Gay marriage soapbox

MG Bryan wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Thanks for hating may beliefs in a way that's at least humorous.

I don't hate them. I just think they are silly. I would give you guys wine and crackers in front of a crowd even without the tedious meetings - bastard kids and all. My club has no rules

In reply to fast_eddie_72: Repenting one's sins involves taking action to rectify the situations in cases when that is possible. You don't show up to Mass publicly displaying your lesbian relationship and expect to take part in the Eucharist.

I've seen people denied the sacraments. I got kicked out of my Confirmation class the first go around. Just because some priests don't take things a seriously as they should, doesn't change that sins are sins.

Clearly my original point was lost in my example. I say again, gay marriage is a non issue.

MG Bryan wrote: In reply to z31maniac: The serious answer according to Catholic doctrine, is that if they've had no opportunity to know Christ, that's our failure rather than theirs. Not accepting Christ after having heard the Gospels would be consider a state of sin, but it's no man's place to damn another man and I can't speak as to who is or isn't in hell.

But you ignored my point, if they haven't accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they go to hell.

If God truly loved them, why not reveal himself to them, so that his Word isn't dependent on man traveling their?

There is just far too much hypocrisy for me to digest.

I respect yours, and others beliefs, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses right to life, liberty and happiness.

In reply to z31maniac:

He's ignored a lot of points, like the judgmental priest knowing the situation was going to happen and choosing to make a public issue out of it. But clearly not making any ground on this one, so I'll let it alone. Clearly, the "right" thing is to be a jerk. I must be reading my Bible wrong.

But, to each his own. You have every right to believe what you like. Just don't ask me to support any laws that try to make your view of what's right by a religious yard stick the law of the land.

z31maniac wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: In reply to z31maniac: The serious answer according to Catholic doctrine, is that if they've had no opportunity to know Christ, that's our failure rather than theirs. Not accepting Christ after having heard the Gospels would be consider a state of sin, but it's no man's place to damn another man and I can't speak as to who is or isn't in hell.

But you ignored my point, if they haven't accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they go to hell.

I ignored nothing. Perhaps some Protestant denominations hold that, but Catholicism doesn't claim it to be the case. Refusing Christ is a sin. Christianity has always been based on a evangelism. If the Word isn't brought to someone, that isn't something that they've done wrong.

MG Bryan wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: In reply to z31maniac: The serious answer according to Catholic doctrine, is that if they've had no opportunity to know Christ, that's our failure rather than theirs. Not accepting Christ after having heard the Gospels would be consider a state of sin, but it's no man's place to damn another man and I can't speak as to who is or isn't in hell.

But you ignored my point, if they haven't accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they go to hell.

I ignored nothing. Perhaps some Protestant denominations hold that, but Catholicism doesn't claim it to be the case. *Refusing* Christ is a sin. Christianity has always been based on a evangelism. If the Word isn't brought to someone, that isn't something that they've done wrong.

So, according to Catholicism, are they damned or not?

z31maniac wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: In reply to z31maniac: The serious answer according to Catholic doctrine, is that if they've had no opportunity to know Christ, that's our failure rather than theirs. Not accepting Christ after having heard the Gospels would be consider a state of sin, but it's no man's place to damn another man and I can't speak as to who is or isn't in hell.

But you ignored my point, if they haven't accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they go to hell.

I ignored nothing. Perhaps some Protestant denominations hold that, but Catholicism doesn't claim it to be the case. *Refusing* Christ is a sin. Christianity has always been based on a evangelism. If the Word isn't brought to someone, that isn't something that they've done wrong.

So, according to Catholicism, are they damned or not?

Lames as you might think it is, the official answer is that we can't say. I'd bet not, but I like to think there aren't many souls spending eternity separated from God.

It's not a sin to have never heard to Gospel though.

Not saying it is, but I was raised and baptized in an Episcopal church...........as I mentioned earlier, I was taught, right or wrong, you had to accept Christ as your saviour, otherwise your screwed.

Doesn't matter much to me either way. As long as those who hold religion dear, don't try to make others adhere to their own beliefs, I don't care.

Unfortunately, too many times, that isn't the case.

MG Bryan wrote: It's not a sin to have never heard to Gospel though.

I'd consider it a blessing.

Bottom line - the churches' view (any church) should be irrelevant to policy on the matter. Any two human people (odd that I have to specify) or groups of them should be able to berkeley each other in any way they see fit and declare themselves a union as long as it is advantageous for any pair to do so. Fair is fair. Hamsters and all.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: It's not a sin to have never heard to Gospel though.

I'd consider it a blessing. Bottom line - the churches' view (any church) should be irrelevant to policy on the matter. Any two human people (odd that I have to specify) or groups of them should be able to berkeley each other in any way they see fit and declare themselves a union as long as it is advantageous for any pair to do so. Fair is fair. Hamsters and all.

You'd have to believe in God (or at least some diety) for anything to be a blessing though, wouldn't you?

Oddly enough, I sort of agree with you, because I don't think there really needs to be a policy on the matter. I do think there should a policy to prevent them from killing babies if they make them, but that's another can of worms entirely.

N Sperlo wrote:

Just as the Mormon Church was forced to abandon polygamy when the Federal government prohibited it, the Catholic church could be forced to consider gays equally for employment, or offer insurance benefits for gay family members of church employees, etc.

Why shouldn't gays be considered equally for employment. Its employment, not membership. If they want to employ they damn well better offer insurance to everyone and their families regardless of being gay or straight. Weather they let them celebrate church is up to them. They can be as big of an shiny happy person as they want.

Right. There are a lot of tenets of Islam that I don't follow. If I'm going to have premarital sex, eat pork, never pray to mecca, and wear low riding board shorts at the beach they have every right to deny me membership as a member. But it would be messed up to say that I can't have a job as a janitor or a bookkeeper there because I like bacon and beer. They're welcome to say I need to not bring a ham sandwich to lunch and require me to keep my shirt on while there but wouldn't have a right to say that I can't do those things when I'm not there.

So as long as homosexuals aren't making out in the church or having gay sex in the rectory (hehe hehe), doesn't seem like a reason not to hire them. What someone does outside of work hours isn't their employer's business.

SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Since neither one of us is a Constitutional lawyer, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd still love to see the "Gay Amendment".

???? I'm not talking about a gay amendment.

The individual is granted rights, and laws are written around those rights. Just like the first amendmant give the churches the right to form and worhsip as they see fit (within reason, as it turns out) without government invervetion.

Church rights = individual rights

And since gays are individuals, they have the same rights as everyone else.

Let's flip the question around...

Why are religions so up tight about the word Marriage?

It's not as if any of them actually do anything with the word, other than say "you are XXX under God YYY"... And they don't actually have to recognize marriages done in other churches, since it really doesn't mean anything.

If someone gets married by people who worship Ra, the Sun God, and then walk into a Catholic Church- the church doesn't really have to recognize that part of the marriage. Perhaps they get turned away at mass, but since they don't check cards at mass, that's not going to happen. Maybe people get pressured to have kids for that religion, but realistically, outside of being excommunicated from a church, religion has no real power over marriage anyway.

Seriously- when religions all over the place allow people to get married in what is clearly a sham wedding, I don't see how that puts any importance on the word marriage that's a big deal.

In terms of laws- inheritance, visitation, insurance coverage, etc- chruches has zero stake. And since governements all over the country have called the joining of two people Marriage- it's now a legal term. I can get legally married with zero intervention of the church.

Perhaps it's time that religions step back and find other words that are important and relevant to keep. They sure have not done a great job protecting the word marriage in their eyes.

alfa, you are dead on the money. The unfortunate thing is organized religion is no going to let go of the word easily. That's why I say 'take baby steps'. Actually, osterkraut's idea to dump the word 'marriage' entirely for EVERYONE and replace it with 'civil union' makes the most sense.

But people do not make sense. Period.

So gay groups are demanding 'marriage' basically because they know it pisses off the religious groups and those groups are pushing back because they have a somewhat antiquated view of the term. Not to mention it's a convenient hot button issue to help with fundraising. So no one wins but there's a lot of whooping and hollering.

As with so many things, the truth is not at the fringes but is somewhere in the middle.

Polygamy: hell no that shouldn't be legal. Damn, I can't keep one woman happy. I can't imagine living with 4 or 5 with 'their cousin' visiting on a rotating basis. I'd never come out of the garage. (ducks rain of broken bottles, bricks etc)

mad_machine wrote: Give it up.. if it is not hurting anybody or anything.. let it be. Let them get married and be just as miserable as the rest of the people

But then they will have to find another name, because they will no longer be "gay".

mguar wrote: Sorry I'm late to this discussion.. God gave us 10 commandments.. None of them have anything to do with homosexuality.. On the other hand Moses told us not to be homosexual.. and 430 other commandments.. Like it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery and you can't play football on Sunday (touching the skin of an unclean animal) Look at what God thought of Moses. God refused to let Moses enter the promised land.. Moral of the story? Don't tell others what to do..

alfadriver wrote:

SVreX wrote: Gay groups DO NOT have similar recognition at the Federal level. There is not a Gay Freedom Amendment, in fact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations DO NOT cover complaints involving sexual orientation. The EEOC regulations protect against harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age; There is NOT a federal recognition of homosexuality (or ANY sexuality) as protected group or class of people. I know this is unpopular, but I don't write the rules.

Not true. Very not true.

You have said my statement is not true, but you have not shown any evidence. Just your opinion.

I actually agree with your opinion to some extent, but I am not referring to anyone's opinion. I am referring to the existing Federal laws.

Please show me where the EEOC regs have been modified, or where any group or individual is protected based on sexual preference, orientation, activities, etc. I'd be happy to be shown that I am incorrect.

The Federal Government does not grant marital rights or status to anyone.

Even Ron Paul agrees!

Ron Paul said: Legally, Congressman Paul has noted that marriage is not an issue for the federal government. While not in office at the time of the vote, Congressman Paul has stated that he would not support an amendment to define marriage as that is not a function of the federal government. In keeping with his views on federalism, Congressman Paul supports the Marriage Protection Act. This legislation ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: There was recently a news report of about how awful a priest in the area was for refusing to give a lesbian communion during her mother's funeral service. I'm of the opinion that the priest in question should be applauded for his integrity.

Exactly! After all, Jesus was well known for turning away sinners. Hard-core, that Jesus. Never cut anyone any slack. I heard one time they were going to stone a woman accused of adultery and Jesus said something like "I am without sin so I get to cast the first stone!"

He was single, had a posse of 12 dudes that "studied under him", his best friend was a whore and he wanted all men to love him. I don't think I'm out of line pointing out that he might fit a certain demographic. I even hear tell he rode the ass a few times.

HAHAHAHA. You owe me a keyboard.

In reply to SVreX:

Ok, on a Consitutional basis, the 14th amendment pretty clearly outlines personal freedoms-

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, Churches have rights to exist, and government can't infringe on that. But individuals have rights, and they shall be equal for all people, in every state.

For those individual freedoms, it does not say race, religion, sexual orientation, sex, whatever- ALL citizens get the same rights and accesses to the laws.

The Federal Government may not grant the rights, but states do. And each state has certain laws that apply ONLY to those who are married- visitation, succession, housing, ownership. etc. And the 14th amendment clearly states that a state can not grant laws that don't apply to ALL citizens.

ANY means all, as in everyone, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion- since no distinction was made, it means every single person.

Is that better?

SVreX wrote: Even Ron Paul agrees!

Ron Paul said: Legally, Congressman Paul has noted that marriage is not an issue for the federal government. While not in office at the time of the vote, Congressman Paul has stated that he would not support an amendment to define marriage as that is not a function of the federal government. In keeping with his views on federalism, Congressman Paul supports the Marriage Protection Act. This legislation ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

While Ron Paul likes to play the States Rights card a lot, he clearly misses the 14th Amendment, which is pretty clear that you can't have laws that don't apply to all citizens equally. States can regulate marriage, sure. But they also can't deny it to specific parts of it's citizenship.

SVreX wrote: Even Ron Paul agrees!

Ron Paul said: Legally, Congressman Paul has noted that marriage is not an issue for the federal government. While not in office at the time of the vote, Congressman Paul has stated that he would not support an amendment to define marriage as that is not a function of the federal government. In keeping with his views on federalism, Congressman Paul supports the Marriage Protection Act. This legislation ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

Which only leads me to believe the whole republican party is so far off base, they will lose even more power as elections continue.

Still, I don't see what's the big deal about the word Marriage to religions. They don't do a good job at doing anything about it, can't really do anything if "normal" people they disagree with get married. And they do a great job of making a real mockery of marriage- letting people get married endlessly, or marrying people in church weddings who will break up within weeks.... It's not as if churches really take marriage all that seriously, anyway.

Why is it such a big deal to churches?

alfadriver wrote: Why is it such a big deal to churches?

Followers must be selectively bred. If your brand isn't out-breeding the others then your decedents might end up thinking too much. Next thing you know... it's all ass berkeleying and minorities using your bathrooms!

alfadriver wrote: While Ron Paul likes to play the States Rights card a lot, he clearly misses the 14th Amendment, which is pretty clear that you can't have laws that don't apply to all citizens equally. States can regulate marriage, sure. But they also can't deny it to specific parts of it's citizenship.

He doesn't miss it. I think he'd want to repeal it.