Homosexuals

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]We are not denying them equal rights.
[/size]

Edited June 5, 2008 by CrossCuT

[ardillacid]

[mod]Personal Attacks
A post or comment that has nothing to do with the topic, but is specifically meant to upset or criticize another person or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, calling people "heretics" (used in a derogatory manner), "democrooks", etc.-- HSM [/mod] are people?

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1558314' date='Jun 4 2008, 07:41 PM'][mod] edit[/mod] are people? [/quote]
Dude, he's gonna tear into you for that XD

[ardillacid]

lol

[rckllnknny]

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]
[/size]

[Socrates]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex sodomizing one another is not and cannot be marriage, but instead is a sin and abomination to God.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

"For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error." Romans 1:26-27

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: [b]Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind[/b] nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1558613' date='Jun 4 2008, 10:05 PM']Marriage is between a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex sodomizing one another is not and cannot be marriage, but instead is a sin and abomination to God.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

"For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error." Romans 1:26-27

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: [b]Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind[/b] nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10[/quote]

yay the bible... we all know the constitution is directly based on that.

btw, heterosexual sodomy is just as a sin and abomination...

Edited June 5, 2008 by Didymus

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1558672' date='Jun 4 2008, 09:18 PM']yay the bible... we all know the constitution is directly based on that.[/quote]
A "Church Militant" (or any Christian, for that matter) shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Word of God.

My point is that homosexual activity cannot by its nature constitute a marriage (a natural good blessed by God).
The state should not award legal benefits to what is, by its very nature, a sin and an abomination.

And there is[b] nothing[/b] in the Constitution saying that the states must recognize homosexual "marriages."

Let me know when you have an actual argument.

[Norseman82]

When you legally designate a group as needing "equal rights" or include them in "hate (don't hate, appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate), appreciate) crimes" legislation, you implicitly designate them as a "protected class", so when you pass "equal rights" laws for homosexuals, you are basically creating a protected class based on sexual perversion.

[quote name='Alycin' post='1557605' date='Jun 4 2008, 02:06 PM']I agree. I also think that if someone is dying in the hospital and their life partner of 40 years isn't allowed to be with them or make decisions like a spouse, that's messed up.[/quote]

What is messed up is having a "life partner" of 40 years.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Norseman82

[Lisieux Flower]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1558977' date='Jun 4 2008, 10:43 PM']What is messed up is having a "life partner" of 40 years.[/quote]

that's your opinion based on your religious beliefs. what about my friend who has differing beliefs, religious and otherwise, who is gay? are we going to base the law on your religion and ignore him? is separation of church and state something we actually put into practice?

[Kitty]

I used to be against gay marriage, but after getting into college, I met MANY gay people, most of whom are my friends, and I have tentatively changed my opinion on the subject. Yes, I believe they should be allowed to get married. Once you take religion out of the picture, the argument against gay marriage becomes very weak.

I think a lot of gay people sexualize themselves way too much, gives other people the impression that gay people are perverted, annoying, and obsessed with sex. I do not support Gay Pride Parades for this reason. I have a lot of respect for gay people who are actually normal and don't flirt with the same sex every time they walk by.

[quote]What is messed up is having a "life partner" of 40 years.[/quote]

How rude. Believe it or not, gay people can actually love another person of the same sex just as deeply as a heterosexual person.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Kitty

[Alycin]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1558722' date='Jun 4 2008, 10:28 PM']A "Church Militant" (or any Christian, for that matter) shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Word of God.

My point is that homosexual activity cannot by its nature constitute a marriage (a natural good blessed by God).
The state should not award legal benefits to what is, by its very nature, a sin and an abomination.

And there is[b] nothing[/b] in the Constitution saying that the states must recognize homosexual "marriages."

Let me know when you have an actual argument.[/quote]

I think Didy's point (though I will let him correct me if I'm wrong) is that the government isn't implementing laws based on the bible, so using the bible to say why the government shouldn't allow something isn't going to get you very far.

That being said, I am curious Socrates what you think about the state not having anything to do with marriage, and just leaving it up to the church?

[Alycin]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1558977' date='Jun 4 2008, 11:43 PM']What is messed up is having a "life partner" of 40 years.[/quote]

While this is true to an extent, if I lived with my best friend all my life, and I was on my deathbed, I would want her there. It's the same concept. Those with whom you are closest should be allowed there when you're dying, and the person that you are the very closest to should have the power of attorney.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1559224' date='Jun 5 2008, 01:47 AM']How rude.[/quote]


Welcome to phatmass, get used to it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1559272' date='Jun 5 2008, 02:03 AM']I think Didy's point (though I will let him correct me if I'm wrong) is that the government isn't implementing laws based on the bible, so using the bible to say why the government shouldn't allow something isn't going to get you very far.

That being said, I am curious Socrates what you think about the state not having anything to do with marriage, and just leaving it up to the church?[/quote]
Marriage is both a natural and a supernatural reality, and that is why society has a duty to defend its moral character.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1559224' date='Jun 4 2008, 11:47 PM']I used to be against gay marriage, but after getting into college, I met MANY gay people, most of whom are my friends, and I have tentatively changed my opinion on the subject. Yes, I believe they should be allowed to get married. Once you take religion out of the picture, the argument against gay marriage becomes very weak.

I think a lot of gay people sexualize themselves way too much, gives other people the impression that gay people are perverted, annoying, and obsessed with sex. I do not support Gay Pride Parades for this reason. I have a lot of respect for gay people who are actually normal and don't flirt with the same sex every time they walk by.
How rude. Believe it or not, gay people can actually love another person of the same sex just as deeply as a heterosexual person.[/quote]
Sexual perversion must not be confused with "love." True love, which can never be expressed in a way contrary to the natural moral law, is a participation in God's own being.

[Madtown Sem.]

Civil law is derived from Natural Law, Natural law is derived from Divine Law, even if it doesn't seem like the three are directly connected. Ultimately it all follows from divine law. BUT even without using divine law as found in revelation, traditional marriage is easily defended. I doubt that any argument can be made that homosexual marriage is for the COMMON GOOD. That means the good of EVERYONE. Marriage between man and woman is consistent with the common good. By natural complementarity and begetting children, the [u]stable[/u] family unit is established, which is the building block of ANY society.

[Jaime]

Civil law [b]should[/b] be derived from natural law. Civil marriage does not. It allows for couples to follow natural law but it does not require it. It is nothing more than a civil contract that can be terminated at any given time.

[Apotheoun]

The Church only recognizes "civil divorce" in cases where a declaration of nullity has been granted, and the "civil divorce" is only required because there are certain positive effects brought into being in the case of the presumed, yet actually invalid, "marriage."

That said, the Latin Church recognizes the indissolubility of a true natural marriage, and has never countenanced the idea that there is such a thing as "temporary marriage," or "divorce" in the case of a valid marriage, either natural or sacramental.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Apotheoun