Obama and gay marriage...

2Cosmic2Charlie said:

1) Not easily. 1000's of laws, state and federal would have to be changed to substitute "civil union" for marriage for legal purpose.

Click to expand...

Really? What? I can't think of a one. (Already gay couples and heterosexual couples that have chosen to live together without the benefit of marriage have all sorts of legal rights so that can't be it.) Seems to me to not only be more honest, but it could be done without all the fuss of folks saying that the union just shouldn't be. No arguments about repeal the Defense of Marriage Act as well. (And Obama would be "off the hook" with those that wanted the Act repealled like yesterday or before then.) Seems win-win to me. Just an acknowledgement that what is civil is not religious.

AMDG said:

Really? What? I can't think of a one. (

Click to expand...

Ok, then:

Just one of several areas that you could have thought of yourself if you actually gave it 10 seconds of thought:

IRS regulations.

There are at least 215 of them (I did 120 seconds on the web, which is not a lot of time so I doubt I got them all) that pertain to married couple. All of these would have to be change to say "civil unioned" (of something like that)

Can you image trying to get that change through Congress ?

That's one example.

Do your own reseach from now on before calling someone out.

benedictaoo said:

well then , it's not all that important to them then, is it?

if this is truly about their legal rights and not about trying to make homosexuality a Christian doctrine, then they'd do what they had to do, huh?



I know the Catholic Church would never but we'd see many other 'churches' doing it and then the law suits would pour in for the churches and sects that refused.

It would be a real nightmare because what then? the Church is going to get out of the marrying business in the USA the way they just may have to back out of health care and the way they had to close down orphanages because they refused to let gay couples adopt?

don't you see this is an attack on the Church in America.

Click to expand...

Look, I can't address all of your frankly bizarro points on this subject because, frankly, I have no clue where you're coming from with many of them.

However,

Just to keep the conversion going I will say this:

If offends Catholic charities to place orphans with people they see as unfit but who otherwise, legally able to adopt then the Church NEEDS to get out of the business and let others who will do the job in.

And I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

If fact, I want them out of the business of orphan placing if they can't see their way clear to following the law on the subject.

2Cosmic2Charlie said:

Look, I can't address all of your frankly bizarro points on this subject because, frankly, I have no clue where you're coming from with many of them.

However,

Just to keep the conversion going I will say this:

If offends Catholic charities to place orphans with people they see as unfit but who otherwise, legally able to adopt then the Church NEEDS to get out of the business and let others who will do the job in.

And I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

If fact, I want them out of the business of orphan placing if they can't see their way clear to following the law on the subject.

Click to expand...

i'm going to let slide you calling me bizarre.

that's the point- it will be the same with gay marriage, either the Church does it or she can close her doors,

wouldn't the devil love that?

and if doing what you have to do to get gay union recognized, is too much work, then they really don't want it that bad huh?

2Cosmic2Charlie said:

Ok, then:

Just one of several areas that you could have thought of yourself if you actually gave it 10 seconds of thought:

IRS regulations.

There are at least 215 of them (I did 120 seconds on the web, which is not a lot of time so I doubt I got them all) that pertain to married couple. All of these would have to be change to say "civil unioned" (of something like that)

Can you image trying to get that change through Congress ?

That's one example.

Do your own reseach from now on before calling someone out.

Click to expand...

But if they wanted it that bad, they would do it, right?

benedictaoo said:

i'm going to let slide you calling me bizarre.

that's the point- it will be the same with gay marriage, either the Church does it or she can close her doors,

wouldn't the devil love that?

and if doing what you have to do to get gay union recognized, is too much work, then they really don't want it that bad huh?

Click to expand...

You miss my point.

I don't want gay civil union recognized I want gay civil marriage recognized.

To me this is a civil rights issue.

And, I think I can say (without being called out for flaming) that the logic that goes from recognizing gay civil marriage to the closing down of the Catholic Church in America is, simply, bizarre.

Simple analog: The Church is not being shut down because it doesn't recognize, as a sacrament, a heterosexual civil union.

benedictaoo said:

well then , it's not all that important to them then, is it?

if this is truly about their legal rights and not about trying to make homosexuality a Christian doctrine, then they'd do what they had to do, huh?



I know the Catholic Church would never but we'd see many other 'churches' doing it and then the law suits would pour in for the churches and sects that refused.

It would be a real nightmare because what then? the Church is going to get out of the marrying business in the USA the way they just may have to back out of health care and the way they had to close down orphanages because they refused to let gay couples adopt?

don't you see this is an attack on the Church in America.

Click to expand...

Churches are completely free to choose how their rites are performed, who may perform them, and who may receive them. Any lawsuit would be quickly thrown out of court.

benedictaoo said:

i'm going to let slide you calling me bizarre.

that's the point- it will be the same with gay marriage, either the Church does it or she can close her doors,

wouldn't the devil love that?

and if doing what you have to do to get gay union recognized, is too much work, then they really don't want it that bad huh?

Click to expand...

The Church has survived divorce without changing its prohibition against remarriage. What makes you think that it wouldn't survive gay marriage?

fragmentsofdreams said:

Churches are completely free to choose how their rites are performed, who may perform them, and who may receive them. Any lawsuit would be quickly thrown out of court.

Click to expand...

riiight, maybe back in the day but not in the USSR-USA that's upon us.

fragmentsofdreams said:

The Church has survived divorce without changing its prohibition against remarriage. What makes you think that it wouldn't survive gay marriage?

Click to expand...

Because of the agenda.

Fof D, you do realize that a Catholic being in support of gay marriage is dissent... right? You do realize the Church teaches it's a sin, right?

2Cosmic2Charlie said:

You miss my point.

I don't want gay civil union recognized I want gay civil marriage recognized.

To me this is a civil rights issue.

And, I think I can say (without being called out for flaming) that the logic that goes from recognizing gay civil marriage to the closing down of the Catholic Church in America is, simply, bizarre.

Simple analog: The Church is not being shut down because it doesn't recognize, as a sacrament, a heterosexual civil union.

Click to expand...

it can not be called marriage for the simple fact, marriage is between man and women. the courts, government what ever can not stake a claim to marriage. it is, was and will always be, GOD's domain. All they did was recognize what God recognized.. they can not recognize what God does not, not in this case.

benedictaoo said:

Because of the agenda.

Fof D, you do realize that a Catholic being in support of gay marriage is dissent... right? You do realize the Church teaches it's a sin, right?

Click to expand...

Charlie, these questions are also directed to you, as well.

2Cosmic2Charlie said:

If fact, I want them out of the business of orphan placing if they can't see their way clear to following the law on the subject.

Click to expand...

You care that little for children's rights of having a female mother and a male father? Afterall, it's not about the rights of those who have decided to act contrary to nature--it's about the rights of children.

And I dare say that you might want to be concerned about the Catholic Church having to get out of social service organizations (like orphanages or health care or...) since without the Church's charities, secular organizations would have to carry the whole load themselves, and already they can't.

benedictaoo said:

it can not be called marriage for the simple fact, marriage is between man and women. the courts, government what ever can not stake a claim to marriage. it is, was and will always be, GOD's domain. All they did was recognize what God recognized.. they can not recognize what God does not, not in this case.

Click to expand...

Civil law recognizes divorced people as married, against God's law.

Civil law says a marriage is a marriage irrespective of intend or state of the marital couple, against God's law (remember: the Church say a marriage may not be sacramental under a variety of circumstances - but always recognizes the the marriage a civilly completed)

Under the law (whether you agree with it or not) a civil marriage can be defined an same sex. Because the civil authority has control over the civil meaning of marriage.

Further, I would like to point out that under civil law the definition of marriage has change several times in American history as American society has evolved.

At one point in 32 states a variety of (opposite sexed) people could not be married to each other.

Until 1865 in at least 13 states two opposite sexed black people could not (under the law) be married to each other.

Things changes as laws change.

And NO ONE says the church has to recognize it as a theological matter.

benedictaoo said:

Charlie, these questions are also directed to you, as well.

Click to expand...

Then shave my beard (as my Jewish ancestors would say) and put me in dissent.

I'm sorry, I'm an American. This is a civil rights issue.

I can believe both that homosexuality is disordered and still believe that homosexuals have civil rights.

A civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage, the Church is not going to have to marry these people and I simply do not see the fundemental harm in allowing homosexuals their rights under the law.

Now, the Church wants to make this a life issue:

Abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage.


To me its like that old Sesame Street game:

Which one of the thing doesn't belong ?

Civil marriage for homosexuals doesn't fit in that list.

AMDG said:

You care that little for children's rights of having a female mother and a male father? Afterall, it's not about the rights of those who have decided to act contrary to nature--it's about the rights of children.

And I dare say that you might want to be concerned about the Catholic Church having to get out of social service organizations (like orphanages or health care or...) since without the Church's charities, secular organizations would have to carry the whole load themselves, and already they can't.

Click to expand...

I turn your argument around:

If the Church cares so much about the children they'll find a way to make it all work.

Or it just not important to them.


(Socratic jujitsu is a female dog, ain't it ?)

And he claims to be a Christian ?

heavenschild said:

And he claims to be a Christian ?

Click to expand...

Dude, seriously,

ya gotta help us here


who are you referring to when you say "he" ?

AMDG said:

You care that little for children's rights of having a female mother and a male father? Afterall, it's not about the rights of those who have decided to act contrary to nature--it's about the rights of children.

Click to expand...

Children don't have that right. When one parent dies, we don't send the surviving parent a notice that they must remarry within 60 days lest they violate their children's right to a mother and a father.

It is especially important to remember that we are talking about children in foster care. Foster care is evil. It is a necessary evil because children need a place to stay while between homes, but we must keep in mind that every day that a child spends in foster care limbo harms him or her. Some kids are lucky to have a good foster care experience, but many are not. Any situation where a child will be permanently loved, cared for, and protected from harm is preferable.

2Cosmic2Charlie said:

I don't want gay civil union recognized I want gay civil marriage recognized.

Click to expand...

Which leads me back again: why? Gay and unmarried heterosexual couples already have numerous legal rights right now.

Again, it seems to me that a civil union is a win-win. Civil unions just seem to be an acknowledgement that the union is not religious--it is not natural as God intended.

Oh, maybe that's it. No one wants to acknowledge that homosexuality is not a natural state of life and that there is an agenda going around to take away children's rights (of having a mother and father that they can emulate and so grow up psychologically balanced.) No, that can't be it. Can it?