What if the Church did this in response to the same-sex "marriage" debate? - Page 2

Regular Atheist · #16 Dec 24, '12, 1:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

You are comparing apples to oranges. There is no threat that courts will rule in favor of putting homosexuals to death. But there is a very real threat to Christians of being sued for not going along with so-called same-sex "marriage" and the courts ruling against them. Those of us who disagree with so-called "same-sex marriage" are increasingly vilified by the propaganda in the mainstream media, and I believe that it won't be long until this vilification leads to violence against Christians.

You misunderstood my point. The poster I was replying to was trying to argue that homosexuals want all people to unconditionally accept homosexuality as some homosexuals are suing people who won't let them marry. This is, of course, nonsense and a logical fallacy. I could give examples of baptists that want homosexuals to be put to death. That doesn't mean all baptists want homosexuals to be put to death. Understand?

Oh, and there could be a threat to homosexuals if the religious right were running the more successful political agenda. I'm sure they'd at least end up in prison somewhere along the lines. I kind of feel it can only go one way or the other. Either way, someone's going to be unhappy.

MidnightSun12 · #17 Dec 25, '12, 1:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giants

This article says that marriage commissioners, appointed by a government that recognizes SSMs, are not allowed to deny SSCs the right to marry on the basis of their religious convictions. It doesn't say that priests or pastors can be legally prosecuted for refusing to marry homosexuals. The one guy that got fined $2,500 (and kept his job) was only identified as a devout Baptist.

If only the persecution was limited to marriage "commissioners"...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...5/mar/05033001

Quote:

Originally Posted by epan

Gay marriage has been legal for the vast majority of Canadians since 2004, and legal for all Canadians since 2005. Can you point out any evidence of destruction of any traditional marriages, which has resulted from that?

You made a bold claim. Please back it up with some facts.

This is a fact:

Infallible Church teaching recognizes that all homosexual acts are gravely disordered and contrary to God's will. Therefore, to attach the name marriage to such acts violates God' will and attacks the sanctity of the insitution that Christ had elevated to the level of a holy sacrament.

Kevin B · #18 Jan 7, '13, 8:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidnightSun12

This is a fact:

Infallible Church teaching recognizes that all homosexual acts are gravely disordered and contrary to God's will. Therefore, to attach the name marriage to such acts violates God' will and attacks the sanctity of the insitution that Christ had elevated to the level of a holy sacrament.

If this were truly the reason the Church opposed same-sex marriages, then they would support same-sex civil unions, as they do not share the name of the sacrament. But they do not. Ergo, your reason for their opposition must be mistaken.

livingwordunity · #19 Jan 7, '13, 8:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin B

If this were truly the reason the Church opposed same-sex marriages, then they would support same-sex civil unions, as they do not share the name of the sacrament. But they do not. Ergo, your reason for their opposition must be mistaken.

Same-sex "civil unions" are still a mortal sin and therefore are also unacceptable to the Catholic Church since, like so-called same-sex "marriage", it's strongly implied that it is an actively homosexual relationship.

Peter Plato · #20 Jan 7, '13, 8:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

You misunderstood my point. The poster I was replying to was trying to argue that homosexuals want all people to unconditionally accept homosexuality as some homosexuals are suing people who won't let them marry. This is, of course, nonsense and a logical fallacy. I could give examples of baptists that want homosexuals to be put to death. That doesn't mean all baptists want homosexuals to be put to death. Understand?

Oh, and there could be a threat to homosexuals if the religious right were running the more successful political agenda. I'm sure they'd at least end up in prison somewhere along the lines. I kind of feel it can only go one way or the other. Either way, someone's going to be unhappy.

There is definitely a movement to coerce individuals who do not agree with same sex marriage to be forced to comply despite holding a legitimate contrary moral position. A petition has been started on the petitions.whitehouse.gov site to brand the Catholic Church as a hate group because of its stand on marriage.

This prompted another group to begin a petition to counter the first one.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=40260

**JimG** · #21 Jan 8, '13, 11:45 am

Changing the name would do nothing to change the reality. The Church opposes both 'marriage' and civil unions between same sex couples. Same sex couples are incapable of marital intercourse, just as are permanently impotent heterosexual couples. Changing the name will do nothing to mitigate the adverse effects on society. It should be noted, though, that it is not same sex 'marriage' that is primarily destroying the institution of marriage. The widespread acceptance of contraception started the destruction of marriage, and it continues.

epan · #22 Jan 8, '13, 11:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Plato

There is definitely a movement to coerce individuals who do not agree with same sex marriage to be forced to comply despite holding a legitimate contrary moral position. A petition has been started on the petitions.whitehouse.gov site to brand the Catholic Church as a hate group because of its stand on marriage.

This prompted another group to begin a petition to counter the first one.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=40260

It doesn't look like that one is going anywhere, being more than 20,000 signatures short. One may make a petition for anything on that site. Here is one to ban protests within 300 feet of a funeral, which is getting close to its goal. This would remove people like the WBC from funerals. I tend to agree that a funeral or memorial service is not the place to make a political statement: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...s-and/byxbF4Vq

sw85 · #23 Jan 8, '13, 5:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

As the state adopts the doctrine of demons called "same-sex marriage", what if the Church began to always call marriage between a man and a woman either "sacramental marriage" or "natural marriage" instead of just "marriage" to distinguish marriage as it was in the beginning from newly invented artificial concepts of "marriage"?

Why should they cede this ground? Instead, refer to the state-abomination as "the simulacrum of marriage mistakenly called 'marriage.'"

andrewstx · #24 Jan 8, '13, 5:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidnightSun12

If you're in Canada, pastors/priests can be legally prosecuted for refusing to "marry" homosexuals:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/po...service=mobile

As for the topic: No, I don't believe changing a name will solve the problem. The point of "gay marriage" is to marginalize and destroy the sanctity of traditional marriage. If a name change to traditional marriage ever picked up popularity it would only be a matter of time until there was legal pressure to start attaching the same title to homosexual unions.

The only way to fight satan is head on!

But the article does not say priests and ministers. It says "marriage commissioners". I have no idea what marriage commisioners are. Are they always clerics? Can't they be secularists or athiests as well?

**edwest2** · #25 Jan 8, '13, 6:03 pm

There is no debate. The Church will not change its stance.

Civil Union
Domestic Partnership
Same-sex marriage? Why was that on my ballot? Who put it there?

Gays will not accept anything short of the word "marriage." Otherwise, they would consider themselves second-class citizens.

Just go to the Marriage Equality web site or the Freedom to Marry site.

Peace,
Ed

Giants · #26 Jan 8, '13, 6:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewstx

But the article does not say priests and ministers. It says "marriage commissioners". I have no idea what marriage commisioners are. Are they always clerics? Can't they be secularists or athiests as well?

They're employees of the government. What they "are" aside from that is irrelevant.

Rence · #27 Jan 8, '13, 6:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giants

This article says that marriage commissioners, appointed by a government that recognizes SSMs, are not allowed to deny SSCs the right to marry on the basis of their religious convictions. It doesn't say that priests or pastors can be legally prosecuted for refusing to marry homosexuals. The one guy that got fined $2,500 (and kept his job) was only identified as a devout Baptist.

I think it's an equivalent of a Justice of the Peace. Here in the US, priests perform the Sacramental marriage, but also act as JOP by signing the marriage license. The priest does this for the couple as a courtesy since the State doesn't recognize Sacramental marriage and the Church doesn't recognize civil marriage for Catholics. If it ever came down to it, which I doubt will happen, priests can simply only perform the Sacramental part and stop acting as JOP. This is a non-issue.

Rence · #28 Jan 8, '13, 6:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giants

They're employees of the government. What they "are" aside from that is irrelevant.

So they need to not be employees of the government and that will solve their problem.

Kevin B · #29 Jan 8, '13, 7:02 pm

The Church will not be forced to marry homosexuals any more than they are forced to marry atheists.

The Church has always had different rules then the government over who can get married, and they have never been forced to follow the governments rules, and they never will.

Of all the non issues, this is one of the worst. Think about it this way: if you're worried about someone suing the church to marry them, then the only marriages which will be legal are marriages approved by the church (marriages involving at least one catholic). But maybe a Baptist Church won't want to marry Catholics, so the Catholics could sue them, so marriages involving Catholics would have to be illegal as well.

If you think about it, it's an extremely absurd argument.

MidnightSun12 · #30 Jan 8, '13, 7:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewstx

But the article does not say priests and ministers. It says "marriage commissioners". I have no idea what marriage commisioners are. Are they always clerics? Can't they be secularists or athiests as well?

I was mistaken on this one. I had thought that it was merely a pastor who was being persecuted here, I didn't know that he was also a government-appointed marriage commissioner. Not that this justifies anything and the Canadian government's actions were, as usual, pure evil in this regard. This case just wasn't quite as sensational as the cases that I have posted below which show an even more scary side of Canada that will soon be a reality for Americans if the gay agenda continues unchallenged.

Remember, Canada legalized gay "marriage" in 2005... Maybe this will be what the US looks like in a few years...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...an-rights.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...5/nov/05113006
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ont...ght-alliances/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gov...oday-in-quebec