Biden: I'm 'absolutely comfortable' with gay marriage - Page 5

coachkfan1 · #61 May 7, '12, 10:46 am

This is the same Joe Biden who once said' "If one more person asks me about my religious beliefs I am going shove my rosary beads up their a**"!

Havard · #62 May 7, '12, 10:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by coachkfan1

This is the same Joe Biden who once said' "If one more person asks me about my religious beliefs I am going shove my rosary beads up their a**"!

Minor correction, but according to Snopes it was "The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/biden/rosary.asp

Granted, it's still vulgar and uncharitable.

coachkfan1 · #63 May 7, '12, 11:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havard

Minor correction, but according to Snopes it was "The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/biden/rosary.asp

Granted, it's still vulgar and uncharitable.

My apologies. I sincerely thought that was the way I had remembered it. I definately do not like his take on this subject but I would never intentionally slander the man.

Dawnia · #64 May 7, '12, 1:09 pm

This just reaffirms that Biden's position is really just protection for Obama against assassination. No one would be crazy enough to kill Obama knowing they would get stuck with Biden as the back up.

**rlg94086** · #65 May 7, '12, 1:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizium23

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.

Exactly. Calling them "civil unions" doesn't change anything, even though it makes some Catholics feel better about their disagreement with Church teaching.

JimR-OCDS · #66 May 7, '12, 2:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizium23

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.

God recognizes love and a gay man or woman can love one another.

Granted, it's not love as experienced between a man and woman, which can be consummated through the unitive act of sexual intercourse, but it is a love that is real.

The Church prohibits discrimination against gay people and laws that discriminate against them, is wrong.

Jim

Elizabeth502 · #67 May 7, '12, 2:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publisher

Is God so ignorant that He doesn't know when two people are together...they are a "couple"....same sex or otherwise?

Since God created males and females to complement each other physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, he most certainly is not "ignorant" about what a genuine couple is and is not.

Two homosexuals having sexual contact with each other do not make themselves a "couple" in any meaningful sense of the term. Any two people of either sex can associate with each other, sexually or non-sexually, in any form of association they want (as long as they meet age and consent requirements). They don't need a label of "marriage" or "civil union" to enjoy partnership benefits.

**rlg94086** · #68 May 7, '12, 2:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

God recognizes love and a gay man or woman can love one another.

Granted, it's not love as experienced between a man and woman, which can be consummated through the unitive act of sexual intercourse, but it is a love that is real.

The Church prohibits discrimination against gay people and laws that discriminate against them, is wrong.

Jim

The Church teaches that "civil unions" of two people of the same sex are "wrong," and She has no problem opposing such laws.

JimR-OCDS · #69 May 7, '12, 2:08 pm

[quote=Elizabeth502;9268925\.

Two homosexuals having sexual contact with each other do not make themselves a "couple" in any meaningful sense of the term. Any two people of either sex can associate with each other, sexually or non-sexually, in any form of association they want (as long as they meet age and consent requirements). They don't need a label of "marriage" or "civil union" to enjoy partnership benefits.[/QUOTE]

So, by your interpretation of what God loves and hates, gay people can associate with each other, but can't love one another.

I'm not talking about sexual acts here, but love for one another. If I understand you correctly, gay couples can't love one another, right?

Jim

Publisher · #70 May 7, '12, 2:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Since God created males and females to complement each other physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, he most certainly is not "ignorant" about what a genuine couple is and is not.

Two homosexuals having sexual contact with each other do not make themselves a "couple" in any meaningful sense of the term. Any two people of either sex can associate with each other, sexually or non-sexually, in any form of association they want (as long as they meet age and consent requirements). They don't need a label of "marriage" or "civil union" to enjoy partnership benefits.

That seems to be where the state disagrees with you. Outside of religious reasons, there is no Constitutional reason same sex couples should not receive the same benefits as their opposite sex counterparts....at least for those States which have approved of same sex marriage/unions.....and state by state will follow suit....it becomes a secular Constitutional matter...not religous.

You may hold your religious beliefs...but the State/Government relies on equal protection under the Constitution...not religious beliefs...to determine our "rights".

JimR-OCDS · #71 May 7, '12, 2:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

The Church teaches that "civil unions" of two people of the same sex are "wrong," and She has no problem opposing such laws.

The Church teaches that civil unions of two people of the same gender, are not equal to a marriage.

I agree.

However, being we live in a secular pluralistic society, there is no way we're going to deny gay couples certain basic rights, nor should we.

Jim

scipio337 · #72 May 7, '12, 2:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publisher

That seems to be where the state disagrees with you. Outside of religious reasons, there is no Constitutional reason same sex couples should not receive the same benefits as their opposite sex counterparts.

You may hold your religious beliefs...but the State/Government relies on equal protection under the Constitution...not religious beliefs...to determine our "rights".

Prevailing social mores are an inherent part of the Establishment Clause. The "Equal Protection" argument went out the window when California pushed for "same sex marriage".....

9 years after winning same sex domestic partnership with all of the benefits of marriage.

This isn't about equal protection, its about equal acceptance as a "normal" and valid lifestyle, aka, "social engineering through judicial fiat".

JimR-OCDS · #73 May 7, '12, 2:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publisher

That seems to be where the state disagrees with you. Outside of religious reasons, there is no Constitutional reason same sex couples should not receive the same benefits as their opposite sex counterparts....at least for those States which have approved of same sex marriage/unions.....and state by state will follow suit....it becomes a secular Constitutional matter...not religous.

You may hold your religious beliefs...but the State/Government relies on equal protection under the Constitution...not religious beliefs...to determine our "rights".

and God forbid, if the state ever begins to uphold religious laws over those under the Constitution, then we'll have to one day accept religions who believe in stoning homosexuals and adulterers.

Jim

**rlg94086** · #74 May 7, '12, 2:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

The Church teaches that civil unions of two people of the same gender, are not equal to a marriage.

I agree.

However, being we live in a secular pluralistic society, there is no way we're going to deny gay couples certain basic rights, nor should we.

Jim

Sure. Those "certain basic rights" don't include civil unions, according to the Church. As a pluralistic society, we, as Catholics, are not required to vote and/or support legislation based on the lowest common denominator. We are to vote and/or support legislation based on our faith.

scipio337 · #75 May 7, '12, 2:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publisher

.....You may hold your religious beliefs...but the State/Government relies on equal protection under the Constitution...not religious beliefs...to determine our "rights".

Equal protection like....this?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...file=297-297.5

California, enacted in 1999. Well before Prop 8, no?

Is it a coincidence that all states that now recognize "same sex" marriage already had domestic partnerships or the equivalent on the books?

Here comes the "separate but equal" argument.......wait for it.......