I don’t have the same freedom of speech you do? I am able to project them to other people. Sort of absurd to think otherwise.
Freedom of speech and the right to impose your beliefs are two very different things.
Vatican lost this battle in it’s own backyard.
Again, no one needs my permission to do anything. You don’t seem to get that. Catholics propose, they don’t impose. If you were a Catholic, I guarantee a priest won’t be pounding on your door on Monday if you missed Mass on Sunday. God does not force anyone to love and follow Him, and neither does the Church.
The Vatican can’t control what people want. Italy is a democracy. That means it’s the will of the people. The people wanted gay civil unions. They got it. Doesn’t prove anything about if it’s good or not
You can take the issue up with God when you met Him on your day of judgment. Then you will learn the truth and that "He DOES exist!"
And yet there’s a great deal of talk on these very forums about how SSM should be reversed in jurisdictions where it is now legally recognized. That sounds a lot like pounding on doors to me.
The Church has been under attack since it started. Long ago, someone wrote the following on a building in France: “It is forbidden to forbid!” French Revolution? So what? The Church still stands.
Fair enough. I’ve always said, if I’m wrong, I’ll found out when I die. If I’m right, well, I won’t find anything out. But I’m not a big fan of Pascal’s Wager, which I would imagine even God would find pretty insincere.
You were denied your biological parents?
It is the state’s business. We, the people are the state and impose laws to serve the common good.
Perhaps you do not know the philosophical basis on “natural law”.
The standards of morality and common good are set by people reflecting on the accumulated knowledge we have gained. If contraception became illegal that sets the standard. Many people may still practice it, just like many people go through red lights.
Yes, marriage must include being open to children. Why get married when people can just live together.
You should be bound by the highest standard that exists. Catholics built Western Civilization. Atheists too benefit from it.
Is anyone threatening to take down the Church? SSM certainly isn’t going to do that. The biggest threat to the Church in the West has been some of its doing.
These talks are used to see whether or not it’s morally right for people to engage in these acts. That’s all. The people can choose whatever they like. They have free will. However, there is truth and there is God. We live by what God deems right and wrong.
That also means it can be made illegal again. (when we get our wits about us)
Then no word has an agreed to meaning.
Many want to take down the Church. We could probably make a very long list of people and organizations who want to. SSM is an attack on the family and on the values of God. This idealogy that it’s your body you can do anything and it’s fine is being taught in schools and is trying to erase the will of God
As an American citizen you agree to the laws we make. Murder is illegal.
So, we’re on a one-way street here to dictatorship. Helpers for the same-sex marriage cause did go door to door, and only that’s OK? Only certain groups fall under the tolerance umbrella? No, that’s not true.
It is #26 on the Communist Plank read into Congress in 1963 to take down America.
Kind of. It was a complicated situation involving adultery, marital breakdown and my father being 23 and completely unprepared to be a single parent. Please note I don’t hold it against them. My grandparents were good people and I had a good childhood, but it was pretty darned atypical. I met precisely one other kid growing up in a similar situation, and often the response was “You should be made to go back with your mother or father”, or even a “Awww, poor thing.”
My overall point is that history is filled with atypical families.
And the state and society in many jurisdictions has decided that gay parents are not harmful.
Sure I do, and I reject that it exists at all. It’s a fundamentally religious opinon, that somehow nature is imbued with a natural set of moral laws. The fact is that other than a few universal taboos like incest, societies in time and space have had wildly different moral codes. Spartans used to leave unfit infants to die of exposure, Aztecs performed human sacrifices, the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and Habsburgs had close relatives marrying each other to preserve blood lines, rights and lands, people used to get burned at the stake in the Papal States for heretical views, homosexuality was openly practiced in some Greek city states, the Ancient Hebrews used to stone adulterers, witches and rebellious children, New Guinea tribes up until very recently cannibalized their dead, pre-pubescent boys were castrated so their voice wouldn’t change, and on and on and on and on.
So, in other words, morality really is the consensus of society, and if the consensus changes, so does morality.
And yet people have done just that. Otherwise we would ban post-menopausal women from getting hitched.
Lots of things built Western Civilization. The Church played a significant part, but the bedrock was laid in Antiquity, and was further built by non-Catholics. But really, that’s just a fallacious appeal to authority. I certainly recognize my debt to the Church, but that does not extend to submitting to it.
No way. I lived through the Sexual Revolution, I found out the APA removed Homosexuality as a Disorder from the DSM in 1973 by vote, not science, and I found out about the campaign to repeal sodomy laws picking up steam in the 1960s. Why? People peeking into other peoples’ bedrooms? Boy, that was unthinkable.