Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Homosexual Judge Refuses To Officiate Straight Marriages

Posted

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330063429' post='2392144']


I own the book. I can't say it's impressive unless the argument is that at no point in history has the Catholic Church or individuals within the
[/quote]

Well that was easy, you just refuted your own quote.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1330063661' post='2392147']
Well that was easy, you just refuted your own quote.
[/quote]

The letter, arguable. Not the spirit.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1330063484' post='2392145']
By dialogue I mean talking that includes some sort of measure of intelligence, which there has been almost none. And I would disagree that Christians are losing. I would say most of the battles have been won, even if temporarily overturned by a judge.
[/quote]

Well, your hunch goes against the data.

[url="http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx"]http://www.gallup.co...y-marriage.aspx[/url]


Your arguments are based on a sexual ethic that very few people actually follow (even if they pay lip service to it). The polling trends are against you. Worse yet, the age difference is significant. The young overwhelmingly support it while the old don't by about the same difference. This results in parity for now. Particularly since the elderly are more politically active. Unfortunately they're also 'on their way out' as it were. The courts are trending against you, although the USSC may tilt that definitively one way or the other (although this doesn't look good since Kennedy is on his way for retirement and no justice wants to be remembered for being on the wrong side of major social change). Not to mention the rather amusing discoveries over the past few years that an unfortunate number of the most serious leaders of the vanguard against gay marriage secretly enjoy dropping to their knees for more than prayer.


[img]http://dailycandor.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/tolestoetapping.gif[/img]



[img]http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1101/meet-ted-haggard-hypocrite-of-the-gop-political-poster-1294171659.jpg[/img] Edited by Hasan

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

My generation will okay gay marriage. That seems likely.
It is a cross for the faithful of my generation...that we defend the truth of marriage amid martyring shots of criticism and harassment.

It will be like the generation before us that approved of abortions. And the post generations will realize the foolishness of their ways.

Today's society celebrates the pill. Tomorrow, society will cry as it withers and collapses in its poison. It has already started to settle as modern nations are beginning to collapse on themselves.


And the Church will prevail through all the Hell that is thrown against it. :crusader2:





Society seems determined to experiment with this. We'll see how long it lasts.
Ice_nine, dominicansoul, IcePrincessKRS and 1 other prop this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1330071368' post='2392161']


It will be like the generation before us that approved of [s]abortions[/s] integration
[/quote]

Fxd

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

juges shouldn;t perform marriages anyway - they aint sacramental.

oh and hasan?
:hotstuff:
dominicansoul, Lil Red, ardillacid and 2 others prop this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Hasan appreciates the pictoral summary of your points.
Lil Red, BigJon16, IcePrincessKRS and 1 other prop this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1330087995' post='2392174']
juges shouldn;t perform marriages anyway - they aint sacramental.
[/QUOTE]

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]oh and hasan?
:hotstuff:
[/quote]

Thank you! I love chocolate ice-cream with sprinkles :winner: :winner: :winner:

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

What!!! There's gays in Texas?
Hasan props this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330073611' post='2392163']
Fxd
[/quote]

Only if integration = gay marriage.......which it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[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.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[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.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1330098370' post='2392249']
What!!! There's gays in Texas?
[/quote]
At ease, Private Cowboy....

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

[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
Ice_nine, homeschoolmom, Tally Marx and 3 others prop this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[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.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[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.
MissScripture, ardillacid, jcorsetti and 1 other prop this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[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?

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

so "freedom of/from religion, unless we think its for their own good"?

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

[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.

Share this post


Link to post

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0