- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,850
- 9,387
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
So Beks, the government must marry a couple, before God can?
Wow.
Wow.
Upvote
0
Yep.So Beks, the government must marry a couple, before God can?
Wow.
What you're used to is an important factor - goes for the healthcare issue too. (Hey, I'm conservative - even though I am socialist - so I do understand that people oppose changes.)I think it is extreme and hope we never have that over here. But....the way things are going...
Anyway - I guess if you are raised in it, it is one thing.
But having the Church recognised here - via freedom of religion - is a different world.
It would be extra money and time to do it that way.
Are Catholics a minority there i suppose?
And for the civil unions, i do care if they exist.
It puts in the minds of the nation as well as the faithful that it is an acceptable way to live.
At Fatima Our Lady said so many souls go to hell, like snowflakes falling.
Something i think about...
And it does tear me up inside knowing so many souls are losing eternity.
Look at the laws of the country - they are God based.
What you're used to is an important factor - goes for the healthcare issue too. (Hey, I'm conservative - even though I am socialist - so I do understand that people oppose changes.)
The history of the Netherlands is a bit complicated. At the moment catholics are a minority because there are more secular people, but catholics are the second largest group, and historically we've always been the majority in numbers until the secularization started in the 1960's. Now I did say in numbers - because for centuries, catholics were oppressed here (the American attitude towards England/monarchy/taxes etc - see the healthcare thread - reminds me of my own resentment towards that black period! The calvinists exploited the catholics, they didn't have a say in government, we were kept poor. I say "we" because my family have been catholic forever, and have been poor forever, until the 1960's actually because things change only slowly).
So to answer your question, a minority, yeah, actually, and no. (Now that's vague!)
Okay, so you aren't referring to ppl in this thread... sorry, i thought perhaps you were.
But here's the deal with the whole thing, it's a false dichotomy, there is no civi marriage and then God's marriage.
"marriage" belongs to God, period. not to the state, never to the state, which is why the Church does not recognize civil unions. Notice even with heterosexual couples, the Church refers to them as unions, not marriages.
If gay ppl want to have a legal agreement between them, more power to them. I'm all for them having community property laws, paying joint taxes, sharing medial insurance, and being first of kin... they can have all that, they just can't call it "marriage" and that's where the issues come in. They want it to be called "marriage", not unions. Why?
I believe they can have these rights that are secular rights, not godly rights if that's what they want, but they don't want that... they are demanding that they be recognized as 'married' and that's not God's will. They just can not stand before God and take vows, that would really be wrong. If they want to stand before a lawyer and enter into an agreement, fine but they can not take an oath or vows that makes two, one flesh. That is reserved for man and women, not man and man or woman and woman.
Okay, so you aren't referring to ppl in this thread... sorry, i thought perhaps you were.
But here's the deal with the whole thing, it's a false dichotomy, there is no civi marriage and then God's marriage.
"marriage" belongs to God, period. not to the state, never to the state, which is why the Church does not recognize civil unions. Notice even with heterosexual couples, the Church refers to them as unions, not marriages.
If gay ppl want to have a legal agreement between them, more power to them. I'm all for them having community property laws, paying joint taxes, sharing medial insurance, and being first of kin... they can have all that, they just can't call it "marriage" and that's where the issues come in. They want it to be called "marriage", not unions. Why?
I believe they can have these rights that are secular rights, not godly rights if that's what they want, but they don't want that... they are demanding that they be recognized as 'married' and that's not God's will. They just can not stand before God and take vows, that would really be wrong. If they want to stand before a lawyer and enter into an agreement, fine but they can not take an oath or vows that makes two, one flesh. That is reserved for man and women, not man and man or woman and woman.
Also God's Laws.
No incest.
No inappropriate behavior with animals
No Bigamy
No pedophilia
And we find them immoral and unnatural.
God's Law
No homosexuality - but we say - well, its our right.
Who said it is a right??
God said it is not.
FWIW - most laws in any nation [except those severely liberalized] USE God's Laws in their country.
No violence.
No killing
No theft
Sundays off. Yep - the government forces no business to work on Sundays.
etc etc etc
Look at the laws of the country - they are God based.
Just because Obama ridiculed the Bible...
Doesnt mean God is still not in the secular society's laws and governing.
It is in no way being anti-gay to be against gay marriage. It is gay activism that will always link the two, link people who are against gay marriage with people who tied Sherperd to the post to starve.All anti-gay words and actions ties together. Apparently my points were missed. So be it.
God bless
For gay activists this is most certainly true to their beliefs.what? are you serious? So saying two ppl of the same sex marrying, is not God's will, equals, anti gay words that ties in with anti gay actions?
Yep. The U.S. was built on Judeo-Christian ideals (no matter what Obama says.) Twenty-nine of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were pastors or at least held theology degrees. The colleges back then were in force to turn out pastors. Don't believe? Go to www.wallbuilders.com .
Hated his sins, not him personally.God hates Jacob?
First of all, Catholics really shouldn't be using a Protestant argument such as that. Secondly, this country was not built on any kind of religious ideal. This country was founded by Deists who specifically designed a government where religion was to be kept seperate from the state.
All you do when you bring religion into the gay marriage debate is that you give ammo to those who want to legalize gay marriage by playing into their hands that this is "all about religion" rather than being about protecting the secular institution of marriage
It is in no way being anti-gay to be against gay marriage. It is gay activism that will always link the two, link people who are against gay marriage with people who tied Sherperd to the post to starve.
I have addressed all of your points. You have addressed none of mine.
I am therefore not torn on the issue, as you apparently areor were. It seems you have made up your mind now that promoting the Catholic teaching is anti-gay and therefore linked to gay bashing.
This is operating in safe mode in CF for sure. Good for you.
Apparently my point was missed that being pro0-Catholic teaching is the opposite to being anti-gay.
So be it.
For gay activists this is most certainly true to their beliefs.
Quoting the Bible is a hate crime in Canada now on precisely this issue.
The same goes for California's Prejean. Mild statements against gay marriage on her behalf opens her to all sorts of contempt and criticism by those who push the gay agenda.
And making it personal like that means you can attack the pro-marriage position by attacking her, and not even having to argue for the validity of your own beliefs.
No. I agree with the Church teaching that being gay in itself is not sinful. The sex act itself is. (Please excuse the difference in type size as I do not know why or how to correct it.)
And again, no. Matthew Shepard ...He was driven to a remote area near the Sherman Hills neighbourhood east of Laramie, tied to a split-rail fence, tortured, beaten and pistol-whipped by his attackers, while he begged for his life; he was then left for dead in near freezing temperatures. A cyclist who found him on Snowy Mountain View Road at 6:22 pm, some 18 hours after the attack, at first mistook him for a scarecrow. He was unconscious and suffering from hypothermia. His face was caked with blood, except where it had been partially washed clean by tears."
"Hospital officials said Matthew had a fracture from behind his head to just in front of his right ear and a massive brain stem injury which affected his vital signs, including his heart beat, body temperature and other involuntary functions. There were also approximately a dozen small lacerations around his head, face and neck. He was so badly injured in the attack that doctors were unable to operate. He never regained consciousness after being found, and remained on full life support."
Matthew Wayne Shepard - A Gentle Spirit
To say he was tied and left to starve is not so. They thought he was dead. Just correcting cause others might not know or remember. And I mean no offense.
And I don't know what operating in safe mode is here really. I enjoy others post that have a differing point than I or diametrically opposed point. I have noted that is not acceptable and a lot of good discussions have been curtailed. Which is a shame unless personal name calling or issues intervened on a subject
So I will continue to read, put in maybe a word or two and you do the same. I enjoy your posts.
God bless.
Can't seem to separate the "sin" from the person? The sin is an "abomination" and is hated, the person is not.