Biden: I'm 'absolutely comfortable' with gay marriage

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by JRRTFAN

That's the problem. Look, uh, I wouldn't participate in a Holocaust myself but who am I to stop you from what you think is alright. The problem is you don't connect the dots.

I am able to connect the dots; however, in this case, I don't agree with the connection. It appears you are relating not objecting to gay marriage to not objecting to genocide. IOW, you seem to believe that allowing people of the same sex to marry is the equivalent of either watching them destroy themselves or watching society or civilization destroy itself without voicing opposition. Some may believe that, but I don't. Regardless, I find the comparison to the Holocaust objectionable at the very least.

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

'

Well if you listened to what he actually said, he said he believes in gay couples having all the civil rights of a married couple, that is, the right to visit their partner in the hospital, etc.

He never came to say that he supports gay marriage.

Barrack Obama on more than one occasion said, he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, but believes that gay couples should have civil rights that they do not currently have in all states.

This does not conflict with Catholic teaching which condemns discrimination or persecution of homosexuals.


Jim

You're comfortable with a "self-identified Catholic" saying the following words,

"I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women"

[jilly4ski]

I don't understand this "civil rights" argument. A gay couple can in every state visit their partner in the hospital, share property, etc. They just have to plan for that and actually draw up the appropriate legal documents. Things like power of attorney, advanced directives, living wills, a Will, tenancy in common (for property), joint checking accounts, (or not if they want to keep their assets seperate in case of a split. This just takes planning and work, but it is not like a married couple can just declare they are married, it also takes planning and money to apply for a marriage license and actually get married.

There are a few things that they can't do this way, and that is get social security (death) benefits and in the event of a break up their don't have the "protections" of a divorce proceedings, but as many a divorced couples will tell you, that probably isn't much loss, they could probably have more luck if they just had a contact (lease) and separate assets, with the proper understanding that if the property is damaged or stolen by the other, then they can sue to have it replaced.

It gets a little stickier when we talk about adoption and parental rights, but since I do not consider it a "right" to be able to adopt or have a child, for me it is less of a worry that it is more difficult for these couples to do this in some states.

[Havard]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

Many, many people think religion is harmful to society as a whole...and they may voice their opinions about it and write books about it and come here on CAF and write about it-- but they don't try to make it a law that you cannot be Catholic. They live and let you live as you believe. That's live and let live.

This is not and never has been about the criminalization of homosexual behavior.

Marriage is a privileged status in the United States, wherein the state grants married persons special rights that it does not afford to non-married persons (gay or straight). The basis for this was rather to promote a more stable society. It is at least worth debating whether the link between single-parent households and overall social/economic stability is a legitimate policy concern. But on this I am certain: the numbers underlying the problem speak toward heterosexual couples, as we don't see wide swathes of homosexual men fathering children out of wedlock, and subsequently abandoning them.

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the concepts of standing for principles, witness, and being a voice for truth -- regardless of that person's understanding of truth. Many, many people without any formal religious affiliation think that amorality and immorality are harmful to society as a whole.

They voice their opinions about it and write books about it and come here on CAF and write about it. They don't try to make it a law that "you" cannot be an immoral or amoral person, nor that society "cannot" be immoral or amoral, but they strongly advocate for a moral and ethical society, and they describe explicitly what values and principles should be part of such a society. That's live and let live. It is also an indication of character, courage, and full personhood. Many such people are members of philosophical organizations and other movements without formal religious association.

That is also precisely what religious organizations do: they advocate. They don't "try to make it a law that you cannot be a person opposed to Catholic (or other religious) beliefs."

What you describe is not "live and let live" but political and "social" correctness, as well as (often) cowardice.

Have a nice day.

Yes, it does.
One person thinks they know The Truth, and she wants to stand up for her principles and be a voice for that truth, to use your wording. That's good.
Another person thinks they know The Truth--it's a different truth--and does the same. And that's good, too.
Both rightfully do so.
The problem is when someone else tries to legally keep someone else from living their truth.
Yes, many people think amoral and immorality are harmful to society--I'd say most people think this.
But most people don't think homosexuality is amoral/immoral.
So all I'm saying is...go ahead and voice your truth and be a "witness" as you choose...and let others do the same...but one should not get in the way of someone's right to marry someone that they love just because that is not your truth and your idea of what is immoral.
Speak out all you want, yell it from the rafters, from the rooftops. Go to town with it.
But don't deny other people what they think their rights are when so many others see nothing wrong with it morally.
Others out there honestly believe that organized religion is harmful to society as a whole and yet they are not trying to make it illegal.

[Havard]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

Others out there honestly believe that organized religion is harmful to society as a whole and yet they are not trying to make it illegal.

There you go again. Who is trying to make homosexuality illegal? Refer to my above post. Marriage is a stamp of approval by the government which grants special legal privileges. It is not the status quo.

[_Abyssinia]

Another Obama official speaks out for same-sex marriage

Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Monday became the latest Obama administration official to express support for same-sex marriage, echoing similar statements made by Vice President Joe Biden the previous day.

Asked on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," if he supports individuals of the same gender to legally wed, Duncan replied: "Yes, I do."

"I don't think I've ever been asked publicly," Duncan added.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...e-sex-marriage

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

You're comfortable with a "self-identified Catholic" saying the following words,

"I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women"

He did say that.

Go listen to what he actually said, at the Meet The Press sight.



Jim

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

He did say that.

Go listen to what he actually said, at the Meet The Press sight.



Jim

The problem that I have is that Biden has no problem with saying that men can marry men. Considering the source, I am going to assume that he is talking about granting partnership rights to same sex couples, like hospital visitation and such, but his political ideology seems to have overridden his Catholic worldview.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Wrong. They have a statement in there about civil unions as well. Please read it. It's there. Separately they address homosexual marriage. They address both and oppose both.

The Bishops state that civil unions do not equal the SAME rights as heterosexual marriages, just as they say the same for couples who cohabitate, do not earn the same rights as heterosexual marriages, nor should they.

Homosexual unions are not the moral equivalent as legitimate marriages which are recognized by the Church, but neither are other unions outside of marriage.

In my opinion, the one right homosexuals can not share is adoption of children. Children need to have a mother and father, and those who are up for adoption, should go to a married man and woman.

However, there are other civil rights which homosexuals are still prohibited from, despite having contracts and wills which should be binding.


These are what I'm referring to.

In now way am I advocating that couples in homosexual relationships have the full rights as a married couple, I'm not.

Sorry if I caused the misunderstanding.

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

The problem that I have is that Biden has no problem with saying that men can marry men. Considering the source, I am going to assume that he is talking about granting partnership rights to same sex couples, like hospital visitation and such, but his political ideology seems to have overridden his Catholic worldview.

He did say that. He said men are marrying men and women are marrying women, something he had just previously stated he does not agree with.

The point he's making is that it's happening, despite his position.

Keep in mind, he's also playing political campaign, he's trying not to paint himself into a box which will haunt him during the campaign.

Jim

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

He did say that. He said men are marrying men and women are marrying women, something he had just previously stated he does not agree with.

The point he's making is that it's happening, despite his position.

Keep in mind, he's also playing political campaign, he's trying not to paint himself into a box which will haunt him during the campaign.

Jim

Standing up for truth is politically inconvenient.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Standing up for truth is politically inconvenient.

He was answering Gregory's question concerning the president's opposition to gay marriage, by agreeing with him.



Jim

[Elizium23]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

The Bishops state that civil unions do not equal the SAME rights as heterosexual marriages, just as they say the same for couples who cohabitate, do not earn the same rights as heterosexual marriages, nor should they.

Homosexual unions are not the moral equivalent as legitimate marriages which are recognized by the Church, but neither are other unions outside of marriage.

In my opinion, the one right homosexuals can not share is adoption of children. Children need to have a mother and father, and those who are up for adoption, should go to a married man and woman.

However, there are other civil rights which homosexuals are still prohibited from, despite having contracts and wills which should be binding.


These are what I'm referring to.

In now way am I advocating that couples in homosexual relationships have the full rights as a married couple, I'm not.

Sorry if I caused the misunderstanding.

Jim

You still clearly misunderstand Church teaching. The bishops' statements are clear. We cannot stand for "civil unions" any more than we can stand for "marriages" between gay "couples". There is no such thing as a gay couple in the eyes of God.

[mary bobo]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Another Obama official speaks out for same-sex marriage


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...e-sex-marriage

Sending out the underlings to do the dirty work allows the president to remain silent and still get the point across. Just be patient and wait until after I am reelected.