The Evil of Gay Transcends Individual Religion

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.

Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....

Any thoughts?

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

The Archbishop is merely exhibiting his ignorance of American jurisprudence.

In the United States the 14th Amendment prohibits jurisdictions from deeming a class of persons a stranger to its laws, in this case with regard to homosexuals and marriage.

If less enlightened countries wish to engage in discriminatory practices, that’s their prerogative. In America, however, such an act is illegal and un-Constitutional.

Is this another of those modern liberal doctrines that it is imperative that all subscribe to?

No, it’s fundamental Constitutional case law.

Did you find some reference to marriage in the Constitution....

Here:

Loving v Virginia (1967)

Zablocki v Redhail (1978)

Turner v Safley (1987)

...or is this another 'penumbra' situation?

No.

I'm certain you know that, outside of an amendment, marriage is within the purview of the states.

Provided they abide the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

You might want to review the tenth amendment.

Which would indicate you need to first review US v. Darby (1941).

Nor would I be in favor of a constitutional amendment on either side of this question.

True, the 14th Amendment settles the issue.

 

[nitroz]

Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.

Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....

Any thoughts?

Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage

It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.

[/I][/B]

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 6-9

It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.

Likewise with divorce, but thats a bigger "problem" than gay marriage and you guys don't do jack shit about that.

^

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ok


If you support the right to marriage and are against state restrictions, then you must be against state restrictions of all rights.

Jills a huge fan of gun laws, just pointing out the double standard

The issue isn’t restrictions per se, but are the restrictions reasonable.

In Romer v. Evans, for example, the Court held that there was no logic, objective evidence, or sound reasoning to justify excluding homosexuals from anti-discrimination laws enacted by Colorado. Without a compelling interest or evidence in support, Amendment 2 of the Colorado constitution was invalidated.

In DC v. Heller, however, the Court held that certain restrictions with regard to ownership of firearms were reasonable, such as those judged mentally ill, convicted felons, and illegal aliens, for example.

Consequently, there is no ‘double standard’ with regard to advocating equal access to the laws for homosexuals and reasonable gun ownership restrictions.

 

[Newby]

Why is it that the religious should be the ones who get the right to use the term marriage, while secular must use some other term?

What are the chances that heterosexuals will be willing, en mass, to give up the term marriage in a legal sense and take up the term civil union?

Perhaps this isn't just about some attempt to weaken religion, or subvert the moral beliefs of the country. Perhaps, if there were a large movement to have not just homosexual marriage, but heterosexual marriage, become civil unions for the purposes of government, this issue really would be solved. What I remember, though, are attempts to have gays be given civil unions, while straights retain the ability to have marriage.

If the government provided all couples civil unions and stopped using the word marriage, I'd be fine with it. I don't see why the word marriage should be reserved for religion, but it would simplify things. Gays being given civil unions while straights are given marriages, however, just isn't going to work.

Because marriage is a religious concept and term and has been defined as is for centuries. There was no government or law involved in it. If all we're talking about here is LEGAL EQUALITY, which is what I'm always told it's about, it shouldn't matter what it's called under the law. Actually, something different is better in order to distinguish it as civil/legal versus religious.

I think you may have missed my point.

It shouldn't matter what it's called under the law.....as long as it's called the same thing regardless of the genders of the couple. What I am saying is that I'd be ok with the legal joining being called a civil union (or whatever other term might be used) so long as that is the term used for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Instead, what I have seen is that the attempts made to compromise or placate the homosexuals involve granting them civil unions, while heterosexual couples continue to receive marriages under the law.

I disagree that religion has any particular hold over the word marriage, but that's really beside the point. It wouldn't be right to, for instance, have marriages between first time couples called marriages while calling the same thing a civil union if one or both partners have been through a divorce. It wouldn't be right to use a different term for marriages between Christians than between Muslims, or Jews, or atheists. Etc. etc....you see what I'm saying.

My take has always been that gays wanting the same term used for their legal contract as the government uses for straights makes sense (generally speaking, I'm not speaking about any individual craziness that some gays may express). Whether it is marriage, or civil union, or anything else, the government shouldn't use different terms if the contract entails the exact same things. And I haven't noticed many publicized calls for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to be given civil unions rather than marriages.

P.S. - In case all of this is just a misunderstanding of what we each meant to say, let me apologize in advance.

My take was that they wanted the same legal 'rights', i.e. tax deductions, health insurance, inheritance, next of kin, etc... that's what is always said in any case. If that's what they want, it shouldn't matter what it's called. And for the record, I don't care if they call all legal unions, hetero or homo, civil unions under the law. It seems there is no compromise on their side of the fence. And even if they eventually do force it to be called a marriage, they're still never going to force acceptance or respect from those people who are truly against it, no matter what they do. They'll never be able to force religious institutions to accept or bless their 'marriage' that believe it is a sin. And deep down, I think that's what is really wanted, unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you look at it, you cannot force respect.

 

[Newby]

Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.

Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....

Any thoughts?

Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage

It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.

[/I][/B]

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 6-9

It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.

Likewise with divorce, but thats a bigger "problem" than gay marriage and you guys don't do jack shit about that.

I agree, and you know why society doesn't give 'jack shit' about it, because at one point they did, divorce was just as taboo as gay marriage used to be? It's become more and more 'accepted' over the years that now it doesn't mean anything. So, add in gay 'marriage' to the mix, and in another few decades, it won't be a big deal and people won't give 'jack shit' about it as well. Some people believe that is a bad thing, and they're probably right.

 

[KevinWestern]

Because marriage is a religious concept and term and has been defined as is for centuries. There was no government or law involved in it. If all we're talking about here is LEGAL EQUALITY, which is what I'm always told it's about, it shouldn't matter what it's called under the law. Actually, something different is better in order to distinguish it as civil/legal versus religious.

I think you may have missed my point.

It shouldn't matter what it's called under the law.....as long as it's called the same thing regardless of the genders of the couple. What I am saying is that I'd be ok with the legal joining being called a civil union (or whatever other term might be used) so long as that is the term used for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Instead, what I have seen is that the attempts made to compromise or placate the homosexuals involve granting them civil unions, while heterosexual couples continue to receive marriages under the law.

I disagree that religion has any particular hold over the word marriage, but that's really beside the point. It wouldn't be right to, for instance, have marriages between first time couples called marriages while calling the same thing a civil union if one or both partners have been through a divorce. It wouldn't be right to use a different term for marriages between Christians than between Muslims, or Jews, or atheists. Etc. etc....you see what I'm saying.

My take has always been that gays wanting the same term used for their legal contract as the government uses for straights makes sense (generally speaking, I'm not speaking about any individual craziness that some gays may express). Whether it is marriage, or civil union, or anything else, the government shouldn't use different terms if the contract entails the exact same things. And I haven't noticed many publicized calls for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to be given civil unions rather than marriages.

P.S. - In case all of this is just a misunderstanding of what we each meant to say, let me apologize in advance.

My take was that they wanted the same legal 'rights', i.e. tax deductions, health insurance, inheritance, next of kin, etc... that's what is always said in any case. If that's what they want, it shouldn't matter what it's called. And for the record, I don't care if they call all legal unions, hetero or homo, civil unions under the law. It seems there is no compromise on their side of the fence. And even if they eventually do force it to be called a marriage, they're still never going to force acceptance or respect from those people who are truly against it, no matter what they do. They'll never be able to force religious institutions to accept or bless their 'marriage' that believe it is a sin. And deep down, I think that's what is really wanted, unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you look at it, you cannot force respect.

I think the primary thing that's wanted is equality under the law, where it will show no differentiation between same and opposite couples.

I don't think gay people are after forcing any of the private institutions - like the Catholic church - to treat them equally. This battle is (and should be) with regards to purely the public sphere.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays will undoubtably force private institutions like the Catholic Church to accept same sex couples. The best that could be said is, they havent made those demands yet.

We know that they wll, because they have been fighting for Catholic Schools to accept gay students.

 

[KevinWestern]

Gays will undoubtably force private institutions like the Catholic Church to accept same sex couples. The best that could be said is, they havent made those demands yet.

We know that they wll, because they have been fighting for Catholic Schools to accept gay students.

I don't think so Katz. I'm pro-gay marriage when it comes to the public space, but would NEVER support gay people forcing private institutions to mend their doctrines to accommodate them.

I respect the right people have to do what they please in their own private space, even if it's the Westboro Church or the KKK. That's America. I think you'll find that the majority of Americans (both gay and straight) share this view as well.

If the Catholic Church holds steadfast in not allowing gays to marry, and public opinion of the institution increasingly becomes a less favorable one, the church may be "forced" to allow gays to marry due to a "sink or swim" type scenario. That, I'm ok with. It's kind of like capitalism; you need to sell your product to the consumer base or you'll go out of business.

But using the government to force Catholics to allow gay marriage? That I am 100% against.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Gays will undoubtably force private institutions like the Catholic Church to accept same sex couples. The best that could be said is, they havent made those demands yet.

We know that they wll, because they have been fighting for Catholic Schools to accept gay students.

The majority of catholics already support gay marriage, as I've provided evidence in this thread.

But I agree, no church should be forced to perfrom a marriage. Also I don't know why a gay couple would want to have a ceremony somewhere that they aren't made to feel welcome.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know..........it doesn't matter if there are churches that are against gay marriage, because there are many that are accomodating.

If the union is done by a JP? Call it a civil union and let them have tax breaks and legal rights.

If the union is done by a gay friendly church? Call it a marriage and let them have tax breaks and legal rights.

It doesn't really matter what it's called, but gay people should get the same tax and legal rights as hetero couples.

And.............fwiw..............most of the gay couples that I've met over my life have lasted longer together than most hetero couples.

 

[Avatar4321]

When are you people going to realize that God cares about how we use our procreative powers? Why is it so difficult to understand that matters of how life enters the world and how it leaves this world are important to both God and man? And when are you going to understand that misuse of those powers leads to death, captivity, and destruction?

 

[KevinWestern]

When are you people going to realize that God cares about how we use our procreative powers? Why is it so difficult to understand that matters of how life enters the world and how it leaves this world are important to both God and man? And when are you going to understand that misuse of those powers leads to death, captivity, and destruction?

How though, do you know exactly who God is, what he wants, and how he wants us to help him accomplish that?

And if you refer to the Bible for your answer, what makes the Bible more factual, real than any of the world's other major religions or explanations for the universe?

There are many religions groups, for instance, that approach gay marriage as something that is OK.

.
.
.

 

[Dr.Drock]

When are you people going to realize that God cares about how we use our procreative powers? Why is it so difficult to understand that matters of how life enters the world and how it leaves this world are important to both God and man? And when are you going to understand that misuse of those powers leads to death, captivity, and destruction?

By all means, tell us what God told you about how to use those powers. Because in the real world gays can very easily procreate here in 2012.

As a straight man, it's not important to me if someone leaves the world as a gay or straight person, my hope is only that they lived a happy life and treated others well leading them to be more happy people.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand being gay doesn't lead to death (well i guess it does, as does being straight), captivity and destruction?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.

Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....

Any thoughts?

Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage

It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.

[/I][/B]

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 6-9

It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.

Good point, noted.

But what gives them the right to enforce their own personal religious views upon the entire populous? Why can't they just practice their own faiths, within their own private churches and leave it at that?

The gays started it when they came out of the closet and decided that they had to force their perverted ways on us. They need to stop crying and accept the fact that they are wrong.

 

[AmericanFirst]

When are you people going to realize that God cares about how we use our procreative powers? Why is it so difficult to understand that matters of how life enters the world and how it leaves this world are important to both God and man? And when are you going to understand that misuse of those powers leads to death, captivity, and destruction?

How though, do you know exactly who God is, what he wants, and how he wants us to help him accomplish that?

And if you refer to the Bible for your answer, what makes the Bible more factual, real than any of the world's other major religions or explanations for the universe?

There are many religions groups, for instance, that approach gay marriage as something that is OK.

.
.
.

Because the Bible is the ONE TRUE GOD's word. The others are man made false religions or cults. That is why.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.

[/I][/B]

[/I][/B]

It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.

Good point, noted.

But what gives them the right to enforce their own personal religious views upon the entire populous? Why can't they just practice their own faiths, within their own private churches and leave it at that?

The gays started it when they came out of the closet and decided that they had to force their perverted ways on us. They need to stop crying and accept the fact that they are wrong.

If a same-sex couple is recognized as “married” under law, this will result in no change to your life whatsoever. If you don’t mind, how about you please name one thing you are able to do now that you won’t be able to do if same-sex marriage is allowed.

Because if gays are “forcing their ways” on you, then there certainly must be a few things they will be preventing you from doing, right?
.
.
.

 

[KevinWestern]

Because the Bible is the ONE TRUE GOD's word. The others are man made false religions or cults. That is why.

How do you know?

There’s 1.5 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, and about 375 million Buddhists on this planet who think otherwise.

Now I’m not saying that your version is wrong by any means (as I don’t know the answer to that question), but how can you be so absolutely certain you are right?

Not a single human being has been further than 300,000 miles from our planet. It sounds like a long distance, but to put it into perspective our galaxy alone is about 600 quadrillion miles across, and is just one of billions within the known Universe.

The point is, I don’t think we (as humans) know much of anything about what lies beyond our immediate space. We've only seen and explored an infinitely small blip within our Universe. I don't think anyone knows "the truth", AmericanFirst.


.
.
.

 

[whitehall]

Sharia law authorizes the murder of homosexuals and the stoning to death of women for adultery. Egyptian men are promoting legislation that would legalize sex with their dead wives and the American left is concerned about the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriages? Get some perspective sissie whiners.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sharia law authorizes the murder of homosexuals and the stoning to death of women for adultery. Egyptian men are promoting legislation that would legalize sex with their dead wives and the American left is concerned about the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriages? Get some perspective sissie whiners.

Why should americans worry about the domestic policies of foreign countries more than the one they live in?

I know you're a part of the group who thinks we should be the world's police, but I can't agree with that ridiculous logic you just posted.

 

[KevinWestern]

Sharia law authorizes the murder of homosexuals and the stoning to death of women for adultery. Egyptian men are promoting legislation that would legalize sex with their dead wives and the American left is concerned about the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriages? Get some perspective sissie whiners.

I don’t know about you, Whitehall, but I don’t judge my ethical standards as an American against that of countries like Iran.

I suppose by your logic, it would be OK to hit our wives once in awhile to put them into place, right, because after all it’s much worse in the Middle East.

And if your wife doesn’t like it, I suppose you could just tell her to quit her “sissy whining”.

.
.
.