Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Homosexual Judge Refuses To Officiate Straight Marriages


BG45

Recommended Posts

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1330101993' post='2392269']
Only if integration = gay marriage.......which it isn't.
[/quote]

It actually is.


Abortion is an awful comparison. There you have a collision of rights. The rights of the developing child and the rights of the mother. There's no reason to not expect that society will be more sympathetic to one or the other at different points in time. With gay rights there is no conflict. Two men being able to marry does not impact you in any concrete way. Your opposition to their rights is purely about your perverse attempt to disenfranchise or continue to disenfranchise your fellow citizens based on your religious faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330091432' post='2392184']

I guess by this logic only Catholics should get married.

The state has a real interest in setting legal parameters around the institution of marriage. When two people decide to intertwine their lives you need to state to have laws in place to determine the division of that property in the event of death or divorce, child custody et cetera. Just getting the state out of the business of marriage really wouldn't work.

[/quote]

Not only does the state have a real interest in performing marriages, I would go so far as to say it has a duty in it. Valid, Sacramental marriages exist outside of the Church, for one. And secondly, there is marriage on the natural level. We were created for union, after all. Therefore, the state, which has authority on the natural level, should acknowledge these natural unions. To do otherwise would be to ignore natural law...which doesn't help the argument.

That said, from a secular standpoint, marriage is a social institution. Marriage and the resulting family unit is what society is founded upon. Marriage is, even from a secular standpoint, meant to benefit society. Pro-SSMers have two arguments. The first, is that marriage is in fact not meant to benefit society, but is for the personal pleasure of the people coupled. This argument is flawed for obvious reasons. The second argument is that SSM would benefit society. That assertion is merely an assumption. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that SSM would either benefit or harm society. And it would be folly to experiment with this social institution and, by extension, society, when we are clueless as to how this experiment may affect society.

You can point out integration, Hasan, but the last time the state messed with Traditional Marriage, it was to allow divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eagle_eye222001

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330105106' post='2392292']
It actually is.


Abortion is an awful comparison. There you have a collision of rights. The rights of the developing child and the rights of the mother. There's no reason to not expect that society will be more sympathetic to one or the other at different points in time. With gay rights there is no conflict. Two men being able to marry does not impact you in any concrete way. Your opposition to their rights is purely about your perverse attempt to disenfranchise or continue to disenfranchise your fellow citizens based on your religious faith.
[/quote]

Why you talking about abortion? I was talking about integration as in integrating the different races into society.


Two gay people living together does not affect me.

My opposition to gay marriage is about defending the building block of society. If two people of the same sex want to live together.......go for it. Nothing is stopping them. They want hospital visits or whatnot......go get a lawyer. No one is stopping them.

What is going on in this country is about legal recognition. Why should we recognize two adults with benefits? What do they add to society? They can't have kids. It doesn't work.

If we are going to recognize two consenting adults, why not three? All the arguments for same-sex marriage can by used for polygamy and nuanced into bestiality. It's not hard since the arguments for same-sex marriage are based on feelings with the hoopla-lie of "rights" added to the feeling argument.

So why do we want to artificially recognize two people doing stuff together? Are we not discriminating against the rights of singles who don't get the benefits of being "married?" We infringed on the Mormon's rights to polygamy! We are infringing on the right of someone to marry a tree and be ONE with nature!

The government's purpose in protecting marriage is to protect what is biologically the building block of society. Children grow up best in a home with a mom and a dad. Society continues by heterosexual couples reproducing......not gay people doing it.

The gay movement is not about their ability to live their lives with their partner, but for the [b]public worship [/b]of their actions and the financial benefit of marriage......of which that benefit is NOT meant as an arbitrary reason to give people money but rather to promote the building block of the next generation.

This argument is not based on my religious faith, but on the desire for a society to sustain and promote itself.


-----
[i]Edited: because "Nothing it stopping them" should have been "Nothing is stopping them."[/i]

Edited by eagle_eye222001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

eagle_eye222001

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330105106' post='2392292']
It actually is.


Abortion is an awful comparison. There you have a collision of rights. The rights of the developing child and the rights of the mother. There's no reason to not expect that society will be more sympathetic to one or the other at different points in time. With gay rights there is no conflict. Two men being able to marry does not impact you in any concrete way. Your opposition to their rights is purely about your perverse attempt to disenfranchise or continue to disenfranchise your fellow citizens based on your religious faith.
[/quote]

So the analogy breaks down. It works in that society will ok both, and then later will realize the folly of such actions. That was my only point of the analogy. As women have abortions, they realize it's not what it's cracked up to be. The same will be for gay marriage. People will realize the emptiness it brings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330105106' post='2392292']
Your opposition to their rights is purely about your perverse attempt to disenfranchise or continue to disenfranchise your fellow citizens based on your religious faith.
[/quote]

YES. U HAVE FIGURED US OUT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so.....I dont like gay "marriage", i don't like civil marriage either, but I still don't understand how we can expect to impose our values (what the term "marriage" means to a Catholic) on others and still call this a place with freedom of religion. We don't want secular "morality" imposed on us (ex. HHS); but we want to impose Catholic "morality" on others... I don't get it. I would like to get it, but I don't. I feel like I have no right to control what others do and what they want to call it, as long as we (Catholics) are not suddenly required by law to perform gay marriages. I guess I'm just a bad Catholic. If anyone wants to explain to me how this is supposed to work feel free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1330108876' post='2392331']
Ok, so.....I dont like gay "marriage", i don't like civil marriage either, but I still don't understand how we can expect to impose our values (what the term "marriage" means to a Catholic) on others and still call this a place with freedom of religion. We don't want secular "morality" imposed on us (ex. HHS); but we want to impose Catholic "morality" on others... I don't get it. I would like to get it, but I don't. I feel like I have no right to control what others do and what they want to call it, as long as we (Catholics) are not suddenly required by law to perform gay marriages. I guess I'm just a bad Catholic. If anyone wants to explain to me how this is supposed to work feel free.
[/quote]


When natural law is not observed, and we do not act in accord with it, we suffer. You can care about the people who are breaking it, and who will eventually suffer. And if you don't care about them and only yourself, remember that if we as a nation have no regard for natural law, we as a nation will suffer. Naturally.
Do you also agree that Catholics should not impose their morality on others when it comes to abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330105106' post='2392292']
It actually is.


Abortion is an awful comparison. There you have a collision of rights. The rights of the developing child and the rights of the mother. There's no reason to not expect that society will be more sympathetic to one or the other at different points in time. With gay rights there is no conflict. Two men being able to marry does not impact you in any concrete way. Your opposition to their rights is purely about your perverse attempt to disenfranchise or continue to disenfranchise your fellow citizens based on your religious faith.
[/quote]No clause in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence states there a "right" to marriage, and its not up to the Government to invent one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1330111322' post='2392352']
so "freedom of/from religion, unless we think its for their own good"?
[/quote]

Unless it hurts others. The government is a social institution meant to protect society.

...we don't let Mormons and Muslims have multiple wives, do we?
....we don't let brothers and sisters marry, do we?
....drugs aren't legal, are they?
....we have to wear a seatbelt, don't we?

Oftentimes, the state even protects us from ourselves, to protect society as a whole by extension. That's a slippery slope, but there you have it. When individuals aren't protected as individuals, society can't be protected, either. The family is the building block of society--if it isn't preserved, then there goes society.


Edited: for clarity

Edited by Tally Marx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, furthermore, it isn't simply a matter of religion. It's a matter of concretely benefitting, not benefitting, or harming society... Discerning between which and acting in an appropriate manner is the purpose of our government.

Edited by Tally Marx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330105106' post='2392292']
It actually is.


Abortion is an awful comparison. There you have a collision of rights. The rights of the developing child and the rights of the mother. There's no reason to not expect that society will be more sympathetic to one or the other at different points in time. With gay rights there is no conflict. Two men being able to marry does not impact you in any concrete way. [b]Your opposition to their rights is purely about your perverse attempt to disenfranchise or continue to disenfranchise your fellow citizens based on your religious faith.[/b]
[/quote]

How this stand up with the atheists against gay marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1330114414' post='2392412']
How this stand up with the atheists against gay marriage?
[/quote]

These exist? Please link me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1330115626' post='2392422']
These exist? Please link me.
[/quote]

The Prime Minister of Australia is [url="http://news.change.org/stories/atheists-against-gay-marriage"]one noteable case[/url].

So modly folks...may I request this all be moved to Debate Table, that seems to be the tone since I looked at the thread yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...