North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions - Page 11

mgoforth · #**151** May 9, '12, 6:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

Why not? You've conceded that gay marriage has a net neutral effect on society (I would say the effect is net-positive, but nevermind that). So, in your view, gay marriage wouldn't hurt anything, even if it didn't help. But gays want it, and they have a legitimate reason to want it. And by your own admission, it wouldn't hurt society if they had it. So why not?

It would hurt gay people themselves...yeah I'll say that again. Two gay people getting married would be harmful to both of them. It's a mortal sin, which if not repented of, could damn their souls to Hell. Has anyone here considered the argument that perhaps Catholics actually care for gay men and women? We do. It's just that we see them walking toward a cliff with their sinful choices and are trying to keep them from falling off.

It's not just gay marriage that's a problem. Two men having sex is sinful, period...an invalid marriage doesn't change that fact at all. The only thing it does is pretend to legitimize an act that, by its very nature, is harmful to the souls of those involved. But isn't that what our society is all about? Being politically correct so we don't hurt each other's feelings?

I don't expect ASimon to agree with what I've said here...but professed Catholics on this thread who don't agree with the Church's teaching on this (or any other issue) need to think long and hard about what Christ would say to all this political correctness.

Matthew chapter 10 has some powerful hints:

Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city. verses 14-15

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. verses 21-22

Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. verses 32-29

ASimon · #**152** May 9, '12, 6:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, ASimon,

Your post seemed rather dismissive - is this what you intended?

God bless

Absolutely. Read the post it's in response to, and you'll see why. I'm certainly not going to go point-for-point in debunking it. I'll be here all night.

ASimon · #**153** May 9, '12, 6:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgoforth

It would hurt gay people themselves...yeah I'll say that again. Two gay people getting married would be harmful to both of them. It's a mortal sin, which if not repented of, could damn their souls to Hell. Has anyone here considered the argument that perhaps Catholics actually care for gay men and women? We do. It's just that we see them walking toward a cliff with their sinful choices and are trying to keep them from falling off.

It's not just gay marriage that's a problem. Two men having sex is sinful, period...an invalid marriage doesn't change that fact at all. The only thing it does is pretend to legitimize an act that, by its very nature, is harmful to the souls of those involved. But isn't that what our society is all about? Being politically correct so we don't hurt each other's feelings?

I don't expect ASimon to agree with what I've said here...but professed Catholics on this thread who don't agree with the Church's teaching on this (or any other issue) need to think long and hard about what Christ would say to all this political correctness.

Matthew chapter 10 has some powerful hints:

Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city. verses 14-15

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and [s]cause them to be put to death. You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. verses 21-22

Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. verses 32-29

This is all very much beside the point. Yes, I'm aware that your faith regards homosexuality as sinful. But I'm equally aware that your faith's views on sin have no bearing on the legality of gay marriage. Bringing it up simply muddies the waters unnecessarily.

mgoforth · #**154** May 9, '12, 6:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

This is all very much beside the point. Yes, I'm aware that your faith regards homosexuality as sinful. But I'm equally aware that your faith's views on sin have no bearing on the legality of gay marriage. Bringing it up simply muddies the waters unnecessarily.

Actually, when Catholics vote their Faith (as they obviously did in this case), then our Faith determines the legality (or in this case illegality) of "gay marriage". Exactly as it should be. So, no...it's not beside the point. The point is that in a rare moment of grace, the voters have spoken in accord with the Catholic Church and God's will has won the day.

ignatius777 · #**155** May 9, '12, 6:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthau21

Very true. Homosexuality was not address in Loving v Virginia.

However, you are saying that there is no law that says a gay person can't marry someone of the opposite sex. Although this is true, at the time of Loving v Virginia there was no law stating a black person couldn't marry, or a white person couldn't marry. They just couldn't marry each other (marry a race other than their own).

I think what people are saying is this situation seems very similar, just replacing race with gender.

Yes there was a law it was called the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This explictily prohibited whites form marryng blacks

ignatius777 · #**156** May 9, '12, 6:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossum

Because incest is currently illegal, so that law would need to be changed first. Homosexual relations between non-related adults are not illegal.

rossum

and gays can marry according to crrent marriage laws. being gay doesnt exclude them

tqualey · #**157** May 9, '12, 6:54 pm

Hi, NonServiam,

Don't stray too far from objective reality.

Males and females are the only ones in the Animal Kingdom that can reproduce - two males or two females produce no offspring. This fact does not require a belief in God - just a belief in the obvious.

Homosexual behavior does not produce off-spring. If this were a wide-spread activity, eventually there would be no humans. Period. Now, THAT is the law - ignore it at your own peril.

God bless

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonServiam

People are perfectly allowed to vote in according with their consciences, but the law is not allowed to enshrine the doctrines of a specific religion.

If you want to believe that marriage is some sort of mystical institution created by your god and is just for heterosexuals, then by all means believe that and belong to a church that teaches that and only recognizes heterosexual marriage.

But keep your beliefs out of the law that applies to all people in the country, including those who don't share your beliefs.

Right, those are your doctrinally-motivated beliefs. You're perfectly free to hold them, but you're not free to enshrine them in the law that applies to people who don't share those presuppositions.

ignatius777 · #**158** May 9, '12, 6:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossum

The pursuit of happiness is a right in the US Constitution. Are heterosexual marriages all as miserable as you suggest? I wonder why they are so popular?

rossum

again the PURSUIT not the attainment. where did i suggest they were miserable? i have been happily married for 25 yrs

ignatius777 · #**159** May 9, '12, 6:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossum

But one potential avenue of happiness is shut off for gays, but not shut off for heterosexuals. The law is the same, but its effect is to block off a potential route to a constitutional right.

rossum

you continue to confuse "pursuit" of happiness with attainment. the govt is not required to make you or anyone happy. this is what you either refuse to or cant accept

tqualey · #**160** May 9, '12, 7:07 pm

Hi, ASimon,

The purpose of CAF is dialogue - not terse put-downs.

Try again ... like the thread is intended to encourage.

God bless

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

Absolutely. Read the post it's in response to, and you'll see why. I'm certainly not going to go point-for-point in debunking it. I'll be here all night.

Midwest88 · #**161** May 9, '12, 7:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw85

My far-more-numerous leftist friends have a total combined fertility of ZERO. Bagel. There isn't a single child between the lot of them.

Your eyes must have mislead you. I mean, this IS a joke right? Not a single offspring - not even an adopted Lily?

Quote:

Most of them will probably die without children given that they hate them and wouldn't dream of detracting from their plans for getting a master's in poetry and backpacking through Europe to have even one baby.

All too true. Add in running marathons or finishing triathlons.

Julia Mae · #**162** May 9, '12, 7:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeekNFind

Although this would be too unpopular to post on facebook

I think this is the right decision.

I don't hate gay people nor do I condone gay-bashing.

Christ loves us all, but I stand firm on what is in His Word.

Ah, but you also want to insist everyone else does. Therein lies the true issue.

Julia Mae · #**163** May 9, '12, 7:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw85

You people are silly ....

Ad hom.

But it's better than what I was called for supporting integration.

Julia Mae · #**164** May 9, '12, 7:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tqualey

The Catholic Church has been quite clear...

Everyone is not Catholic. Or Christian. Some who are Christian, disagree. The whole world is not required to be Catholic. All Catholics still get to have all we profess: Sacramental marriage, insistence on chastity for those outside of Sacramental marriage.

Impinging on freedom, is not the Catholic Church's teaching.

Julia Mae · #**165** May 9, '12, 7:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgoforth

Two men having sex is sinful, period...

You know what Jesus called the devil? Not "the thief." Not "the fornicator." He called him THE LIAR. Now, here is this sin so terrible, Jesus uses it to name the ultimate source of evil.

The day you start passing around a petition in your state to make lying, any kind of lying, a criminal offense, is when I'll give your position serious consideration.

The objections are religious. We don't foist our beliefs onto others because we don't want theirs foisted off on us. We want the right to our Sacraments, including marriage. We want the Church to insist on a year's worth of notice for a marriage, to require pre-marriage counselling, to not recognize civil divorce as valid.

We are free to practice our beliefs because we allow freedom to others. Start denying that freedom and then, when the government impinges on us, we will have no right whatsoever to complain.