Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages - Page 26

Regular Atheist · #**376** Jul 19, '12, 10:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickybr38

No. I'm saying morality comes from Christ and has little to do with the Bible. The Bible was just what Christians wrote down to share what Christ illuminated for us.

Oh, okay. That's all I can say, I suppose. Okay.

Though, I'm not quite sure how you determine what Christ wants you to do, or how to live. Do you just follow the Gospels?

Forgive me for this, just a little confused.

Stephen168 · #**377** Jul 19, '12, 10:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

Oh, okay. That's all I can say, I suppose. Okay.

Though, I'm not quite sure how you determine what Christ wants you to do, or how to live. Do you just follow the Gospels?

Forgive me for this, just a little confused.

Is same sex defined by the state/tribe or is it a natural condition of man?

nickybr38 · #**378** Jul 19, '12, 10:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

Oh, okay. That's all I can say, I suppose. Okay.

Though, I'm not quite sure how you determine what Christ wants you to do, or how to live. Do you just follow the Gospels?

Forgive me for this, just a little confused.

I'm probably the confused one. I'm not very good at explaining these things.

I can't share with you exactly what the Church teaches but only what I understand it to teach. You'd have to read the Catechism yourself to see for yourself what exactly it teaches.

My understand of it is like this:

Christ comes to earth. Christ is like: HEY! This is what is right.
Christ returns to heaven.
His followers begin to share what he taught them. Then one day one of them is like: GUYS! We gotta write this down.
They write down everything they can. But at the same time they continue teaching.
They appoint new apostles. Those apostles take those writings and compile them.
The Bible is born!
But, the new apostles remain to interpret what the Bible means. After all, they were pretty **** writers and some of it is confusing.
Those apostles train new apostles.
Those apostles train new apostles.
They get a name change. They get fancier buildings. They stop getting murdered for what they believe.
2000 years pass.

We have a line of apostles RIGHT to Christ. As well as numerous documents that tell us what the early Christians believed and knew to be true about morality.

Did you know the very earliest Christians spoke out against abortion? Same-sex coupling? Birth control? Well, they did. We have documentation to show it. Right back to just a few hundred years after Christ died.

I'm not sure why we're discussing morality though.

Same-sex marriage isn't disordered just because we believe it's morally wrong. I'm no expert so I can't give you all the documentation or even give you the great arguments but I think it's proven true throughout history that same-sex marriage = bad for society.

**buffalo** · #**379** Jul 19, '12, 10:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

How can you pick and choose from the Bible, and claim that it is the ultimate source of morality? By picking and choosing you are admitting that your morality is subjective, as you only want people to live by what you agree with, not what the Bible wants. I'd also like to note that blasphemy would have to be made illegal under such laws, as four of the commandments seem to deal with your god's vanity over anything else. And, "Thou shalt not kill" did not stop God's chosen people from committing numerous acts of murder.

Also, all of those laws I listed were inspired by Biblical scripture.

Perhaps for your benefit you should read the Catholic Catechism which combines Tradition and Scripture. It is the authoritative sure norm for teaching. On each page it reference the sources.

You can see it online, but I would be willing to purchase a hard copy for you if you agree to give it proper consideration. Read a few pages a day.

Bishop Sheen once said: “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

One place to start is here - murder -
ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not kill.54

Robert in SD · #**380** Jul 19, '12, 10:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

My main problem with not legalising same-sex marriage is that, if we let the issue go, then soon churches will overstep their bounds and DEMAND Christian laws be forced onto the nation.

What exactly is a "christian law" and how would it be "forced" onto the nation? (Maybe a good new topic?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RA

Once we agree that homosexual marriage should not be legal, it opens the door for more trouble.

The national debate is not whether it should be "illegal" but whether the individual states should be compelled under the U.S. Constitution to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it is already a reality. I'm not sure what kind of "trouble" would arise from an answer that tells states they need not recognize a same-sex marriage. I see all kinds of trouble arising from a Supreme Court decision that ratifies the re-definition of marriage as nothing more than the public recognition of the "commitment" of two people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RA

Already we've seen pastors and religious organisations performing biased and unfair studies against homosexuals, and announcing that homosexuals should be arrested or even put to death.

You really think that the mainstream opposition to gay marriage is represented by people demanding death for gay people? Or is this just hyperbole?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RA

I don't know whether those Christians are going to try to further their agenda even more, but it's a real concern and I wouldn't be suprised if, before long, homosexuality becomes illegal. Then what? Will atheism become illegal? Or blasphemy? Or masturbation?

The "Christians" did not raise the issue of gay marriage to the level of a national debate. It was the gay community that brought this issue to a head. Society is NOT headed in the direction you seem to fear. All of the evidence shows that it is headed rapidly in the other direction. I think the "slippery slope" argument against recognition of same-sex marriage has real merit. Mocking the argument is really nothing but an admission that you have no substantive response.

Peace,
Robert

Regular Atheist · #**381** Jul 19, '12, 10:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickybr38

Same-sex marriage isn't disordered just because we believe it's morally wrong. I'm no expert so I can't give you all the documentation or even give you the great arguments but I think it's proven true throughout history that same-sex marriage = bad for society.

I'd have to disagree. We know there were ancient cultures that tolerated homosexuality, such as Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Anicent Japan and China up until the 1800s. I've never heard anyone claim that damaged society at all. I don't really see how civilisations could be affected by homosexuality, really.

**buffalo** · #**382** Jul 19, '12, 10:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

I'd have to disagree. We know there were ancient cultures that tolerated homosexuality, such as Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Anicent Japan and China up until the 1800s. I've never heard anyone claim that damaged society at all. I don't really see how civilisations could be affected by homosexuality, really.

My favorite:

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEENChristian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.
Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.
Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of "live and let live";
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.

Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

nickybr38 · #**383** Jul 19, '12, 10:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

I'd have to disagree. We know there were ancient cultures that tolerated homosexuality, such as Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Anicent Japan and China up until the 1800s. I've never heard anyone claim that damaged society at all. I don't really see how civilisations could be affected by homosexuality, really.

They tolerated it, did they legalize it?

**buffalo** · #**384** Jul 19, '12, 10:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickybr38

They tolerated it, did they legalize it?

or did they embrace it?

Regular Atheist · #**385** Jul 19, '12, 10:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert in SD

The "Christians" did not raise the issue of gay marriage to the level of a national debate. It was the gay community that brought this issue to a head. Society is NOT headed in the direction you seem to fear. All of the evidence shows that it is headed rapidly in the other direction. I think the "slippery slope" argument against recognition of same-sex marriage has real merit. Mocking the argument is really nothing but an admission that you have no substantive response.

Maybe it has some merit in the situation given, when I consider it, but not when people claim it will lead to acceptance of bestiality or paedophilia, as these are seperate issues which all have perfectly valid arguments opposing them. The harm it could do to the church is not something I've considered, but I still fail to see how the government would get much support in forcing churches to conduct same-sex marriage.

And I am aware of the fact that most Christians don't support the execution of homosexuals, and, as far as I can tell, the majority of them don't even seem to support the illegalisation of homosexuality.

Robert in SD · #**386** Jul 19, '12, 10:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Absolutely - the Churches (read people) should indeed try to influence government and the public square

I think Jessaka is confusing the public square with government. There is no "Catholic Seat" in the House of Representatives or the Senate. There is no "Christian Czar" sitting on the President's Cabinet of advisors. Presidents, Senators and Representatives are elected by the people. The Constitution guarantees that no one is deprived of their voice, or their vote, because of what they believe. What Jessaka suggests is that if a person holds to what the Catholic Church teaches, they should not be allowed to "influence" government by speaking up, or voting for their candidate of choice. Nor should they be allowed to seek the relief of the Court, to petition for the redress of grievances - another right guaranteed to all by the Constitution. Instead, according to Jessaka and others of her mindset, if a person's belief is consistent with Catholic teaching, and contrary to "popular opinion" regarding such issues as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, or the like, we are barred from participating in the public debate, barred from voting for the candidate of our choice, and barred from judicial review. The scary thing is that many people do not see the danger in such an argument. "Popular opinion" can turn on a dime.

Peace,
Robert

Regular Atheist · #**387** Jul 19, '12, 10:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickybr38

They tolerated it, did they legalize it?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

or did they embrace it?

More so than our culture.

Buffalo, out of curiousity, what are your opinons on homosexuality? I know you consider it wrong, but do you believe it should be illegal?

nickybr38 · #**388** Jul 19, '12, 10:42 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

Maybe it has some merit in the situation given, when I consider it, but not when people claim it will lead to acceptance of bestiality or paedophilia, as these are seperate issues which all have perfectly valid arguments opposing them. The harm it could do to the church is not something I've considered, but I still fail to see how the government would get much support in forcing churches to conduct same-sex marriage.

And I am aware of the fact that most Christians don't support the execution of homosexuals, and, as far as I can tell, the majority of them don't even seem to support the illegalisation of homosexuality.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of Christians just want marriage to remain as it is. They don't want to make homosexuality illegal, they don't want to burn homosexuals or eradicate them... they just want marriage to stay as it is and as it has always been.

I've even talked to some who wouldn't have a problem with same-sex unions, they're just offended by the attempt to redefine marriage.

Here redefining marriage has also redefined parenthood. Parenthood is NO LONGER determined by biology. Did you know that? Now it's defined by whoever invests the most in the child.

It's just weird to me that more and more we are divorcing children from their biological roots and instead of thinking it's abnormal or wrong we're thinking it's sweet and wonderful.

Stephen168 · #**389** Jul 19, '12, 10:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

Oh, okay. That's all I can say, I suppose. Okay.

Though, I'm not quite sure how you determine what Christ wants you to do, or how to live. Do you just follow the Gospels?

Forgive me for this, just a little confused.

Is marriage defined by the state/tribe or is it a natural condition of man?

**buffalo** · #**390** Jul 19, '12, 10:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regular Atheist

Yes.

More so than our culture.

Buffalo, out of curiousity, what are your opinons on homosexuality? I know you consider it wrong, but do you believe it should be illegal?

The homosexual act should be illegal. Most states in the past thought that so and had sodomy laws. Now, before you object, laws raise the bar and consciousness and serve the common good. I am not advocating someone looking in your window.

I submit that good health hygiene will also serve to reduce disease, related mental issues as well as other public issues. Unhealthy activities of any sort increase the collective costs to the taxpayer. I do not want my tax dollars paying for bandaids rather than prevention. For example, billions spent to battle HIV. Everyone knows what the answer is.