North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions - Page 13

**Bookcat** · #**181** May 9, '12, 8:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

Actually, there are few people here better acquianted with natural law than myself.
.

Obviously that is where your problem lies. You set aside the philosophical and moral use of the term for that of the some other science. Mixing apples with oranges.

Julia Mae · #**182** May 9, '12, 8:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Julia Mae,

I gave you the teaching of the Catholic Church - and you simply dismiss it by claiming this is not what is taught.

Plase give me the link that supports the view you claim to be the teaching of the Catholic Church.

God bless

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to without a link to the posts in question. However, the Church is irrelevant in terms of this issue. In fact, the constant references to the Church sort of prove my point. You want to impose Church teaching on society at large by using civil laws. That's wrong. Is that what you want me to support? That the Church says it's wrong to force our beliefs on others? Do you really need a link to know that?

We are supposed to preach the Gospel, not legislate it.

**Bookcat** · #**183** May 9, '12, 8:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

However, the Church is irrelevant in terms of this issue. .

The Church is very relevant in terms of this issue.

Julia Mae · #**184** May 9, '12, 8:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookcat

Obviously that is where your problem lies. You set aside the philosophical and moral use of the term for that of the some other science. Mixing apples with oranges.

I don't have a problem. I am entirely clear on Church teaching. I am also entirely in support of separation of Church and State and freedom of choice.

Every argument made here is based on religion. Trying to make other people adhere to our religious beliefs is wrong. Do you think it's right?

If the Jews gain power, is it okay if they get a law passed saying all male babies must be circumcised? If Muslims become the majority will you stop driving because it's a sin for women to do so?

**Bookcat** · #**185** May 9, '12, 8:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

We are supposed to preach the Gospel, not legislate it.

Such is misunderstanding certain aspects of the Christians very vocation.

**Bookcat** · #**186** May 9, '12, 8:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

I don't have a problem. I am entirely clear on Church teaching. I am also entirely in support of separation of Church and State and freedom of choice.

A misunderstanding of separation of Church and State according to the American Founders...and a misunderstanding of the nature of freedom and Church Teaching. Or so it would seem here.

**Bookcat** · #**187** May 9, '12, 8:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

Every argument made here is based on religion. Trying to make other people adhere to our religious beliefs is wrong. Do you think it's right?

If the Jews gain power, is it okay if they get a law passed saying all male babies must be circumcised? If Muslims become the majority will you stop driving because it's a sin for women to do so?

And a misunderstanding of the matter at hand it seems. This is not something that is a "Christian issue" (or to be more specific here "a Catholic issue") If the Church was seeking a law that everyone had to memorize the Catechism -- that would be more of a "Catholic issue".

Julia Mae · #**188** May 9, '12, 8:52 pm

Everyone has said everything they have to say at least six times or more, as far as I can see. No one is listening to the other side. I see no reason to keep repeating myself, except to say: it's just like the last civil rights issue. One side is sure they are defending God's Law or natural law or whatever. The other side believes that freedom equals charity and the right to choose for yourself is sacrosanct.

I predict, unless we lose our democracy a together, a serious threat right now, gay marriage as it is called, will be commonplace and accepted.

So, I'm done. Y'all get the last 5000 words.

**Bookcat** · #**189** May 9, '12, 8:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

Everyone has said everything they have to say at least six times or more, as far as I can see. No one is listening to the other side. I see no reason to keep repeating myself, except to say: it's just like the last civil rights issue. One side is sure they are defending God's Law or natural law or whatever. The other side believes that freedom equals charity and the right to choose for yourself is sacrosanct.

.

Civil rights issue?

Not even close.

Yes we are certain -- that we are defending the very nature of Marriage --which is of extreme importance to society and yes it is part of Natural Law....and as Christians we yes are quite aware of God's Law here and the nature of true charity and freedom.

ASimon · #**190** May 9, '12, 9:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookcat

Civil rights issue?

Not even close.

To me, it doesn't look like anything BUT a civil rights issue.

**Bookcat** · #**191** May 9, '12, 9:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

To me, it doesn't look like anything BUT a civil rights issue.

If there is no possible good right here --there is no civil rights issue.

No one has a right to "marry" a member of the same sex...or a child or his mother or just whoever they please.

Nor would my claim that I have a "civil right" to all the gold in Fort Knox --amount to an actual "civil rights issue".

ASimon · #**192** May 9, '12, 9:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookcat

If there is no possible good right here --there is no civil rights issue.

I'm not sure that this is the real standard, but even if it was, marriage certainly qualifies.

Leaving aside the clear implication that gays shouldn't be able to marry because their relationships are inherently inferior, why wouldn't gays being married serve the same purpose on society as straights being married?

There's a practical (and not insignificant) obstacle to a relationship ending when the principles are legally bound. Divorce is expensive and a hassle. Breaking up when you're not legally bound together is comparatively easy. So, in a world where gay and lesbian couples are not legally prohibited from adopting children, or having them through artificial insemination, why is it not a net positive to allow gay couples access to the same legal ties as straight couples?

BernardM · #**193** May 9, '12, 9:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald E

It is ignorance of how to treat others that sickens me.

I find it amusing that people will make any excuse to defend people who kick over the hornets nest by blaming the hornets for stinging them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossum

That argument was rejected by the US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia. Everyone had exactly the same rights to marry someone of the same race. You would do well to find a better argument to base yourself on.

rossum

Actually it was upheld by the court in Reynolds v. United States. Why aren't you screaming to have this overthrown?

Pfaffenhoffen · #**194** May 10, '12, 12:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkeaus

Very, very sad. In 50-100 years everyone will look back on this with the same distaste as racism.

Oh, well, just another state that I'm never visiting if I can help it.

Also, OP; really? A DANCING EMOTICON? Yes, you can still get married in NC, just like you could before. The only thing this accomplished is banning marriage between two people of the same sex. I find it very... sad? I can't even think of a word - deplorable that you can be so overjoyed that you beat back those icky gays and their agenda.

Again, it wasn't your rights in question, it was those of gays. And you're overjoyed you were able to deny them marriage rights.

You make me sick.

What was banned was marriage. Period.
Now, if gays want to arrange another word for their actions, no problem with me.
Now, Marriage, no!
It is like calling and elephant by the name of a pine-tree.

Pfaffenhoffen · #**195** May 10, '12, 12:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald E

We Catholics and other Christians cannot keep our own house in order and then we try to tell other people what to do and what is right. It sickens me also. From 1Cor 5:9-13 "...But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolator, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber...For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside..."

I am joining to gays, no problem.
But I would not call them marriage of the same sex.
Why not call it a Society instead of Marriage?