absolute center, of a love so strong that christ died for us while we were yet in sin. I can't put those three things together and find condemnation for somebody based on their attractions or even their tresspasses, because salvation is based around love and sacrifice, for those who are not acting in a way that would warrant love or sacrifice.

I like the mercy approach. I'm a guy who needs a lot of mercy, so I try to give mercy whenever I am in a position to. For my gay friends, I feel sorry for them that they live a life of persecution, being treated as faulty and second class. They are atonomous minded people, not people who would choose a hard path, people who truly have suffered for things they have no control over.

Until I believe differently, I say to the homosexual, god loves you, god created you, if that's how he created you, then that's how he loves you. If you're lying about having been born that way, and it really was a personal choice of perversion, may god have mercy on your soul, you sick sick puppy.

 

[WarriorAngel]

A lot of good, well thought out analysis here. Of course, I still haven't closed the book on the debate of whether some people are born gay by nature. I have gay friends who are as repulsed by the idea of heterosexual behavior as I am by homosexual behavior. I don't allow scripture to contradict scripture. Rather, scripture must qualify scripture. Most scriptural references to homosexual behavior is not attributed to n inherantly homosexual person, but rather to straight people engaging in homosexual behavior, as well as other more bizzar craziness.

I must always consider three things when taking a position. 1) scripture. 2) personal experience and knowledge. 3) my knowledge of god and how it weighs agaist its absolute center, of a love so strong that christ died for us while we were yet in sin. I can't put those three things together and find condemnation for somebody based on their attractions or even their tresspasses, because salvation is based around love and sacrifice, for those who are not acting in a way that would warrant love or sacrifice.

I like the mercy approach. I'm a guy who needs a lot of mercy, so I try to give mercy whenever I am in a position to. For my gay friends, I feel sorry for them that they live a life of persecution, being treated as faulty and second class. They are atonomous minded people, not people who would choose a hard path, people who truly have suffered for things they have no control over.

Until I believe differently, I say to the homosexual, god loves you, god created you, if that's how he created you, then that's how he loves you. If you're lying about having been born that way, and it really was a personal choice of perversion, may god have mercy on your soul, you sick sick puppy.

I have to say - Romans 1 [stemming from the long line of OT scriptures using S&G as an example of what not to do...]
Shows us implicitly that anyone engaging in this behavior will not inherit Heaven.

Regardless if one is repulsed - it still remains sinful to commit the act.

I believe Needing_Grace is suggesting less hatred towards folks who suffer from this - rather than his giving any kind of defense of the act.

Ok, aside from that - no one is 'born' that way.
The first 5 years of anyone's life - is the formative years.

Most - according to studies - homosexuals - suffer from some sort of 'broken' relationship with the parent of the same sex. Therefore - as is usual - they seek to find the relationship they never had in sexual partners.
This is why - even among heterosexuals - they seek to fill the place [of the sexually opposed parent] - in a partner. All of this is subconscious.
This also is the reason children who see abusive parents - seek abusive partners.
Its not normal to abuse either - but when someone is put into the 'cycle' of seeing their mum being abused - they find abusive partners or become abusive.

Often times - those who had abuse in their childhood - from the same sex parent - or the same sex parent was cold and elusive - they seek to retain the relationship they never had via sexual partners.

It could be the parent worked too much, or was harsh, abusive, controlling or demanding. All of these are faults that came with the fall. This however; doesnt mean every child in such circumstances will turn out homosexual - it just means this is the usual reasons why someone does have SSA.

And due to 'pride parades' and what not - being open and whatever - ppl are becoming less inclined to subvert this thinking or seek counseling - mainly because the gay advocate groups suggest it is harmful. It isnt harmful - when someone wishes to seek guidance from this lifestyle - [and have in the past been successful in doing so] - but the modern notion that its acceptable now to be gay - is leading humans away from attempting to retrain their ideals.

And for some - they have conquered the tendency thru grace and God and no longer see themselves as sexual beings but rather are leading pious lives instead. Just as any one else who may be heterosexual and wish to remain chaste virgins.