Obama Champions Gay Rights

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906814' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:07 PM']Then your whole thing about marriage being a divine institution doesn't really hold much weight. Musturde's question was about civil unions.

If two atheist women wanted to be married in front of a justice of the peace, why would the Church disapprove? Why can the Church not accept that? That, I again will say I believe, was Musturde's question. If the Church approves of a man and a woman, both atheist, being married civilly (nothing at all to do with the Church), why will she not approve of two women?[/quote]

The Church would disapprove of two women attempting marriage before a justice of the peace because such a marriage could never be valid.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906821' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:11 PM']The Church would disapprove of two women attempting marriage before a justice of the peace because such a marriage could never be valid.[/quote]
finally.


why?

[Resurrexi]

A "marriage" between two persons of the same sex would be contrary to the definition of marriage set forth by the Church:

"Matrimonium est viri et mulieris maritalis coniunctio inter legitimas personas, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens. " ([i]Roman Catechism[/i] II, 8, III)

"Marriage is the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."

[franciscanheart]

so basically the Church can't approve of civil unions between two persons of the same sex on the mere chance that one of them might want to convert one day?

(btw, i know the answer. i'm just seeing where you're going with your logic.)

[Resurrexi]

The Church cannot approve of a kind of marriage that cannot exist.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[OraProMe]

yayyyyyyyy
I smiled so much when I read this.

[Resurrexi]

Homosexuals have all the same rights that heterosexuals do.

Homosexuals cannot civilly "marry" persons of the same sex (in most places), but neither can heterosexuals.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906870' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:33 PM']The Church cannot approve of a kind of marriage that cannot exist.[/quote]
if the potential did not exist, why would the Church have a position?

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906985' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:08 AM']Homosexuals have all the same rights that heterosexuals do.

Homosexuals cannot civilly "marry" persons of the same sex (in most places), but neither can heterosexuals.[/quote]
way to be an insensitive chump.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='musturde' post='1906482' date='Jun 30 2009, 04:37 PM']shocking.
I have a question...
Why does the Church care if the state recognizes gay marriage?
Technically, it would be nothing more than a contract between two people unless it's done through the Church... right?
And even if legal marriage is not granted to gays, it's not going to stop them from sexual activity. So what is the point of hindering gay marriage? Is the legal seal of marriage really that important if the gays living together are basically already married without the tax benefits?
Are we against the state recognizing a contract between these two people or are we against the tax exemption? Because what the Church recognizes as sinful acts are not going to stop just because the two individuals cannot marry.[/quote]

I see your point. The problem is that there's a big difference between the state merely tolerating homosexual activity and actually endorsing it. Recognizing homosexual unions would amount to the state saying that an activity which goes against the Natural Law is acceptable. cf. Socrates' post, above.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907038' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:30 AM']way to be an insensitive chump. [/quote]

The truth is that homosexuals currently have all the rights that everyone else has.

[heavenseeker]

he did what?!?
wait this is Obama we are talking about of course he would do something like this!

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='1907044' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:43 AM']I see your point. The problem is that there's a big difference between the state merely tolerating homosexual activity and actually endorsing it. Recognizing homosexual unions would amount to the state saying that an activity which goes against the Natural Law is acceptable. cf. Socrates' post, above.[/quote]
Mmm... the state and Church are different entities. To argue that the state necessarily recognize natural law brings in a whole other level of argument which would be that our laws should be governed by our faith. In the US, there is such a thing as separation of Church and state.

[quote]Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[/quote]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='1907044' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:43 AM']The truth is that homosexuals currently have all the rights that everyone else has.[/quote]
Homosexual couples are denied rights which heterosexual couples are not.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907052' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:02 AM']Mmm... the state and Church are different entities. To argue that the state necessarily recognize natural law brings in a whole other level of argument which would be that our laws should be governed by our faith. In the US, there is such a thing as separation of Church and state.[/quote]

There is a separation of Church and state not only in the US, but in all of Christendom. The Church and state have always been separate entities. The Natural Law is binding on all mankind, even those who are not religious or are not Catholic.

[quote]Homosexual couples are denied rights which heterosexual couples are not.[/quote]

What rights might those be?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907052' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:02 AM']Mmm... the state and Church are different entities. To argue that the state necessarily recognize natural law brings in a whole other level of argument which would be that our laws should be governed by our faith. In the US, there is such a thing as separation of Church and state.[/quote]
It is an abuse of power for the state to enact laws that legitimize acts of sexual perversion and degeneracy, and the separation of Church and state cannot be invoked to promote the false notion that the state is above the natural moral law. The Vatican issued a document on this very topic some years ago, and it is well worth reading (cf., [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"][u]Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Homosexual Unions[/u][/url]).

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907052' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:02 AM']Homosexual couples are denied rights which heterosexual couples are not.[/quote]
No one has a right to perform immoral acts, nor do civil authorities have the power to promote – through legislation – acts that are contrary to the moral dignity of the human person.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Norseman82]

Laura, we both know that marriage between two people of the same gender is against the natural law, so it does not matter whether you are Catholic, another Christian denomination, Buddhist, Jewish, etc.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907052' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:02 AM']Homosexual couples are denied rights which heterosexual couples are not.[/quote]

First, you are referring to heterosexual [i]married[/i] couples, correct?

If you are referring to such things as legal rights such as hospital visitation or power-of-attorney, then [i]any[/i] unmarried person of legal age and sound mind can simply go to an attorney and have a legal document drawn up giving that person that right. There's nothing stopping me from giving a girl I'm dating, or a neighbor, or a trusted parishoner friend that right. It's probably cheaper than renting a hall and a band anyway.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Norseman82

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1907084' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:33 AM']No one has a right to perform immoral acts, nor do civil authorities have the power to promote – through legislation – acts that are contrary to the moral dignity of the human person.[/quote]

Don't you think seperation of Church and state and the right of the individual to religious freedom without temporal interference means that what's considered an "immoral act" shouldn't be decided by one particular code of religious ethics?

Edited July 1, 2009 by OraProMe

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='1907063' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:19 AM']There is a separation of Church and state not only in the US, but in all of Christendom. The Church and state have always been separate entities. The Natural Law is binding on all mankind, even those who are not religious or are not Catholic.[/quote]
Your view of natural law being binding on all mankind is a part of your faith, is it not?


[quote name='Niccolò' post='1907063' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:19 AM']What rights might those be?[/quote]
Homosexual couples cannot be married legally. Because they cannot be married legally, they do not know the benefit of tax breaks for their partnership. I'm sure there are other things. Really, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1907084' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:33 AM']It is an abuse of power for the state to enact laws that legitimize acts of sexual perversion and degeneracy, and the separation of Church and state cannot be invoked to promote the false notion that the state is above the natural moral law. The Vatican issued a document on this very topic some years ago, and it is well worth reading (cf., [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"][u]Considerations Regarding Proposaals to Give Legal Recognition to Homoexual Unions[/u][/url]).


No one has a right to perform immoral acts, nor do civil authorities have the power to promote – through legislation – acts that are contrary to the moral dignity of the human person.[/quote]
Now we're getting somewhere!

If there is a seperation of Church and state in this country, who gets to decide the nature of sexual perversion? If there is a significant number of people in the country who believe (and whose faith does not contradict) homosexual relations to be natural and healthy, who gets to decide that their rights in regards to a civil union be denied?

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1907105' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:04 AM']Laura, we both know that marriage between two people of the same gender is against the natural law, so it does not matter whether you are Catholic, another Christian denomination, Buddhist, Jewish, etc.[/quote]
Playing devil's advocate here.


[quote name='Norseman82' post='1907105' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:04 AM']First, you are referring to heterosexual [i]married[/i] couples, correct?

If you are referring to such things as legal rights such as hospital visitation or power-of-attorney, then [i]any[/i] unmarried person of legal age and sound mind can simply go to an attorney and have a legal document drawn up giving that person that right. There's nothing stopping me from giving a girl I'm dating, or a neighbor, or a trusted parishoner friend that right. It's probably cheaper than renting a hall and a band anyway.[/quote]
I guess you're right about that. But I think the issue is more about suppressing a person. If someone is in love with someone of the same sex, it is not legal for that person to officially declare his or her love for his or her partner and then to receive the legal benefits that come along with it.

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1907106' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:04 AM']Don't you think seperation of Church and state and the right of the individual to religious freedom without temporal interference means that what's considered an "immoral act" shouldn't be decided by one particular code of religious ethics?[/quote]
That's what I'm saying...

[OraProMe]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907113' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:11 AM']If there is a seperation of Church and state in this country, who gets to decide the nature of sexual perversion? If there is a significant number of people in the country who believe (and whose faith does not contradict) homosexual relations to be natural and healthy, who gets to decide that their rights in regards to a civil union be denied?[/quote]

Exactly what I was trying to say in my above post but far more eloquent

[Dan]

O.K., marriage is a long-term relationship of two members of the opposite sex. Following the 4000+ years of Judeo-Christian history, the male-female relationship is the only way the plumbing works.

If the gay community wishes to state that their union is equal to the same rights and benefits as the straight community, then, let two women impregnate each other without any outside intervention ( IVF, etc ).

From my perspective, the entire gay "marriage" thing is a slippery slope.

The next step, after the gay "marriage" battle, is the pursuit of the legal status of 4 men 9 girls under the age of 13, 7 women, 4 sheep, a horse and 21 monkeys. What the heck, "unconventional" marriage will have become the law, so what's the big deal?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907123' date='Jul 1 2009, 12:23 PM']If someone is in love with someone of the same sex, it is not legal for that person to officially declare his or her love for his or her partner and then to receive the legal benefits that come along with it.[/quote]

Well, if we are playing devil's advocate, can I invite you to my wedding to my cocker spaniel?