Pretending to be a husband or wife is perjury, falsehood, in a court of law. A fake husband, a fake wife precipitates a fake culture, a conterfeit society. The falsehood of homosexual practice denies the human being’s soul, redefining the creation and existence of mankind, the human race, our nation. This is exactly what “Roe” did. “Roe” told the man that his seed and offspring was not to be acknowledged and protected by law because the child had no soul. If the Supreme Court Justices perjure themselves at the Court, they lie.

and yes, our founding principles define our human species as having been created and endowed by “their Creator with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty”. Individuals who claim to have no soul, that is, atheists, have no legal right to enter into court to exercise their God-given unalienable rights, for this is perjury. Endowed, unalienable rights are endowed into the rational, immortal human soul by God, our Maker. Government gives us citizenship, nothing else, though I would add.

Sovereign personhood is created by God and endowed into the human soul by God.

Wake up, Catholic Inc., are you aware of the “reason” in a federal court of law for defending your precious, discriminatory, marriage bans? According to the lead attorney defending proposition 8, he stated that marriage facilitates “responsible pro-creation”. I won’t attempt to unpack how absurd and genital focused this waste-of-time argument is. Personally, I think you’re all pathetic bigots, and can’t wait until you lose your power and control over my private life.

Notice what we’re up against, what twisted show elegantly displayed. Hate. We’re up against pure hate, and anti-christian servitude. We must always remember, Christ didn’t promise us popularity. He promised us hate and persecution from those our fallen and disgusting culture calls “right and popular”.

I think the courts will rule against laws resembling sharia law.

Sorry, Twist, but the truths of humanity are on the side of the Catholic Church. Gay marriage is a lie, an affront to nature and its God given laws. Your gay marriage platform is built on a foundation of sodomy which is against nature, and of lies. Stop living in a cesspool of lies and sin, it is obvious from your hateful posting your gay lifestyle does not bring you true peace.  I will hope and pray for your conversion.

Traditional, Biblical marriage is between one man and as many women as he can afford. Why are we not advocating a return to “traditional” marriage?

I suspect, the SCOTUS would rule at minumum that where it is currently legal, it would not be overturned due to the confusion of disolving so many contract/marriages.  If they ruled that way, it would force a 14th ammendment issue because people of one state would be treated differently than others.

So, one of 3 things, 1. Kick the can and not take the case.  2.  Make SSM illegal and throw out the current marriages. 3.  Make SSM legal and a constitutional right similar to white/black marriage voiding all non SSM laws.

Gonna be interesting.

As a Catholic heterosexual, the bigotry and ignorance spewed forth in this article embarrasses me.

Matt, get ready, because Kennedy is not a conservative justice. He is a libertarian justice. Libertarians tend to do with marriage what they do with abortion.

Very thought provoking article!  I’m not sure if you are being humerous or it is just a typo, but it is justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not Ruth Vader Ginsburg.  :)

This reinforces why this upcoming election is so vitally important!  I am praying that Pres. Obama is NOT re-elected.

Posted by Rick on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 7:19 AM (EST):Traditional, Biblical marriage is between one man and as many women as he can afford. Why are we not advocating a return to “traditional” marriage?”
*********************************
I think you may be posing this question to the wrong audience.Christ already answered your question, as recorded in the Gospel of St Matthew,Ch.19, I think.
But in a non-Christian way, you do have a point.Muslims & break-away LDS folk would agree.They already practise polygamy in the US but under the radar.
Actually from a libertarian view there’s no valid reason to have the govt. involved in marriage, or who or how many can enter into a marriage.
But from a Catholic/Christian viewpoint, there’s a clear answer.One man & one woman.

@Twist,
We don’t have power over your private life, and I suspect few if any of us want any control over your private life.  But marriage is not part of your private life.  Marriage is by definition a public act.  To be considered married by both the Church and the State you need to have your marriage recorded publicly.  The marriage has to be witnessed by someone other than the couple.  Historically, contracts would be drawn up before the marriage between the families of the couple.  Further, when married, people tend to publicly identify their spouses in a way they might never identify someone they are just dating.  In other words, not private, rather very public.  Indeed, unless you happen to have a religious world view (i.e., believe sex outside of marriage is wrong), there are no benefits to marriage unless the marriage is public!

The importance of marriage with respect to procreation is so strong that even today the vast majority of people will presume that if a couple is married when a child is conceived, that the husband is the father.  It has only been recently where the concept of having children out of wedlock was even considered socially acceptable (despite the many negative consequences to the children).

The definition of marriage as existing between a man and a woman is not discrimination (at least not in the sense that you mean), rather it is the very definition of marriage.

I don’t think they’ll look at SS “marriage” as they did with abortion in Roe. The standard already used for at least the CA law is the rational std. Unless the SC justices radically change the standard of review from the decisions of the lower courts, they won’t overturn every law, just the specific ones before them. (Roe was decided under strict scrutiny review for “fundamental right” determination. The standard for abortion now is undue burden (PP v. Casey in 90’s), not for fund. right.)

As Maryland Bill points out, Twist already has control over his private life.  If Twist wants to play house with his SSM partner, there is nothing to stop him.  What Twist wants is for everyone else to concede publicly that his playing house is real house.  That is Twist imposing his private view on the rest of us.  Which is one thing, I suppose, if it is done by democratic means - if the majority of the electorate wants to go down that path, there’s not much that can be done about it.  But it is a completly different beast when imposed by the robed ones.  BTW, it only takes five justices, not nine, to impose a view.

Mr. Archibald,

Your argument assumes that it is appropriate for an issue like gay marriage to be decided democratically.  If this were true, then segregation would still be the norm in many southern states.  The opposition claims that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.  As such they argue it is inappropriate to put such an issue to a vote, because popular bigotry and discrimination would be enshrined in the law.

Now my guess is that you would take issue with their claim that gay men and women have any sort of civil right to marriage.  But notice that this is entirely a separate question.  Whether or not they have a such a civil right is entirely a constitutional question which is most appropriately interpreted by our federal judiciary whose it has been since the Marshall court.  That said regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with you about the moral implications of gay marriage, you’re argument against the appropriateness of the supreme court making the final decision is entirely incorrect.

Everyone posting here seems to be unaware(or perhaps conveniently “forgetting”) that marriage has been defined in many different ways in different cultures and at different times.  Even if we consider only the region that is now the USA and the last 200 years, look at the diversity - in both marriage and gender roles - that existed in some Native American cultures.  If you want to find out more, you can google “two spirit” or the(now generally avoided)term “berdache”. To put it simply, marriage has NOT always been understood as being between a man and a woman.  Those who make such a claim are just plain wrong.

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in Gonzalez v Carhart upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortion.  However, he also wrote the opinion striking down CO’s law against recognizing special rights for homosexuals in Romer v Evans.  He also wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas that homosexual sodomy between consenting adults is protected by the Constitution.  However in the same opinion he went out of his way to say that this opinion had nothing to do with marriage.  I think it is difficult to predict how he will come out on marriage.

I think DOMA should be upheld because the United States doesn’t have to recognize a state definition of marriage as long as not doing so is not a violation of due process.  Since marriage until recently was defined as a union of a man and woman, then the Court would have to hold by implication that the legal recognition of this definition has been a violation of substantive due process for the entire history of Western civilization.  That seems absurd to me.

This article exemplifies the reasons I am a former Catholic. The ignorance and twisted logic displayed are mind-boggling. I have yet to hear or read one good reason for denying a civil right to a whole class of people. I wish someone could tell me how allowing homosexuals the right to civil marriage in any way affects heterosexuals or heterosexual marriage. I am not advocating that Catholics embrace gay marriage as a sacrament; I am only saying that the civil right to a legal marriage should not be withheld because of the type of prejudice displayed in this abhorrent article.

Sing together:

Roe, Roe, Roe. We vote!
Family rights we scream!
Equally, equally, equally, equally,
Civil marriage our dream!

Dear Catholics,
Less than one third of Americans are Catholic. We do not share your beliefs about abortion or same-sex marriage, and we don’t want your beliefs in our laws. Don’t like abortion-don’t have one!
Don’t like marrying someone of the same sex-Please don’t!!! But don’t keep us from our American civil rights, please, please, please.
Thanks,
Kate O’Hanlan, MD

Twist and Robert Paul Dean:

How about the government getting out of the business of marriage entirely and establishing civil partnerships, which need not be defined by a sexual relationship?

So you want to take away civil marriage from all the rest of America and make all people heterosexual and homosexual enter into “civil unions” just so you can feel more sacred with your M-word?
I am sure all of non-catholic America will LOVE THAT?
But tell me: why do you feel this need to keep same-sex couples from having that marriage word??? Why are straight people so much more special?

Would you not want your most precious and intimate commitment for life recognized with that M-word, even if you were not catholic?

To answer the question raised by the article:  No, the Supreme Court will not “Roe” marriage equality; it will “Loving” it.

Posted by Dave Pawlak on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012 1:29 PM (EST):Twist and Robert Paul Dean:

How about the government getting out of the business of marriage entirely and establishing civil partnerships, which need not be defined by a sexual relationship?”
******************
Good point.

While Anonymous is correct to point out that the courts are primarily the traditional defenders of rights AGAINST the will of democratic majorities which want to take them away, he is ignoring the controversial nature of the history of the court’s making up rights that the Founders never dreamed would be considered to be rights, since they have no basis in the traditional understanding of natural law with which the Founders were familiar, in which rights have a basis in Nature and Nature’s God.  For example, the right to abortion.

If there is one thing that is clear, it is that no Founder would have imagined that homosexual marriage had a basis in Nature or, a fortiori,  was ratified by Nature’s God; and therefore, that it could ever be called a right, would have been in their view, a complete abomination.

Therefore, if you want to make up NEW rights which have no basis in Nature or Nature’s God, then, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many, including the Archbolds, under the American system, you SHOULD have the approval of a democratic majority first.  It is wrong that a court should be able to create such legal rights out of whole cloth without any reference to what the rest of the people think about their doing so.

For those of you that think differently, let me ask you this: would you be happy if the Court decided that, for instance, every prisoner has the right to be free after only 10 years in prison, because more than 10 years in jail is cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment, and thus a violation of American prisoners’ rights?  What if the Court were to say, all people have the right to walk around naked in public, because they have the right to freedom of expression?  Or, the government cannot prevent citizens from owning nuclear weapons, because that is a violation of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms?

Should the Court be able to decide that these things are rights, and should the electorate have no say in the matter?  If not, then, neither should you be able to tell us that marriage, until this time defined as a union of man and woman, must be redefined by the Court, without consulting the electorate first.

So, which lefty rag picked this post up?

Alito is solid. He won’t cave, he was furious over Obamacare. Scalia and Thomas are locks, too.  We thought we had only one squish, now we know we have two. I’d be more worried of Kennedy in this case than Roberts, I think Roberts has earned his accolades and advanced the secular agenda more than any other decision in the past 50 years, he can comfortably retire back to being conservative again.

For the gay crowd and their fellow travelers: no matter how much approbation you get from government, the culture, the world, etc., it won’t achieve what you want, which is to be over the heart wreck caused by that still small voice you can never quite silence, that speaks to you when you are calm.  You’ve tried, but you can never totally drown it out.  And it drives you mad. So you become more frantic in your efforts to kill it with drugs, sex, alcohol, etc…..and yet the voice remains. So you rant and rave in public and lash out in hate at those that council you to listen to that voice…but that doesn’t help. Nothing helps, until you do start to listen to that voice, repent, and amend your life.

That is my experience, and the experience of millions of others. It is the tragedy of our times that we shall soon be violently persecuted for the Truth - but the tragedy is not ours. It is yours. In persecuting, in crushing the Church, in destroying morality, you will think you have won, but you will have lost…..everything.

There’s no “Roe” about it.  It’s going to happen, no matter how many constructionists are on the Court, because it’s explicitly laid out in the Constitution: The Full Faith and Credit Clause. 

If it’s legally recognized in one state (and, sadly, it is) the force of law requires that it be recognized by all other states—the only reason that hasn’t happened so far is because no one’s pushed it yet, and that’s only a matter of time.

A Federal Marriage Amendment is the only way out of this mess.

Tantum blogo: here here.

LV: not necessarily.  If one state defines marriage as being between a cow and a pasture, do the other states have to recognize that definition and give cows and pastures the same rights they give to a man and woman married in that state, just because both states use the same word ‘marriage’?

Definitions matter to courts.  They are often inclined to look beyond form to substance.

This is precisely why the separation of church and state exists! Do not mistake this as hatred toward the Catholic Church as I love my fellow parishoners and the parish to which I belong. 

Churches, you do not want to marry and bless a couple, there is NO LAW stating that you have to.  In fact, the 1st amendment to the US Constitution explicity forbids congress from doing so and, despite your love/ hate relationship with the 14th Amendment, state legislatures cannot either. Likewise, these amendments prevent the government from enforcing a certain religious beliefs on the people. That is the ROE decision.  Like it or not Catholics the very laws that protected your ancestors when they came to this country are the same laws your are attacking today. I implore you to read your history.

Ms DaVoe, first our laws are based on a liberal (small “L”) view which is basically a government hands off private lives.  Yet I am certain based on your comments and many other sympathizers here that you do not believe that. You want government to limit what people can do in their own homes behind closed doors. Got news for you, many “good” Catholics are married and cheating or committing other indiscretions behind closed doors; what business is it of yours?? 

Someone posted that marriage is a public act.  Not true.  If it is public, can you say that I am married?  I certainly do not know if you are married, mostly because I really DON’T CARE. Why? Well, regardless your marital status, it DOES NOT AFFECT ME OR MY LIFE ONE IOTA.  Outside of church, when does marriage comes up in life? During CIVIL contracts like mortgages, health care proxies and wills.  So marriage is more of an economic institution. And since you do not like the government running economic institutions,why on earth are you so insistant that government rule over marriages?

An abandonment of democratic principles Mr Archibold? Has the Catholic Church become a bastion of democracy all of a sudden?

What fear-mongering in Archibold’s opinion, with pleas to tradition, history and popularity too!  The question for government is:  what is the significant civil interest in prohibiting two consenting adults of the same gender from establishing a legal family?  That is, what good reasons are there to deny them the legal status of spouse when that’s how they structure their own lives?  The arguments of BLAG based on a rational basis test have been rejected:  tradition, saving money, and encouraging heterosexual procreation, as nonsensical or impermissible. “Because I find them icky” is not even a rational basis.  I should remind you that such rationales were given to reject Catholic job applicants last century -  no Catholics or dogs need apply.

I hope the SCOTUS Judges do the same as they did with Roe!!!

The world keeps getting better and better, and bringing same sex marriage is just more proof of that fact!

@starzec, no, I don’t know whether you are married, but, in large part that is because you choose to hide your identity here (as to some extent I do).  Marriage is a matter of public record.  That you do not care about my marital status nor I yours does not change the fact that it is a public act.  I could have conceivably hid my previous relationships from my wife if I had chosen to.  I cannot hide the existence of my wife from anyone who chooses to try and find out. 
—
Why are we fighting for marriage?  Believe it or not, it is not because we hate homosexuals (at least not for me, I could care less if someone is gay).  It is because we see the erosion of marriage and its negative impact on people, most especially children who lack the security that married parents provided them in the past. 
—
@Linda, with respect, just because other cultures in the past have had relationships that might have existed outside the norm of what we consider marriage does not mean that they were a good idea.

Marco:

<i>tradition, saving money, and encouraging heterosexual procreation, as nonsensical or impermissible.</i

If you consider procreation an insufficient reason, then I contend that any sexual relationship is not needed for a civil union/partnership.  Why not a partnership between two siblings?  Or a lone parent and only child?  Or two platonic friends who choose to share expenses?  Again, the only answer is to not have the government define marriage at all, get out of the matter entirely, and establish partnerships for any two consenting adults, regardless of relationship.

God brought Eve to Adam and Adam consentd to Eve as: “Flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone” God brought only Eve and Adam accepted only Eve, nor did Adam ask for another or a third. Eve satisfied Adam’s need for a helpmate. So multiple husbands or wives are superfluous and not supported by the Sacred Scripture. As for fake husbands and fake wives or fake mothers or fake fathers, it is important to know that when these issues become public domain the fakeness become perjury in a court of law.

Devoe: keep your interpretation of your bible to yourself.

Everybody has an opinion about same-sex marriage, but what does the scientific research reveal about the health and welfare of children and families in same-sex marriages?????
Rather than make gay rights a popularity contest, lets ask America’s best experts on family, mental health and children what the research shows is best for all American families. From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation; homosexual relationships are normal relationships.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children have endorsed civil marriage/adoption for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental, physical health and longevity of couples, and having two parents (of any gender) provides greater health, legal/financial security for children. Research confirms that children develop perfectly normally. Even the American Academy of Anthropology has issued a policy statement that says access to civil marriage by same-sex couples will not harm our social order. Visit the websites of these non-partisan, national professional and certifying associations for their policy statements.
If we don’t listen to professional experts on national family health and welfare, then we are simply voting our religious beliefs or personal bias into state and federal laws, and harming the families of gay and lesbian couples, especially those with children.

It’s a mistake to think marriage is an individual “right”; it’s deeply (as we’ve seen) connected to the fabric of society, and society has an interest in ensuring that marriages work for this and the next generation.

I disagree with the homosexuals chiming in here: hey, what you’re doing is simply UNNATURAL—-get used to it. Stop the sodomy, stop the abuse of your body and mind.

The above individual knows not what he speaks.

Research reveals variable hormonal levels in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy permanently affect child’s neural circuitry for sexual orientation and gender identity to express on a spectrum between straight and gay, same or opposite gender. A little extra testosterone secreted from the adrenals during early pregnancy affects the baby girls’ brains causing nearly half to be lesbian, a tenth to be transgender. Also, a girl twin baby simply sharing the womb with a boy co-twin, in which some of his testosterone from his amniotic fluid gets into her blood, causes about one fifth of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports, and thus the stereotype.
The opposite is also true: a bit less testosterone than usual in a boy’s blood during early pregnancy can make him gay or transgender. If a boy’s mother has delivered many older brothers before him, which caused her to make blocking antibody to his male proteins, resulting in about one fifth of boys with many older brothers being gay. Many of these boys have phonation, gait, physiology and linguistic and visual arts skills slightly more like girls, and thus the stereotype.
Most homosexuals and most heterosexuals believe that they had no choice to be how they are because they were born on the far ends of the spectrum. They can firmly claim they were “born that way.” But, for some straight and gay folks, it WAS and IS definitely a choice for them because they were born closer to the middle of the biological spectrum between straight and gay: they are simply bisexual. Their orientations don’t change from straight to gay when they date different genders, they simply have brain wiring that attracts them to both.
All orientations are hard-wired prenatally and none can change it. It is all biological and innocent, and not contagious or changeable.

Kate O’Hanlan,
Seriously, those “professionals” caved to pressure.You can find many physicians who support abortion & euthanasia now, instead of protecting life.What does that tell you about accepting “professional” opinion as gospel?
I looked at the American College of Pediatrics site expecting to find the same baloney & was actually surprised to see they think outside the popular culture box.There’s some good reading there.

Hard to believe we homosexuals snookered all the below professional associations to actually betray the children of America!!!

Seriously, please go to their websites and see how their policy statements are all based on quality research that has been peer-reviewed.

American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/sexual_orientation_gender_identity_and_civil_rights

American Psychiatric Association
http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200502.pdf

American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/gay-marriage.pdf

American Academy of Pediatrics
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

National Association of Social Workers
http://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/lgb/062804.asp

American Anthropological Association
http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm

Child Welfare League of America
http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm

North American Council on Adoptable Children
http://www.nacac.org/policy/lgbtq.html

American Psychoanalytic Association
http://www.apsa.org/ABOUTAPSAA/POSITIONSTATEMENTS/MARRIAGERESOLUTION/tabid/470/Default.aspx

The Personification of God’s Divine Justice is Who Justices are. Human, mortal and finite justice is miscarriage of justice. Unless Justices act in persona JUSTICE, the perfect Justice of God, people will not be given the truth. “What is truth?” Pilate asked. “Truth is what I say it is” Pilate answered. “Who is truth?” “Truth is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity”. The atheist, created and endowed with unalienable rights came into court and told the court that God offended her. The abortionist, created and endowed by God with unalienable rights to life told the court that unborn life offended her. The homosexual practitioner, created and endowed with unalienable rights by “their Creator” told the court that God got it wrong. Relying on Divine Providence, on the laws of nature and nature’s God, to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our constitutional posterity, our founding fathers’ principles, the right to truth, Justice and the American Way is found only in God.  Individuals who will not adhere to our founding principles are free to go elsewhere.

Kate,
Show me the position those organizations hold on abortion & euthanasia & that will give me a better idea of their legitimacy.

Have no idea, Kathleen.

Dr. O’Hanlan:

All orientations are hard-wired prenatally and none can change it. It is all biological and innocent, and not contagious or changeable.

Then please explain Julie Cypher, Anne Heche, and Jon Moss (from Culture Club - Boy George’s former partner, now married to a woman and a dad).

Helllloooooooo!
Read the sentence right before:
But, for some straight and gay folks, it WAS and IS definitely a choice for them because they were born closer to the middle of the biological spectrum between straight and gay: they are simply bisexual. Their orientations don’t change from straight to gay when they date different genders, they simply have brain wiring that attracts them to both.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/will-the-supreme-court-roe-gay-marriage#ixzz2AFt5rFuu

So you want to take away civil marriage from all the rest of America and make all people heterosexual and homosexual enter into “civil unions” just so you can feel more sacred with your M-word?

No, I think that the government should be out of the marriage business entirely.  I also contend that two siblings, a lone parent and child, or two platonic friends should have the right to enter into a civil partnership.  Why define it by sexual relationship alone?

I am sure all of non-catholic America will LOVE THAT?

I don’t think most of America cares, one way or the other. 

But tell me: why do you feel this need to keep same-sex couples from having that marriage word??? Why are straight people so much more special?

Would you not want your most precious and intimate commitment for life recognized with that M-word, even if you were not catholic?

If you want to consider yourself married, then fine.  If you want to have it recognized in a ceremony of some sort, there are plenty of mainstream Protestant ministers and Reformed/Reconstructionist rabbis available to officiate.  That’s a personal and cultural thing.  But as far as the civil realm goes, were I to have my way, your civil partnership would be on an equal footing with any other two individuals who choose likewise, be they homosexual, heterosexual, or nonsexual (siblings or other relations, platonic friends, business partners, etc.). 

Kate O’Hanlan, you conclude too much from your facts.  While there is definitely a correlation between prenatal hormone levels and lifestyle choices later in life, there is no showing of absolute causation.  It would be more correct to say that prenatal hormone levels are a factor in predicting lifestyle choices.

If one half of female children in the womb who receive extra testosterone become lesbians, why don’t the other half become lesbians too?  While it might be possible, we certainly do not know yet if these prenatal hormones cause permanent ‘hard-wiring’ changes in the brain which forever after CAUSE certain people to prefer same sex to opposite sex.  At best we can say these incidences CORRELATE with a predilection in SOME people for same sex attraction.  We do not know if—or in the event causation were to be shown, HOW, they cause those predilections; nor do we know if these predilections are reversible.

But, let us assume arguendo what has not yet been proven: that predilections of one kind or another are determined entirely at birth, by prenatal hormone levels, or other genetic factors yet to be determined: WHY should we redefine marriage to be able to accommodate the facilitation and normalization of what you must admit is, in any event [and by this I mean no disrespect to anyone who is this way] a tendency caused by biological abnormalities and biologically abnormal development?

What if there were shown to be a biological explanation for the preference of certain people to sleep in the middle of the street.  Say, this made them happy.  They couldn’t be happy otherwise.  Would we have the right to prevent them from sleeping in the middle of the street?

You say there is no countervailing interest in the case of allowing homosexuals to call themselves married.  We think there is.  And we can make the case that there is an interest in society preventing the proliferation and normalization of mortal sins.  It weakens the family, it weakens the moral senses.  These things are the bases of civilization, which is more basic than law or legal rights.  The latter depend on the former for the possiblity of their existence.

In addition to the countervailing moral interest there is also the interest in maintaing a democratic polity, which I argued above.

I acknowledge that I missed the paragraph.  However, there are more questions:

1)  How would you explain the attitude of LUG (Lesbian until Graduation)or, for that matter the ancient Greek practice of pederasty, which was considered a phase which a young man was expected to grow out of?

2)  How do you explain middle aged men and women who identify with one orientation, have some sort of crisis, and then declare they’re gay/straight?  The most famous example of this is Gene Robinson, the former Episcopalian Bishop of New Hampshire.  I also know of another minister who, at the beginning of her pastorate, identified as a lesbian.  When she left, she was married to a man.  The engagement and marriage came completely out of the blue.  Were these people in denial of their wiring?  Or did something happen that rewired them?

3)  There’s also the matter of someone who is “Bicurious”, who may or may not like the results of their experimentation.  Is this also due to wiring, or perhaps they are just finding another way of getting their jollies?

I ask not to mock or belittle, but out of a spirit of inquiry…

@Kate O’Hanlan, MD: The American Psychiatric Association had diagnosed homosexuality as a case of arrested development. All people go through homosexual attraction during puberty. Some persons grow out of it and some are hung up in it. Homosexuality it appears is a hang-up. Under pressure from the North American Man Boy Love Assn., and futher from B4UACT, the American Psychiatric Association and the Court, especially in Baltimore, Md. are being pressured and have changed the diagnosis to “normal”. Especially pernicious is the fact that infant children do not have informed sexual consent to give to crimes of abuse, are not emancipated and cannot defend themselves. That the court would not protect our infant, minor children and that adults are so unhinged as to even attempt such monstrous behavior against children is dispicable. As a doctor, you, Kate O’Hanlan ought to be familiar with these events. The curtailing of our posterity’s freedom, codifying the redefinition of the human being as having no soul, the vice of lust as the virtue of love, imposing disordered behavior on our culture. How is this freedom?

Actually, there is NO EVIDENCE of any postnatal causes of homosexuality.

Why half of girls born with male co-twins are lesbian?? Isn’t 25 times the normal rate of homosexuality enough of an effect???????

WHY should we redefine marriage to be able to accommodate the facilitation and normalization of a tendency caused by biological abnormalities and biologically abnormal development?
Because we are normal humans who are steeped in the same traditions of love, marriage, respect for family. Because we want our children to feel like they are part of a family that is also cherished by society like yours already is.
And, we are not abnormal, just one end of the spectrum of all sexual orientation. No orientation is abnormal. We all have one.

Your next question is too silly.
Your mortal sin is not a sin in the eyes of 90% of America. Keep your religion private and out of our laws.
Homosexuality is not immoral, really.

Dave, I get your kind questions: folks who are in the middle of the sexual orientation spectrum don’t have to change their wiring when they date one gender and later the other, they are hard-wired to be attracted to both: bicurious or LUG. The Greeks tolerated adult men getting sex from younger men, despite their relations to women. Absent cultural disapproval of adultery and homosexuality, today’s males may be more prone to same, but that does not make them gay. eg Senator Craig (airport bathrooms) and Rev. Ted Haggard (drugs, male prostitute) do not identify as gay. (And we are glad!)

We are all raised to be heterosexual, and we all think we are, for as long as possible, until our innermost impulses finally become so strong and clear telling us that we are simply not purely hetero.

De Voe is out of touch with everything, including reality. Nothing there is accurate.

Kate O’Hanlan: Marriage, the “M” word as you say, consists in two sovereign persons consenting to the covenant. Church and state witness to their consent. On a desert island without witnesses, the couple’s consent is valid. Homosexuals are not asking for the church and the state to witness, homosexuals are demanding that the church and the state legalize their consent. The church and the state cannot legalize their consent if the homosexuals cannot make it a marriage. Again, the church and state only witness to what is there. If marriage is not there to what may I ask is the church and the state witnessing to? If homosexuals want the Sacrament of Matrimony, they have to live up to the requirements. If homosexuals want the civil state of matrimony they have to live up to the requirements. The homosexual agenda is to change and obliterate the requirements.

We are not asking for your sacrament. We are not catholic.
Keep your religion out of my state laws.
All we want is civil marriage, a civil license from the state, solemnified by a justice of the peace, or by another religion that does not like to discriminate.
We are not asking Catholics to recognize our marriages, just to please, please stop trying to insert your beliefs into the laws of our country. Catholics are welcome to keep discriminating!

“All we want is civil marriage, a civil license from the state, solemnified by a justice of the peace, or by another religion that does not like to discriminate.”
Let me get this straight: You want a license “solemnified” that a fake husband is a real husband?

@Kate:

There is NO evidence of post-natal causes of homosexuality?  Really?

A correlation is not the same as a proven cause.  You are a doctor, so you know this.

You say you are normal; yet you have shown that in respect to your orientation, you are not normal.  And again, I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else by saying so.  However, you are attempting to normalize your abnormality by treating it as if it were merely a species of left-handedness by analogy.  But left-handedness does not cause people to commit intrinsically unnatural acts.

You say you are steeped in the same tradition of marriage and family as heterosexuals, and at the same time intend to redefine the meaning of that tradition by claiming that homosexual families are part of that tradition, when they are not.  That is to put the cart before the horse in logic.  How can a homosexual act create children?  How then can such acts be associated with marriage and family?  If you have children, it is not because of any homosexual act you have committed.

Homosexual acts are immoral.  I will not say homosexuality is immoral, because acts are either moral or immoral; conditions describing human behavior, like homosexuality, don’t qualify as acts.  People cannot be held morally responsible for inclinations insofar as they may be powerless to change those inclinations.

In your response to Dave, you say that we are all on the spectrum of being more or less homosexual/heterosexual.  Granting for the sake of argument the truth of that statement, does that mean that a married man should be able to have a little bit of sex with a boy now and then, even if his wife is opposed?  If a man is mostly hetero, but a little homo, should he be allowed to have sex with boys now and then, only until he is married?

Is that good for boys?  Is that good for marriages?  How can you say that you are part of the tradition of marriage and support such things, if you do support them?  But if you don’t support them, then you have to admit that just because a man or woman has a particular impulse, it shouldn’t imply that he has a moral right to act on it.

Lastly, I will not keep my religion private and out of law.  You are entitled under our system to try to build support for and to express your personal views in the hope that they will become law, and we grant you the presumption that your views have not been chosen arbitrarily.  I feel strongly in your case that they have not been chosen arbitrarily.  You ought to grant me the same presumption, and you have no right whatsoever prevent my views from being discussed for the purpose of their hopefully becoming law simply because religion has something to do with them.  I ask you to grant the same civil respect that you are granted.

Homosexuality and left-handedness by analogy: PERFECTLY TRUE!!!

Adultery is terrible. Hetero or homo adultery is adultery. I never condoned adultery, have I!?!?!?

You know not what you type: The natural urge for people is to enjoy sex. Over 450 animal species have been described as hiving members with lifelong homosexual relations (Google Bagemihl’s book). 15% of rams are homosexual. Sexual orientation is the direction of the attraction that people have: to men, to women, to both. It is all normal, and one is not holier or more moral than than the other, so why prohibit or arbitrarily condemn or privilege one over the other?

People are always trying to find ways to make themselves better than others: more money, more power, better looks, more acceptable, holier than thou. Get over that and welcome your human brothers and sisters with love and hope that they accede to an adult relationship that is committed, precious, responsible and deeply satisfying, lifelong and loving. Let them marry!!!!

And now, Good Catholics, I bid you good night, and adieu. I am signing off this discussion.

@Yan: You’ve said “While Anonymous is correct to point out that the courts are primarily the traditional defenders of rights AGAINST the will of democratic majorities which want to take them away, he is ignoring the controversial nature of the history of the court’s making up rights that the Founders never dreamed would be considered to be rights, since they have no basis in the traditional understanding of natural law with which the Founders were familiar, in which rights have a basis in Nature and Nature’s God.  For example, the right to abortion.”

This is incorrect.  I am not ignore the “ignoring the controversial nature of the history of the court’s making up rights that the Founders never dreamed would be considered to be rights”.  I am say it is irrelevant.  The framers of the constitution consciously and decidedly put this power into the hand of the supreme court.  Read Hamilton’s remarks on judicial review in the Federalist Papers and you will find him say precisely what I just said that the supreme court has the final word on civil rights.  This remark even comes historically prior to the first ten amendments which articulate explicitly the fundamental civil rights of our government.

You also say: “the Founders never dreamed would be considered to be rights, since they have no basis in the traditional understanding of natural law with which the Founders were familiar, in which rights have a basis in Nature and Nature’s God.  For example, the right to abortion.”

This too is incorrect.  The framers of the constitution were of course accepted natural law, but not the natural law of Thomas Aquinas.  They explicitly endorse John Locke’s view of natural law, which originates in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviatian.  On Hobbes’ view marriage is strictly a civil contract made to secure peace. It serves only this purpose and is strictly a consequence of civic agreement.  There is nothing natural about it for Hobbes.  Locke agrees and disagrees; he agrees that it is not a product of natural law.  It is a convenience of civil society, which can be dispensed at any time.  He does insist that two partners ought to remain married so long as they are raising their children, but he concedes that there is no sound argument to support this view.  And further it no doubt NOT the view of marriage accepted here.  In short, the framers of the constitution do not endorse the Thomist conception of natural law.  They may have been wrong to do so, but then we are having a different conversation then the one you have been inaccurately pressing as representing the founders intentions.  They did not share the Catholic Church’s intentions.

Lastly, you say: “For those of you that think differently, let me ask you this: would you be happy if the Court decided that, for instance, every prisoner has the right to be free after only 10 years in prison, because more than 10 years in jail is cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment, and thus a violation of American prisoners’ rights?  What if the Court were to say, all people have the right to walk around naked in public, because they have the right to freedom of expression?  Or, the government cannot prevent citizens from owning nuclear weapons, because that is a violation of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms? ...
Should the Court be able to decide that these things are rights, and should the electorate have no say in the matter?  If not, then, neither should you be able to tell us that marriage, until this time defined as a union of man and woman, must be redefined by the Court, without consulting the electorate first.”

This is not only a false analogy, but it is also a red harring.  You’re confusing general civil rights with specific expression of those rights.  The issue we are dealing with here is a general civil right to marriage and whether it should be extended to gay men and women—not with how people who have the right choose to express that right.

Hello Anonymous,

The natural law view of the founders had much more to do with Aquinas than with Locke when it comes to the subject of rights.  English natural rights came from English common law.  These rights developed and were recognized long before Locke was ever a twinkle in his daddy’s eye.  What the founders owed to Locke had to do with his view of government as being a social contract, not his view of rights, which was novel.

The English common law and English rights developed under the tutelage of Roman Catholicism and then later Anglicanism, which maintained the natural law understanding of Aquinas through its theology as expounded by Richard Hooker.  So you are mistaken as a matter of history.

As to the Founders view of the court, your opinion is one that is much contested.  It was most likely the view of Hamilton, as you say.  Most of the other founders would have been rather shy to say that they agreed with Hamilton, since if they had, it would have been all the more difficult to get the states to agree to ratify the consitution.  Certainly Jefferson didn’t share Hamilton’s view.  Madison in the federalist papers doesn’t write as if he shares that view either.

But I don’t think it is important to discuss here, since I agree that as a practical matter, things have to be the way they have turned out, to the extent that the court must get the last word as to what the law is.  However, that is quite different than saying that the court gets to make up new rights, especially new rights which blatantly contradict the natural law understanding which justify the protection of those rights by the law in the first place.  So, it is quite relevant to adduce the fact that the court has controversially made up rights when discussing the prospect of the possibility of the court making up a right of homosexual marriage.

Lastly, we seem to be in disagreement about what the main issue is.  I think that the main issue is that the court shouldn’t have the authority to make up new rights without reference to the natural law.  In the past they referred to natural law as the basis for rights.  If they can ignore natural law, then they can do anything they want.  That is the definition of tyranny, and it is most certain that neither the founders nor the American people that ratified the constitution would have countenanced a court with the powers which you say it has.

All we want is civil marriage, a civil license from the state, solemnified by a justice of the peace, or by another religion that does not like to discriminate.

How about my proposal of a civil partnership of two individuals registered by the state, and then defined as one personally wishes?

I know my proposal of civil partnership (not civil union)is not perfect.  However, as the State has not upheld or defined marriage as traditionally defined for decades (since the relaxation of divorce laws, my solution is to get government out of the marriage business entirely, and allow the resulting partnership to be defined as the association of two free and unimpeded adults.  The State, for the most part, would be agnostic of any sexual relationship (excepting incest laws, which would apply to all parties regardless of gender).

Kate, please allow me to point out what I think is a fatal contradiction in your reasoning.  On one hand, you say adultery=bad.  This means that you recognize to some extent the morality of sexual acts.  On the other hand, you say that following our inclinations is just doing what the animals do.  Animals are not monogamous [excepting some species of birds, I once heard.  I am not a zoologist so don’t quote me.]  Are animals bad?

Just because animals do something doesn’t mean it is ok for us to do it.  Animals that do homosexual acts are ok; animals that have multiple partners are also ok.  But they are animals; they don’t have a moral sense like we do.  We don’t commit adultery because sex is about more than the fulfillment of an impulse; it is about a relationship to a person.  Part of that relationship involves faithfulness to the person we are having sex with.  With that person, we can bring a new person into being!  The homosexual act can’t do that.

Thanks for calling us good Catholics; you are very kind.  I hope you are right and God bless, good night.

Mary De Voe asked: “You want a license “solemnified” that a fake husband is a real husband?”
Kate O’Hanlan left without answering me. Not very sporting of her but maybe she did not like her answer.
Every human being comes into existence through a mother and a father. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas. Nobody comes into existence without a mother and a father. That is pretty much a majority. If legalizing ssm will cause the sea to rise, is it still something we need if God will make the sea rise for us?

Anonymous,

Furthermore, if you look at the Supreme Court cases which uphold the right of marriage and family as being fundamental, you will not see Locke or Hobbes mentioned, but you will see natural law concepts all over the place.  And in Pierce you will see that even Plato is explicity rejected in favor of what is characterized as the natural law understanding of society and family upon which our civilization is based.

The U.S. Supreme Court can’t rule on this issue soon enough.  These online debates are pointless because they don’t convince anyone to change their mind, no matter how much their arguments are refuted.

I would hope that a MORAL man - Romney would be elected prior to the Supreme Court taking this case.
The next President will apppoint one and possibly two Judges to the Supreme Court, and several to Federal benches.
Abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexual Marriage, and being against Freedom of Religion are the cess pools of our Society and Obama supports and likes them. Further Obama wants to drag the rest of us down in the mud with himself and the pigs.
In many State and Federal situations there are no “represtatives of the people” - just legislators who do as they please and judges who legislate from the bench.
Obama has already appointed one admitted lesbian to the Supreme Court.

Late in entering into this discussion.
@Kate O’Hanlon, MD.
The ironic thing about your first post starting with a song to the tune of “Row, row, row your boat…”
one does not need to be Catholic (or religious, or a doctor for that matter) to know that an abortion ends a human life.  Declaring that you don’t happen to agree with Catholic moral teaching does not make abortion intrinsically good.  Abortion is intrinsically evil and whether it’s law or not, whether you believe it or not,it is still evil.  It’s evil for all of society.  And we all suffer from the sin of abortion.
You’re a doctor.  Do you disagree with me?  Is it not a human life?
You’re reasoning of “don’t like abortion, don’t have one” is faulty.  Can’t that be then used with the argument for child pornography, “don’t like child pornography, don’t view it”?.....I hope that you would say:  “No, it can’t.”
At the very least, our laws should protect the most innocent among us.
The taking of innocent human life in the act of abortion has had disasterous results upon the human family.
It has become so much more difficult for all of society to recognize the inherent dignity in our neighbor.
When we refuse to see sin for what it is we turn our backs on God.
When we turn our backs on God, we can then call evil, good and good, evil.  Woe to us.
I will pray for you today, Kate.  May God bless you.

Kate O’Hanlan and others:
You want to keep religion out of state laws. Now catholicism isn’t a religion, it’s more than that. It’s life. The Catholic Church holds the blueprint of the Universe. God exists! And God’s existence doesn’t depend on your faith or the lack of it. The Catholic Church teaches the truth, and that is, how and why God did create this world. You say nature, we say creation. Both point to the same reality. It’s futile - imho - to discuss, whether the catholic model of marriage was first or not. The catholic model of marriage equals God’s plans, design of marriage! And that existed before the Big Bang! All the “alternative” ways, all alternative models are a fruit of sin. Even the time the Catholic Church wasn’t founded yet, people could have, should have realised out of the creation, that there is a Creator (St. Paul to romans). Plus through the conscience of the people everyone was capable of living according to God’s will (to a certain level, at least). God originally designed the universe with marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Like it or not. Now, we are not a church, that tries to mess with laws and all. We teach the truth. That marriage was originally desinged to be a sacrament. It’s not an option. We do not infuse our “made up rules” to state laws. We teach and transmit the truth. “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” That is why the state must live, govern, regulate according to the TRUTH. We really don’t care what you do on your own! Who, which one of us has stopped you, to do what you wanted, ever? It is not that we alter the laws, according to our liking, but You try to alter Our laws according to your liking. No catholic has ever crawled into any bedrooms to catch a homosexual couple in the act. And nobody is stopping gay couples to live under the same roof. You don’t want just marriage! You want to overwrite the catholic rules (the truth), so that gay couples can receive the sacrament. You don’t want sacrament? Of course you do! Why is every pro-choice, pro-gay right people against us? You said, catholics are a minority in the USA. You all attack us, because of your conscience. As long as there is a catholic church saying, that homosexual acts are sinful, you will never cease the attack, even if the state grants you same rights. You - sinners (sorry, we all are sinners, but we want to get rid of sin) -, you just can’t bear the fact that you are sinners. Why? It’s only a church! If God doesn’t exist, why does this church of all the million churches and sects bother you? Because God does exist and we represent the truth, and deep down, you all know that. If you are declared atheists and want to use contraception, why all this rage against this particular church? Because we say the truth. What you all want is, to make the Catholic Church legalize sin. You know, if all the other million churches would legalize sins, that wouldn’t do for you, you want us the erase sin. Psychologists, sociologists put a lot of effort to erase even the word sin. But there is sin. And that you rage against US so boldly, it only proves, that God exists, the Catholic Church is right, and you may live the way you want, you can’t lose your conscience, and through that you will always hear God’s words: come and repent!
If anyone is offended at my words, please forgive me. I meant no offense.

Roe v. Wade sent a clear signal to society that sex and childbearing are disconnected, that sex is recreational and women could be used and then left to bear the residual, emotional scars of abortion. Government’s redefinition of marriage will also reinforce that marriage and procreation are unrelated, that children don’t necessarily need to grow up with a mother and a father, and it will politically suppress any data that suggests otherwise.

We love our neighbors, with same-sex attraction or otherwise. All of us are worthy of respect and compassion, to be sure. But we also love those opposed to this amendment enough to insist they are wrong on this issue. After all, Christ embraces every person, not every idea. No one has a right to marry.

This debate is about marriage and its fundamental public purpose: to unite one man and one woman and binding them to any children born from their union; the ideal environment for the raising of children and the union of hearts, minds, and bodies required for marriage. Only one man and one woman together can fill its requirements.

Same-sex couples cannot be granted a marriage license because they cannot fulfill the public purposes of marriage.

Anyone who’s ever lived on a farm knows that livestock exhibit all sorts of breeding related behaviors.Cows in heat jump on each other,steers do likewise.(Dog owners can relate their own experiences.)
For folks with an agenda to translate this into “animal homosexuality” -or any other human behavior-is pretty funny.

My Two Cents,  If that is case, if the Catholic Church is the Truth, why has it not set out to sue the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans et al for not beleiving the way they should?  That is what you are suggesting. Contrary to Mary De Voe’s belief, the First Amendment protects people, believers and non believers, from government forcing them to believe or believe differently.  It does not prevent the Catholic Church from suing on the grounds that the other religions are false.  I would like to see that lawsuit. Syracuse Diocese vs the Lutheran Synod over who is the one true faith. Maybe we should start small and build from there, sue your neighbor for being a Methodist. If Apple can sue Samsung for !@#$% technology, then surely the Catholic Church can sue other religions for !@#$% faith.  Call me when that lawsuit is successful.. 
Maryland Bill- for your edification, I am married and have been happily so for 20 years. A lovely woman, my wife.  Oh, but she is Jewish. An interfaith marriage- the horror.  I am going to heaven and she is going to where-ever Jews go when they die. Just fifty years ago our relationship would have been shunned by the Church.  Just as if I were to marry- God forbid- a black woman or an asian or a Methodist.  You see, the Church did not approve of interfaith or interracial marriages.  When the Church allowed them, the earth did not end, the sun continued to rise in the east and dogs still chased cats.
Blind faith is one thing, being blinded by faith is another.

starzec, if you really believe that Catholics think that non-Catholics can not get to Heaven, you have not read your “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.
You do not know (and you are not alone) what you are supposed to believe.
Unfortunately, a few clergy and a few nuns have distorted the truth of our Faith in many areas.
However Catholics do believe that we have the TRUE Faith as instituted by Christ - Mt 16:18-19

Catholics are not trying to force anyone to become or be Catholic.  God gave each of us a free will.
In both the Old Testatment - (which is believed by the Jewish), and in the New Testament - same sex relations are very sinful and unrepentant practicing sodomists will go to Hell.
Catholics want everyone possible to get to Heaven.
On net go to ” What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE “. - This is a good site because it is not any individual or group’s personal opinions as can be proven by all the authoritative links provided.  It will help folks to know the truth without human errors.

MarylandBill,  I stated that those who claim - as many catholics do - that marriage has always been between a man and a woman are mistaken.  (I prefer to say “mistaken” rather than “lying”.)  This is just a simple matter of fact.  It is entirely separate from the question of whether we consider those other forms of marriage to be desirable or not.  But debates on that question should not be distorted by people making claims that are factually incorrect.

After reading the ‘arguments’ here I can’t wait to hear the arguments they plan on using to persuade the supreme court. LOL.

@Linda: as I said earlier, there were and are alternative ways, but they are far away from God’s will. A marriage is a sacrament, and that is between one man and one woman. This is not optional, or subject to debate. Examples have been brought up from the animal world before, well, it takes a female animal and a male animal for offsprings. Even among plants, trees, there are sorts of plans, where it takes two specimen of opposite gender to produce fruit (sorry for any wrong terms, i am not a biologist). It is sort of encoded in nature.

Dr Kate - if you’re still blogging on here, I have a hypothetical question for you (or any pro-ssm people).  Since it is obviouse that we have different deffinitions of marriage and can not reconcile these deeply held beliefs with each other, if you do obtain the “right” to marry a person of the same gender, do you believe I, as a business owner, am obligated to participate in any kind of observance or cooperation with your nuptual ceremony?  The reason I ask is because, as a Catholic, we also do not acknowledge divorce either.  So if someone is divorced (civil) without obtaining annulment,attempting to marry someone else, I would also not participate in their nuptuals either.  Think like caterer or photographer. And in the case of the divorcee, no one would say I’m a bigot, but most definately for the SSM couple.  What would you expect of me?  Will I have a life of emense suffering ahead of me that I will have to offer up to God for repentance of your sins?  Just wondering if we can actually live in a diverse and tolerant society, or if that’s just a farce.  Thanks.

starzec,
If your posts are sincere, I’d encourage you , as Anne did,to read the Catechism, talk to a priest in your parish,get some real,factual answers.The info you’ve posted is incorrect.It does the same kind of harm to Catholics as anti-Semitic fables & misinformation do to Jews.
By the way, I have Orthodox Jewish friends who follow very strict rules re. interfaith marriage.
If you’re a troll, well, God bless you anyway & I hope you gain some knowledge here.
:)

Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10.
and
Mk 10:6-9 (in Jesus’s words)

Jennifer =“do you believe I, as a business owner, am obligated to participate in any kind of observance or cooperation with your nuptual ceremony?”

You can not discriminate against customers in the Public Market any more than a white supremest can refuse service to a non-white in the Public Market. I’m sorry your beliefs forbid you from participating in American commerce but your beliefs don’t give you special privileges under US law.

MyTwoCents,  You seem to be saying that if animals do something then humans ought to do the same thing as well.  If this is typical catholic teaching then I’m going to fall off my chair laughing.

Just got up again.  Dusted myself off.  Stopped laughing.

But who brought animals into this debate anyway?  My original post (to which MarylandBill kindly responded) concerned cultural diversity among humans.  I have also not expressed any views (on this website) in favour of or against gay marriage.  I merely made a plea that people do not introduce one particular piece of factually incorrect information into the debate.

Linda,
An earlier poster brought the animal behavior issue into the conversation to illustrate that homosexual pairing occurs even in the animal kingdom.I commented later that people see animal behaviors & project on to them human sexuality. “So if animals do it, it must be natural.”
Except, we don’t generally understand why they’re doing it.Farmers might.
Cows jump on each other indiscriminately not because they’re homosexual, bi-sexual or promiscuous, but because they’re exhibiting signs of estrus (being in heat.)Our society’s so far removed from the land & observing the natural cycles in animals that SSM promoters can get away with this stuff.

People seem to forget that as Catholics not only must we not do what is wrong, but also we must condemn it. The argument that some above have used that not everyone is Catholic in this country means nothing because what is wrong is wrong regardless of whether someone is Catholic or not. It is not hate, bias, prejudice or anything else. It is simply that certain actions are always wrong and we must speak out against them.

All human beings come into existence in orginal innocence and virginity. It is the duty of the state to protect our innocence and virginity. It is especially the duty of each person to protect his innocence and virginity. For one person to cast his homosexual partner into the nether world is not love. Forcing a person to contribute to vice is like Al Capone forcing a man to commit murder. It may be called different,  but it is not freedom, it is coercion. As far as a citizen and the state giving homosexual relationships legitimacy, a fake husband, a fake wife, remains a fake husband and a fake wife. Do the homosexuals think that because we are Catholic that we can work magic?

Sam =“People seem to forget that as Catholics not only must we not do what is wrong, but also we must condemn it.”

Not in your place of business or employment unless its a private club or a church.

The argument that some above have used that not everyone is Catholic in this country means nothing because what is wrong is wrong regardless of whether someone is Catholic or not. It is not hate, bias, prejudice or anything else. It is simply that certain actions are always wrong and we must speak out against them.

This is your opinion based on your beliefs and has no meaning in the Public Market. The Public Market is free from prejudice, religion, racism, bigotry, discrimination, sexism, ect. Some age discrimination is allowed like offering senior citizens discounts and not selling products to the underage, car insurance by age group.

Actually, it is Truth and whether you believe it or not does not change that fact.
And I repeat we have a duty to condemn evil in all forms wherever it is found regardless of the location. Just because you don’t like it does change the fact that it is the right thing to do. We would be derelict in our duty if we did not condemn evil. This is regardless if others believe this way or not. That is why we must instruct them.

“...the importance of marriage and why it’s worth saving.”
Can ANYONE explain how ANYONE’S marriage rights will be taken away??
Can anyone explain why there isn’t an equal effort to, you know, actually SAVE marriage by preventing DIVORCE?

ALL Americans have the right to pursue happiness.
The 14th Amendment to our Constitution guarantees that EVERYONE has equal protection under the law and the right to pursue happiness, even if they are part of an unpopular minority that has been subjected to a history of discrimination in this country.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.  It is IMPOSSIBLE that the Supreme Court could rule that gays and lesbians do not also have that right to marriage, under the 14th Amendment.

Sam =“Actually, it is Truth and whether you believe it or not does not change that fact.”

You keep telling yourself that.

Sam =“And I repeat we have a duty to condemn evil in all forms wherever it is found regardless of the location. Just because you don’t like it does change the fact that it is the right thing to do. We would be derelict in our duty if we did not condemn evil. This is regardless if others believe this way or not. That is why we must instruct them.”

That’s your problem and between you and your church. Bottom line is its because someone is gay and your approval of their life is irrelevant in the Public Market and none of your personal business.

So the answer is “YES” it is highly likely that ALL laws discriminating against gays and lesbians will be looked at with the same scrutiny given to race, ethnicity, disability, gender, and religion, beginning June 2013.

And by the way PLEASE learn about how our REPUBLIC (not DEMOCRACY) functions.  Three co-equal branches of government.  The judicial branch adjudicates disputes in the law and ensures that the rights of minorities are not trampled upon by the majority.

Whether they wear “robes” or not, it doesn’t matter!

PSY - Our responsibility to condemn evil is from God. Who cares what public opinion thinks. Whatever is popular or trendy is not a criteria for whether its true or not. The majority opinion does not make something good if it is evil.
And yes, it is my business to condemn abortion, contraception, homosexual actions etc. This whole idea of all of these things being “true for you but not true for me” etc is a modern concept and totally false. Something either is or isn’t you can’t have it both ways. People need to study their Aristotelian philosophy. So, these actions are evil and are evil regardless of whether someone believes that or not.

Sam, it doesn’t matter how you justify your evil bigotry, its still bigotry.

Thats where you’re wrong. I have no bigotry. I have no problems with the people just the actions. I also condemn pre marital sex but many many people have done that as well. The proper attitude comes from Christ “hate the sin, love the sinner” and that is what I apply to each of the evils I have mentioned.
It is fascinating how those trying to get approval for their wrong actions always accuse those condemning it of intolerance. They think they should have the freedom to do their wrong actions but want to deny that same freedom to allow people to proclaim it as wrong.
The only hate and bigotry I see here is that against Catholics.

Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.

Posted by Anon on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 7:51 AM (EST):Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.”
************************************

And freedom isn’t license….

Sam, Your “hate the sin and love the sinner” is the most disgusting, arrogant piece of hypocritical bigotry that I have heard in a long time.  It’s hatred and discrimination dressed up in fancy clothes.

Posted by Linda on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 9:29 AM (EST):

Sam, Your “hate the sin and love the sinner” is the most disgusting, arrogant piece of hypocritical bigotry that I have heard in a long time.  It’s hatred and discrimination dressed up in fancy clothes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Calling the truth hateful and discriminatory is hateful and discriminatory.

I see alot of anti-Catholic bigotry in modern day dress, too.

Anti-Catholicism is unfortunately alive and well. It is the only thing that it is acceptable to condemn these days.

Linda - “hate the sin and love the sinner”—-These are the words and command of Christ. It is not bigotry and it certainly is not arrogant.

It certainly is not discrimination to condemn sin. You seem to think that not acepting everything no matter how wrong and evil is the only evil in today’s society. How terrible when virtue is not only not encourage but instead condemned as evil and hateful.

Sam,
I see religious bigotry re-packaged as anti-Zionism,too.

Posted by Psy on Thursday, Oct 25, 2012 10:57 PM (EST):

Sam =“Actually, it is Truth and whether you believe it or not does not change that fact.”

You keep telling yourself that.
_______________________________________________________

Psy,

You keep telling others to keep telling themselves that.

Posted by Twist on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2012 11:27 PM (EST):

Wake up, Catholic Inc., are you aware of the “reason” in a federal court of law for defending your precious, discriminatory, marriage bans? According to the lead attorney defending proposition 8, he stated that marriage facilitates “responsible pro-creation”. I won’t attempt to unpack how absurd and genital focused this waste-of-time argument is. Personally, I think you’re all pathetic bigots, and can’t wait until you lose your power and control over my private life.
_______________________________________________________

Wake Up Twist, you are free to do what is right. Acting wrongly is not freedom. I can’t wait to you folks stop forcing you views on the rest of us and our children.

It is amazing how we Catholics are accused of forcing our views and morals on everyone else but yet the liberals don’t hesitate to try to force us to accept what they believe.

This is a free country. you can disagree with what other people choose to do, but as long as they aren’t harming anyone else you have no right to tell them they can’t do it.  No one is keeping you from adhering to your religious beliefs.  But in some cases the beliefs of many who want to get same-sex married in a church are being denied, and THAT is actual suppression of religious liberty!

Actually you can tell people not to do what is evil. No one has the right to do what is evil. This comes from the law of God and is superior to the laws of any nation. Therefore the laws should reflect the truth. The key issue you are forgetting is that it is the truth that matters. No one can keep anyone from the truth which is our Catholic Faith. However it is unjust to put false beliefs and practices, especially those that are truly sinful on par, with the truth. This is why we can demand that people respect our rights to defend the truths of the Faith while not acknowledging their right to insult it and do evil practices.

Sam if you are wishing to go outside of the Constitution and how our government works then that is a completely different matter, and good luck winning that argument.

And the key thing you might be forgetting is that everyone has their own version of the “truth” so you’re on dangerous ground when you start allowing everyone to just do whatever they want and disregard our nation’s laws because they think they have the only version of the “truth”.

You are twisting what I said. However the laws of the country should reflect and uphold the true faith. There is no “version” of the Truth. Something is either true or not. Relativism is something that cannot be condoned. What I am saying is that the law of God is the highest law. St Peter said “we ought to obey God rather than men.” For example if the government orders us to do something evil we are obliged to disobey the government rather than disobey the law of God. For example if a law was passed that said it was illegal to be a Catholic or Catholicism was an enemy of the state and we were commanded to give it up, we must be prepared to die rather than give in as did the early martyrs of the Church.

That is mighty Taliban of you Sam.

Psy,

The Taliban are the homosexualists that demand everyone accept their distorted view of reality.

Whats your point?

Anon, your hatred for gays doesn’t make you better than them.

Psy - you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that God’s law is higher than any government’s agenda to make everything acceptable (such as homosexuality).

Those, who dwell in grave sins can never have peace. It has nothing to do with rights, laws, or general acceptance. Peace can only come from God. All of our sins fall back on our heads. God doesn’t punish us, we punish ourselves. When you kick the wall hard, your foot will ache. That is how sin and “punishment” works. What you don’t realize is: WE CAN NOT ALTER THE TRUTH!! Even if the Catholic Church alters her teachings (which she would never do) THIS WOULD NOT ALTER THE TRUTH! If you teach the law of gravity in an altered way, apples would not fly upwards. We only TEACH the Truth, we don’t MAKE the Truth. Therefore, nothing changes for you, even if our Church does alter teachings (which she never would). You will never find peace! Your conscience will never stop warning you! The Constitution (with all due respect) is nothing compared to God’s laws. People can make up laws. People can accept laws made by people. The pharisees were making up hundreds of laws, and they even claimed to be serving God! And all these laws were worthless. What can we expect from people? - says the Bible. Your problems will not be solved by any legislation, any Supreme Court ruling, any changes in catholic doctrines, your problems will only be solved when you repent and convert.

Psy,

Your hatred for Catholics does not make you right or not hateful.

Posted by Psy on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 7:31 AM (EST):
Sam, it doesn’t matter how you justify your evil bigotry, its still bigotry.
————————————————————————

Simply calling something bigotry does not make it so.
Relativists use this tactic because their immoral values cannot stand evaluation.

Psy - Thank you for your honest response to my question.  Let it be known and proven by Psy that, yes, indeed it is the intent of the Gay lobby to force down our throats acceptance of their beliefs of gay marriage in the public sphere through legal coercion.  Let us never waste another minute arguing the slippery slope, as Psy has just confirmed what we have been saying all along. And because Psy believes we are bigots, he/she feels justified in treating us as poorly as though we were KKK members.  Psy, I offer my sufferings of this day on your behalf, as payment for your sins, God willing I bear much, for you do not know what you have done.

Jennifer, I’m sorry if you can not abide the idea of treating gays and lesbians as equal citizens and fellow human beings who wish nothing more than to be treated as you yourself would want others to treat you.  I’m sorry that you and others here have a perverse sense of victimhood, which leads you to believe that you are being oppressed by the state when it requires restaurants and stores and other places that provide goods and services to the public to open their doors to all on an equal basis, and that your family might even be seated at a table next to a married gay couple and their children at said restaurant.  I’m sorry your children and grandchildren will look back with shame at the fact that you were so firmly on the wrong side of history.  And I’m sorry that you, like the segregationists of yesterday, have confused your own personal prejudice with the will of God.

Rakihi - heap it on me. Don’t stop there, why don’t you say to me what you wish you could in your heart.  I offer it all for Psy today.  And the more you heap, the more I offer.  I am not a victim.  I offer myself freely by the grace of God.  I don’t fear feeding people, or sitting next to them in restaurants, selling them goods, or evening being in the same family as them.  I love people.  All people.  Including you.  And the only thing I fear is the loss of God and the pains of hell.  And because of this, I will not call a lie the truth, and the truth a lie and be coerced into compliance through anyone’s intimidation.  I don’t even fear the “wrong side of history”.  Take everything from me.  I don’t care about material things.  That’s not what makes me happy.  Only God makes me happy.  And you can’t control my relationship with God or my well formed conscience…ever.

VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!VIVA CRISTO REY!!!

Jennifer =“Psy - Thank you for your honest response to my question.

Than you, Anon and many others for acknowledging your bigotry and your hypocrisy of persecution gays while claiming to be persecution.

Anally focused and vaginally obsessed individuals are creating quite a hysterical moment in the court trying to free their colons and labia from arrested development. Some have even resorted to sex change operations and hormone therapy that alter their genitals and render them useless.  Instead of begetting children, they beget hemorrhoids and genital warts. Obamacare will cover their hemorrhoid surgery and laser wart removal, but only for their vote. They want a license and solemnized ritual for bringing forth hemorrhoids and perjuring themselves in court. The people who are agitating for and pursuing this case in court are not for practicing homosexuals. They are lawyers filling their deep pockets with taxpayers’ money, like the ACLU and atheists are with the cases for the removal of God from the public square, cases that cannot ever be won, but will go on forever, for an eternity, filling their pockets with pots of gold. Government thinks if it grants sodomy a place among the great truths of the universe, there will be peace, but the money is out there and more and more more.

If only the US was more like Saudi Arabia.

Jennifer, it is clear you take offense when people think of your opposition to marriage equality as an expression of prejudice rather than “love”.  Allow me to explain why so many other people have a hard time taking your claims at face value.  First, there is a world of difference between expressing disapproval of something, speaking out against it, and discouraging others from participating in that activity on the one hand, and enlisting the full authority of the state to enforce one’s sectarian views on a religiously pluralistic society on the other.  Now pay attention to this next part because this is absolutely critical.  In an earlier post you noted that your religion does not recognize divorce and therefore you should not be expected to celebrate a second marriage.  That’s fine, as far as it goes.  But here’s where many people detect the malignant stench of prejudice.  The Catholic Church does not recognize the right of gay couples to marry and actively involves itself in politics to prevent this.  At the same time, the Catholic Church DOES NOT apply its considerable political clout to advocate for constitutional amendments that would ban divorce.  The question is WHY NOT??  Why haven’t the Church and Catholic Americans declared a mighty Crusade against divorce, and attempt to pass state and federal constitutional amendments to prohibit it?  Why ignore a problem that affects virtually the entire population and instead focus its wrath on a small, unpopular minority?  Could it be that while Catholics are willing, even eager, to restrict the rights of those they don’t like, they have absolutely no interest in restricting their own rights?  Could it be that the Church’s teachings on sex are so roundly ignored by its adherents and the general public that the Catholic hierarchy, if it were to push a divorce amendment, would look as ridiculous and out of touch as if it continued to proclaim that the sun revolves around the Earth?  Take a long, hard look at the amount of effort these groups put into their anti-marriage equality efforts and compare that to their non-existent efforts to prohibit divorce.  The silence on that front is deafening.

Marriage equality exists now. Opposite persons may marry as long as they meet the requirements. Those that oppose Truth do not want authentic equality. They want deformation .

Misusing terms like hate, bigotry, discrimination, are an attempt to sway public perception. True hatred would be endorsing evil and telling others to continue acting evil. Many are deceived.

Anon yet use the word “EVIL” after denying hate, bigotry, discrimination.

Psy,

Real evil exists. Your group wants to call good evil. That is the problem.

Anon =“Real evil exists.”
History is full of examples of people claiming to know what ‘God’ wants resorting to ‘evil’ means such as oppression and genocide. Oppression of a minority is not the answer.

Anon, =“Your group wants to call good evil.”
I am not affiliated with any group or organization other than being a US citizen, though there are groups and other individuals who agree with me. Also it is you who is bringing the good-evil false dichotomy of your collectivist bi-polar belief system into the discussion.
Anon =“That is the problem.”
The problem is your insistence that the US should follow Mosaic Law based on your belief in mythology and superstition.

Anon, here is why your argument fails.  In order to have any meaning, freedom necessarily involves a legitimate choice.  In order to believe your argument, you would also have to believe that freedom of religion exists under a regime like the Taliban, because everyone, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or anything else you could name, has the exact same right to pray to Allah in a mosque; or that freedom of speech exists in China because every Chinese citizen can voice their support for Beijing’s policies without fear of retribution.  To say that equality exists because gays can already marry someone of the opposite sex is a farce.  Besides, we both know you can’t honestly say that you would want your daughter to marry a gay man.

One cannot allow what the law of God forbids. God’s law is the highest law regardless of whether the liberals want to call it prejudice or not. Homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms and can never be allowed. To call this stating of the truth bigotry, etc is sad and shows a rejection of Truth.

Sam =“One cannot allow what the law of God forbids. God’s law is the highest law regardless of whether the liberals want to call it prejudice or not.”

We’ve all heard the same story from al qaeda after 9/11 and more recently from the Taliban after they shot a 14 year old girl for supporting girls education. I don’t believe them either.

=“Homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms and can never be allowed.”
According to the good book or our local car club a marriage is putting a Chevy engine into a Ford.

=“To call this stating of the truth bigotry, etc is sad and shows a rejection of Truth.”

Belief does not equal truth no matter how many times you tell yourself it does. As for bigotry the constant reference to those you don’t approve of or agree with as sinners, evil, followers of Satan, and other dehumanizing accusations is defiantly bigotry. Then there is the smug claim of superiority over others where you believe you are commanded by ‘God’ to dictate and control the lives of others while your priest are committing real crimes against innocent children that has been swept under the rug for decades if not centuries. Get over yourself.

Then there is Mary De Voe’a post above which is pretty much the same middle eastern Muslim speech calling the US “The Great White Satan” we have heard so often.

When government will no longer fund civil rights cases, ssm lawyers will not work for free, pro-bono, and much of this nonsense will evaporate. there may be some cases. Please understand that these ssm cases are not about equal rights. These cases are about power to change our culture and assail our innocents and virgins. The argument is that homosexuals are created this way and that blames God for their condition, but homosexuals are first and foremost created in moral and legal innocence as virgins. It is the duty of the state and all citizens to protect the innocence and virginity of all persons. If some persons, as homosexuals, wish to destroy their virginty and innocence, they have free will, but they are not free to destroy the protection for innocence and virginity of all people.

Every state voted, voted down gay mergers. 32 states have voted down recognizing gay mergers. Two-thirds of the states must ratify any change in our government. The people have ratified and re-ratified by two-thirds of the states to retain marriage as between one man and one woman. If the Supreme Court “Roes” gay mergers, against the will of the people, time and again, they are despots and must be removed from the bench as despots violating the will of the people, the will of the sovereign citizens who constitute government.

Psy: “You can not discriminate against customers in the Public Market any more than a white supremest can refuse service to a non-white in the Public Market. I’m sorry your beliefs forbid you from participating in American commerce but your beliefs don’t give you special privileges under US law.’
Why not? Employment is “at will employment”, get fired for no reason at all. Why not public accomodation? It is simply that my relationship with God comes before my relationship with the state. The state in the First Amendment confirms my choice to my first relationship with my God.

Posted by Psy on Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 1:02 PM (EST):

Anon =“Real evil exists.”
History is full of examples of people claiming to know what ‘God’ wants resorting to ‘evil’ means such as oppression and genocide. Oppression of a minority is not the answer.

Anon, =“Your group wants to call good evil.”
I am not affiliated with any group or organization other than being a US citizen, though there are groups and other individuals who agree with me. Also it is you who is bringing the good-evil false dichotomy of your collectivist bi-polar belief system into the discussion.
Anon =“That is the problem.”
The problem is your insistence that the US should follow Mosaic Law based on your belief in mythology and superstition.
_____________________________________________________________

Wrong Psy. Your group consists of those that oppose the public good.

The civil law must reflect the moral law or we have tyranny. That is where moral relativism leads.

Posted by rakihi on Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 2:15 PM (EST):

Anon, here is why your argument fails.  In order to have any meaning, freedom necessarily involves a legitimate choice.  In order to believe your argument, you would also have to believe that freedom of religion exists under a regime like the Taliban, because everyone, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or anything else you could name, has the exact same right to pray to Allah in a mosque; or that freedom of speech exists in China because every Chinese citizen can voice their support for Beijing’s policies without fear of retribution.  To say that equality exists because gays can already marry someone of the opposite sex is a farce.  Besides, we both know you can’t honestly say that you would want your daughter to marry a gay man.

_____________________________________________________________

Legitimate choice never involves choosing evil If that is your position then no laws ought to exist at all. We prohibit murder and rape, as one example, because choosing them is always wrong. There is no “freedom” to act wrongly. That is license.

Marriage has a specific meaning. One cannot have a “right” to some item simply because they desire it.

PSY = The comparison to the Taliban is faulty in the extreme. The Catholic Church can claim what she does because she is the ONE TRUE CHURCH founded by Jesus Christ. A false religion does not have God’s backing no matter how much they claim to. If you do not believe in the one true Church that is sadly your loss.
  No one is advocating for the oppression of people… just the suppression of certain behaviors. We do the same for murder, rape, theft, etc. You dont argue for their rights to practice their “beliefs” to do these actions.
  There is absolute truth and that is in the Catholic Church. You calling it bigotry does not make it so. You are trying to quiet your conscience.
  I have the promise of Christ that the Catholic Church is the true church and that gives me my confidence. It is not “smug superiority”. Any condemnation seems to receive this name from you. Sadly, you are mistaken.

Mary De Voe =“Please understand that these ssm cases are not about equal rights. These cases are about power to change our culture and assail our innocents and virgins.”
So its a conspiracy, let me get my tin foil hat.

Mary De Voe =“Every state voted, voted down gay mergers. 32 states have voted down recognizing gay mergers. Two-thirds of the states must ratify any change in our government. The people have ratified and re-ratified by two-thirds of the states to retain marriage as between one man and one woman. If the Supreme Court “Roes” gay mergers, against the will of the people, time and again, they are despots and must be removed from the bench as despots violating the will of the people, the will of the sovereign citizens who constitute government.”
Nonsense, the US is a democratically elected REPUBLIC to prevent oppression of minorities by a majority.

Mary De Voe =“It is simply that my relationship with God comes before my relationship with the state. The state in the First Amendment confirms my choice to my first relationship with my God.”
That doesn’t make your rights more important than anyone else’s.

Anon =“Marriage has a specific meaning. One cannot have a “right” to some item simply because they desire it.”

Sure they can, this is AMERICA!!!

Anon =“No one is advocating for the oppression of people… just the suppression of certain behaviors. We do the same for murder, rape, theft, etc. You dont argue for their rights to practice their “beliefs” to do these actions.”
Yes you are advocating oppression of people based on them being gay, then you display your bigotry by linking gays to murder, rape, theft, etc.

Ooops, sorry for attributing Sam’x responses to Anon.

Give it 20 more years and this issue will be completely moot. Today’s under 30 demographic is already pro equality. As the baby boomers fade the GOP will let this issue die away and toss it aside. The state votes are mostly turn out the vote games and they are out of states. The corporations RULE the GOP and the biggest corporations ALREADY offer same sex domestic partner , so you see its all a sham to turn out conservative Christians. Once the courts rule against restrictions the GOP will simply yell ‘activist judges’ and move on. They really don’t care in the top 1 percent as long as they get their low tax rates and favorable tax rules . The democrats just saw the trend of acceptance crossing over the 50 percent mark and moved on.
You are all fighting a pointless battle, demographics are against you. We plus 50’s will be dead and gay people will be married, and NOBODY will even notice.

Anon, it is clear that you don’t really believe your own rhetoric that gays do have the right to marry.  If you did, you would have said, yes I would want my daughter to marry a gay man.  If no heterosexual would want to marry a gay person, then obviously they can’t marry.  I noticed that neither you nor Jennifer were able to refute my arguments head on.  Instead, all Psy and I get in response are logical fallacies, especially begging the question, e.g. Marriage equality is wrong because it is evil, or marriage equality is wrong because it goes against Catholic dogma, etc.  This is why the so-called “Defence of Marriage Act” is on a long losing streak in the courts.  You’re not able to provide legitimate legal reasons in its defence.

In 20 years adults will be able to marry children.  You people that want to stop this are just imposing your superstitious “morality” on the loving couples that have to hide and risk jail time today.
.
But the under 10 crowd today is already for equal rights and in 20 years when they vote, they will legalize it.  So it’s just a matter of time.
.
And parents, or just neighbors, will be able to kill children up until the age of 18, with govt assistance of course, because they are not really citizens until they can vote. 
.
None of Psy’s arguments hold up to logic.

????

Posted by Psy on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 11:59 AM (EST):

Anon =“Marriage has a specific meaning. One cannot have a “right” to some item simply because they desire it.”

Sure they can, this is AMERICA!!!

Anon =“No one is advocating for the oppression of people… just the suppression of certain behaviors. We do the same for murder, rape, theft, etc. You dont argue for their rights to practice their “beliefs” to do these actions.”
Yes you are advocating oppression of people based on them being gay, then you display your bigotry by linking gays to murder, rape, theft, etc.
__________________________________________________________

You redefine the word marriage and the word right. How can one discuss any topic intelligently if one refuses to use words appropriately?

Homosexual acts are wrong just as many acts are wrong. The analogies work because we are talking about bad behaviors.

No PSY. I am arguing for the suppression of certain behaviors. and it is certainly right to list them in the same sentence with murder, rape, theft etc. because these are all crimes plaguing our world today. They are all evil and must be stopped. It is in your own mind that you agree the others are evil but want to somehow say it is ok to do these other abominable acts. These are just the facts. You can’t make evil good just because it FEELS right to you.

Posted by rakihi on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 3:28 PM (EST):

Anon, it is clear that you don’t really believe your own rhetoric that gays do have the right to marry.  If you did, you would have said, yes I would want my daughter to marry a gay man.  If no heterosexual would want to marry a gay person, then obviously they can’t marry.  I noticed that neither you nor Jennifer were able to refute my arguments head on.  Instead, all Psy and I get in response are logical fallacies, especially begging the question, e.g. Marriage equality is wrong because it is evil, or marriage equality is wrong because it goes against Catholic dogma, etc.  This is why the so-called “Defence of Marriage Act” is on a long losing streak in the courts.  You’re not able to provide legitimate legal reasons in its defence.
__________________________________________________________________

Your “logic” is no logic at all. You mistakenly hold that “gays” have some “right” to “marry” simply because they demand it.

Homosexual persons can marry right now. Your question about who to marry is meaningless. The context you provide does not prove anything other than you think a “gay” should not marry an opposite sex person.

You have a serious category error.

Posted by Rob on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 6:06 PM (EST):

In 20 years adults will be able to marry children.  You people that want to stop this are just imposing your superstitious “morality” on the loving couples that have to hide and risk jail time today.
.
But the under 10 crowd today is already for equal rights and in 20 years when they vote, they will legalize it.  So it’s just a matter of time.
.
And parents, or just neighbors, will be able to kill children up until the age of 18, with govt assistance of course, because they are not really citizens until they can vote.
.
None of Psy’s arguments hold up to logic.
____________________________________________________

Great job. It is not about logic. It is illogic.

Anon, thank you for proving my point about your being unable to cite legitimate legal reasons, as opposed to sectarian religious ones, as to why the state can discriminate against gay couples by denying them marriage licences.  Our system of government is premised on the idea of legal equality of all citizens.  The Constitution’s Equal Protection clause enforces this ideal.  Your argument, if it can be called that, is nothing more than a variation of either “Marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman” or “Marriage is restricted to a man and a woman because my god says so.”  While you may find that convincing, many others, are increasingly finding it intellectually unsatisfying and morally indefensible.

rakihi: “Our system of government is premised on the idea of legal equality of all citizens.”
32 states have voted down ssm. Every state given the issue to vote voted against it. Will the Supreme Court remove the will of the people? Will God remove His prohibition against ssm? If you can get God to remove His prohibition against ssm “You shall not lay with a man as with a woman”, let me know how you fare.

Sam =“No PSY. I am arguing for the suppression of certain behaviors.”

LOL!!! Under what provisions of the Constitution are you going to do that?

Mary De Voe =“32 states have voted down ssm. Every state given the issue to vote voted against it. Will the Supreme Court remove the will of the people?”

What part of the US is a Constitutional “REPUBLIC” don’t you understand?

Psy: The Ninth Amendment acknowledges rights that are not inscribed in the Constitution. The Sovereign person who is also a citizen has a right to TRUTH, especially in a court of law. The TRUTH is that a fake husband and a fake wife is fraud prohibited by the TRUTH, the common good, good will and free will. Addiction to the vice of lust is not freedom.

Mary De Voe by ‘TRUTH’ you of course mean ‘FAITH’. The word ‘MARRIAGE’ is a word, not person and has no rights. Since your Church does not have a copywriter on the word marriage your argument is meaningless.

TRUTH is TRUTH. FAKE is FAKE. FRAUD is FRAUD.

Rikhi,

Your argument is that your behavior deserves special legal status? Why? What makes your
particular desires so special the entire society must accept them as normal?

Psy: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” My truth is that God created you and has a copyright on you. Therefore, when your behavior is detrimental to your immortal soul, or scandalizes minor children, you are violating God’s copyright. You dishonor your parents who brought you into life as a mother and father. You are your mother’s and father’s TRUTH.

Mary De Voe =“You dishonor your parents who brought you into life as a mother and father. You are your mother’s and father’s TRUTH.”

Thank you for showing me why my parents left the Church 50 years ago.

TRUTH is TRUTH. FAKE is FAKE. FRAUD is FRAUD

Anon:  HAHAHA.  What exactly would this “behaviour” you attribute to me be?  I’m really curious.  I’m also reminded of a certain saying of what happens when you make unwarranted ASSumptions.  In any case,I could easily reverse the question and ask what is so special about the behaviour of heterosexuals that they may marry and divorce at will, regardless of their ability and intention to have and raise children?  To respect the right of gays to marry is to ELIMINATE their special legal status…as legal and social outcasts and pariahs.

PSY - under the same provisions that make murder, rape, and theft illegal. THese are all crimes.

Posted by rakihi on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 8:19 PM (EST):

Anon:  HAHAHA.  What exactly would this “behaviour” you attribute to me be?  I’m really curious.  I’m also reminded of a certain saying of what happens when you make unwarranted ASSumptions.  In any case,I could easily reverse the question and ask what is so special about the behaviour of heterosexuals that they may marry and divorce at will, regardless of their ability and intention to have and raise children?  To respect the right of gays to marry is to ELIMINATE their special legal status…as legal and social outcasts and paria
___________________________________________________________________
The behaviour you champion is homosexual acts.

Heterosexual marriage is the norm both morally and logically.

Not allowing any other form is not discriminatory but truly just.

Sam =” under the same provisions that make murder, rape, and theft illegal. THese are all crimes.”

Sam, can you be more specific or are you confusing the US Constitution with Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

These actions are all grave evils that ought not to be allowed in any society. None of them are rights despite the loud protestations of the liberals who want to proclaim them “Human Rights.” You seem to not realize that it is the duty of the government and its citizens to uphold the moral law. Contrary to popular opinion morals don’t change from one individual to another despite what that person might think. Truth is not relative, morals aren’t relative.

anon =“The behaviour you champion is homosexual acts.”
Personally I have no interest in “homosexual acts”. The issues is oppression of minorities and the rights of individuals.

anon =“Heterosexual marriage is the norm both morally and logically.”
You are for legislating normalcy? Are you a collectivist authoritarian, totalitarian or fascist?

anon =“Not allowing any other form is not discriminatory but truly just.”
Really, discrimination is not discrimination?

Psy - you keep going around the issue. It is not discrimination to prevent that which is evil. Again, it is not oppression to prevent evil actions. No one has the RIGHT to do what is evil, despite what you may think. It is the obligation of all to prevent such abominable actions from being recognized as ok by our government. Also, even if a govenment does allow such things this does not make it a right or ok. Legality does not make some moral and should still be prohibited.

That which is evil is evil regardless if it is legal or not.

Sam, continually stating your personal and-or religious opinion-beliefs,  unsubstantiated claims and rhetoric is not an argument.

Truth is truth it speaks for itself. If you won’t accept that, its too bad. However, all you seem to be doing is repeating that people should be given this right etc. etc. I see no solid argument from you. No one has the right to do evil. That is a fact. Homosexuality goes against the natural order of things. It is against the natural law. Out of all the rhetoric of the pro homosexuality crowd I have never heard one convincing argument.  Besides, your idea that people should be allowed to do these things is a personal opinion but that doesn’t make you right either. I have the natural law on my side as well as the Law of God which contrary to what anyone says does trump everything else.

The question remain: “will the Supreme Court “Roe” gay marriage?” The same 32 states that have voted against accepting homosexual behavior proposing a fake husband or a fake wife as legitimate must prepare to vote to impeach and remove from the bench those “JUSTICES” voting for fraud and perjury in a court of law. If homosexuals do not like our founding principles based on our Creator, they are free to go where they may find themselves comfortable. Russia refused to allow the American Atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair entrance. She waited two weeks and returned to America. Only one tyrant per country.

Sam, the truth is that all you have the Natural Law fallacy, appeal to tradition fallacy, your beliefs, accusations of evil and demanding your belief in ‘God’s Law’ be accepted as truth.

Sam =“I have never heard one convincing argument.”
If the 14th amendment isn’t a clue I doubt anything would convince you any more than an Islamic fundamentalist would accept free speech laws allowing people to question Islam.

Mary De Voe, we will have a better idea of what the Supreme Court will do on November 20th. As for impeachment of this appointed court that would have to be done by the Congress and this case does not meet the a high crimes criteria of US law.

Mary De Voe, =“If homosexuals do not like our founding principles based on our Creator, they are free to go where they may find themselves comfortable.”
It seems to me that you are the one who is uncomfortable. It seems certain gay marriage will be legal in my state in this election as it is now in several others.

What does Russia and some atheist have to do with this?

PSY - THe 14th amendment cannot make what is evil acceptable. So no that is not an argument at all. No one has the right to do what is evil. No false arguments of equality have any relevance.

Save the bigoted hate speech for your hate group.

Nice try Anon, but you can’t spin your way out of this one.  That is clearly not what you said in your earlier post when you specifically referred to me wanting MY “behaviour” accorded “special” legal status.  There’s no point in trying to deny it now because everyone can scroll up and see for themselves.

Calling a tyrant a tyrant is not hate speech. Calling a fake husband or fake wife, a fake, is telling the truth. Calling a fake husband a real husband is perjury in a court of law. Justices on the Supreme Court who cannot differentiate between a fake husband and a real husband need to be replaced. Roe v. Wade told every American male citizen they did not own their own seed of Life. Some of the commenters here believed them.

Mary De Voe, it is you who are attempting to impose your oppressive religious tyranny on gay people who are under no obligation to care what you believe.

Psy: “What does Russia and some atheist have to do with this?”
People who reject the Supreme Sovereign Being call themselves atheists. If you were the only human being ever created and you rejected your Creator where would that leave you?

Psy says: “it is you who are attempting to impose your oppressive religious tyranny on gay people who are under no obligation to care what you believe.”
One hundred years from now, are you atill really going to believe you won the argument?

Mary De Voe, =“People who reject the Supreme Sovereign Being call themselves atheists.”
I don’t see what this has to do with gay marriage any more than your abortion comments.

Mary De Voe, =“If you were the only human being ever created and you rejected your Creator where would that leave you?”
What if the moon was made of green cheese? I don’t see what your point is.

Mary De Voe, =“One hundred years from now, are you atill really going to believe you won the argument?”

What? Is this about winning? That would explain why you are willing to sell out your fellow human beings for a promised ticket to heaven.

What? Is this about winning? That would explain why you are willing to sell out your fellow human beings for a promised ticket to heaven.

And you are willing to sell out your soul to a lie.

Mary De Voe, =“And you are willing to sell out your soul to a lie.”
Again, do you have some point to these random weird questions? If you have something to say, just say it.

Censored

What it boils down to is that PSY cares more about people and what they think than about God.

Sam =“What it boils down to is that PSY cares more about people and what they think than about God.”

Sam, your deductive reasoning is most impressive. Anyway I have this crazy theory that people may actually exist.

Well, people do exist. But there wouldn’t be anything or anyone if God didn’t exist first.

Sam, I’m sure your belief is just as valid as Islam, Paganism, Scientology and Mormonism. But the current data suggest nonexistence may be an unsustainable state.

Nope wrong again. These other religions are false. Conflicting ideas can’t all be right.
Your second sentence made no sense at all.

Posted by rakihi on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 4:01 PM (EST):
Nice try Anon, but you can’t spin your way out of this one.  That is clearly not what you said in your earlier post when you specifically referred to me wanting MY “behaviour” accorded “special” legal status.  There’s no point in trying to deny it now because everyone can scroll up and see for
———————————————

No spin. You want your behavior normalized.  Whether you admit to behavior or not you affirm it which is participating.

Posted by Psy on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 12:14 PM (EST):
anon =“The behaviour you champion is homosexual acts.”
Personally I have no interest in “homosexual acts”. The issues is oppression of minorities and the rights of individuals.

anon =“Heterosexual marriage is the norm both morally and logically.”
You are for legislating normalcy? Are you a collectivist authoritarian, totalitarian or fascist?

anon =“Not allowing any other form is not discriminatory but truly just.”
Really, discrimination is not discrimination?
————————————————————————————-
All rational people discriminate. Not allowing faux marriage is not unjust discrimination it is just discrimination . Support for minorities may be good or evil. If you support pedophile behavior that is not right.

Your failure to discriminate between right and wrong is seriously wrong.

Anon =“Your failure to discriminate between right and wrong is seriously wrong.”

I’m not the one defending a Faith that has been sued for hundreds of millions or perverted crimes against children and protecting criminal pedophiles.

“I’m not the one defending a Faith that has been sued for hundreds of millions or perverted crimes against children and protecting criminal pedophiles.”

Oh, snap!  LOL!!

“I’m not the one defending a Faith that has been sued for hundreds of millions or perverted crimes against children and protecting criminal pedophiles.”

You peck over child sex abuse but you do not peck over self sexual abuse.

“You peck over child sex abuse but you do not peck over self sexual abuse.” —If anyone wonders how the Catholic Church could be complicit in the sexual assault and molestation of tens of thousands of innocent children over decades, this attitude is it.  The Church thinks that its abuse and sexual exploitation of children pales in comparison to attacking the civil rights of others.  I don’t know how anyone who claims to be a moral person could be so dismissive of a world-wide child molestation scandal.

Mary De Voe =“You peck over child sex abuse but you do not peck over self sexual abuse.

Mary De Voe, how exactly is it that you believe your sex life should be my concern? Its just sick that you could downplay rape let alone child rape and compare it to consensual private affairs. Oh that’s right, its the churches position that the children are seducing the priest. Yeah, just say any stupid thing to defend your twisted faith.

Any sins of the memebers is no argument against the Church. At least not in any rational person’s mind. And please, come up with something new why don’t you.

Posted by Psy on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 6:59 PM (EST):

Anon =“Your failure to discriminate between right and wrong is seriously wrong.”

I’m not the one defending a Faith that has been sued for hundreds of millions or perverted crimes against children and protecting criminal pedophiles.
_________________________________________________________

The Faith did all that? You are very confused. Plus, you simply divert the assertion because you have no good answer.

Posted by rakihi on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 11:02 PM (EST):

“You peck over child sex abuse but you do not peck over self sexual abuse.” —If anyone wonders how the Catholic Church could be complicit in the sexual assault and molestation of tens of thousands of innocent children over decades, this attitude is it.  The Church thinks that its abuse and sexual exploitation of children pales in comparison to attacking the civil rights of others.  I don’t know how anyone who claims to be a moral person could be so dismissive of a world-wide child molestation scandal.
____________________________________________________________

Not only a false charge but an attempt to divert the argument. I cannot blame you as your position is weak and wrong.

Posted by rakihi on Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 8:35 PM (EST):

“I’m not the one defending a Faith that has been sued for hundreds of millions or perverted crimes against children and protecting criminal pedophiles.”

Oh, snap!  LOL!!
__________________________________________________________________

Diversion again. Those that same sex abused minors have something in common with those that support faux marriage. Both are against the moral law and common good.

Anon:  “If you support pedophile behavior that is not right.  Your failure to discriminate between right and wrong is seriously wrong.” 

No, Anon.  It was YOU who first raised the issue of pedophilia.  Not me, not Psy, not anyone else.  YOU. 

Anon:  “Not only a false charge but an attempt to divert the argument. I cannot blame you as your position is weak and wrong.”

Would you also like to deny the Holocaust?  It is an incontrovertible FACT that a large number Catholic priests around the world sexually molested huge numbers of children.  The rape of children is truly EVIL as is anyone who support it, defends it, or otherwise minimizes it.

Sam =“Any sins of the memebers is no argument against the Church.”

Members? It was the Church that campaigned against stricter New York child abuse laws in 2010. It was the Church who choose to cover it up and shuffle the pedophiles to other locations and allow them to continue molesting children.
It was the Church who said it wasn’t their job to report these sexual attacks on children. Its sickening what people like you will say and do for your faith.

Sam:  “Any sins of the memebers is no argument against the Church.”

The Catholic Church’s pedophile scandal was not among its “members”.  It was against the Church itself, as you well know.  It was against its priests who abused their positions of authority and used it to sexually molest children, and it was against its bishops and other leadership who PROTECTED these sick individuals by covering up their perverted crimes by not alerting the police and by moving them from one area to another so they could find fresh, new victims. 

Stop excusing child molestation.

Priests and bishops are still members of the Church.
and I will repeat- Sins of the members is not a argument against the Church.
Secondly you act like the problem is unique to the Catholic Church and that is not the case. It is just that people like you make sure that it is the Catholic Chuch in the headlines. Any other orginization has just as big a percentage.
Scandals are never an argument against the Truth of the Catholic Faith.
Everyone should be willing to die for the True Faith. If not you are lukewarm.

Sam, so your position is essentially a variant of “my country, right or wrong”.  Good to know.

Posted by rakihi on Friday, Nov 2, 2012 11:46 AM (EST):

Anon:  “If you support pedophile behavior that is not right.  Your failure to discriminate between right and wrong is seriously wrong.”

No, Anon.  It was YOU who first raised the issue of pedophilia.  Not me, not Psy, not anyone else.  YOU.

Anon:  “Not only a false charge but an attempt to divert the argument. I cannot blame you as your position is weak and wrong.”

Would you also like to deny the Holocaust?  It is an incontrovertible FACT that a large number Catholic priests around the world sexually molested huge numbers of children.  The rape of children is truly EVIL as is anyone who support it, defends it, or otherwise minimizes it.

___________________________________________________________________

I pointed out the silliness of your position. Just because you support a minority behavior does not make such support correct.

That same sex abuse happens has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is a diversion.

No rakihi. The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ and we have His promise that he will be with us until the end of time.
Countries are humanly founded and have no such guarantee. I would put the Church above country any day, any time. God MUST always come first, even before country.
You have sidetracked the discussion from Church teaching on what is right and wrong to sins of the members. This is a red herring argument devised by those who want to attack the Church at all costs and so divert the arguments. This is always a cheap shot and worthy only of those who know they don’t have a leg to stand on.

It isn’t any god you are following, its a institution that pretends to speak for ‘God’ that does not lead by example as Jesus supposedly did nor practice what it preaches. The church’s actions speak much louder than your empty words and dismissal of child rape as normal and acceptable. Like the church you believe its just a minor public relations problem. You pretend to be the world sex-police while these evil satanic sex crimes against children have been taking place in your house of worship for decades if not centuries.

Sam, you missed the point of my comment.  My point was that you will defend and make excuses for the Catholic Church no matter what it does.  You try to draw a false distinction between the Church on the one hand, and its bishops and the rest of the leadership on the other.  If the Church hierarchy protected pedophile priests then the Church protected pedophile priests.  Why can’t either you or Anon state unequivocally that you condemn the actions of the Church for protecting pedophile priests instead of their innocent child victims?  I have no use for moralizing pharisees who are quick to condemn others for their love while turning a blind eye to child molestation. 

By the way, just because other organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, have also had problems with pedophiles IN NO WAY diminishes the evil perpetrated by Catholic priests.

My point was to show that you are singling out the Church. I am not diminishing the sin no matter who commits it.
I do believe the clergy who have committed such crimes should be tried in a Church court and put in a Church prison. Sadly, these no longer have the power and jurisdiction (and in many cases don’t even exist anymore) they once did.

Once again I will reiterate that the sins of the members (even clergy)are not an argument against the truth of the Church.

Good posts Sam. Individuals who choose to go to hell will not be remembered in heaven.

I’m not singling out the Catholic Church at all.  I’m merely suggesting that since it has condoned child molestation, it has forfeited any claim to be a legitimate moral arbiter in the eyes of many people.  The only way I would be singling out the Catholic Church in this regard is if I were to argue that some other organization that also condoned child molestation should continue to have legitimacy as a moral arbiter.  But in fact, I do not so argue.  I believe that ANY organization that condones the rape of children has no business proclaiming other people to be immoral.  Therefore, no singling out exists.  You may perceive that I’m singling out the Catholic Church because of my criticism of it, but that’s because no other organization that I know of has the audacity to condone the rape of children while continuing to point its fingers at others for their alleged moral failings.  If one did, I’d be criticizing that organization as well.  The Church has ignored the plank in its eye while attempting to remove the speck in the eye of another.

These pedophile priests did not simply commit a “sin”.  It’s not like they officiated at a wedding by someone who is divorced.  They committed a heinous and despicable crime.  The laws that make child rape a felony apply to everyone, including Catholic priests.  I don’t know why you suggest that they should get special treatment, as if their position in the Church somehow places them above the law.

It is clear that you do not understand the nature of the Church. You also seem to confuse day to day misadministration within the Church as the divinely instituted institution that it is, as if it should somehow stop doing it job of guiding people to heaven or has lost its whole purpose because of the sins of its members.

Also “sin” doesn’t lessen the gravity of it. It is a mortal sin and yes the Catholic Church does teach that, as are all sins of impurity.

Sam:  Actually, it is clear our disagreement is largely rooted in the fact that we refer to two very different things when we use the words “Catholic Church.”  You refer to the Church in terms of a metaphysical ideal.  When I use the term, I’m referring to the actual religious organization that is run by men in Rome. 

Lea:  Ah, I wasn’t aware we had a lurker here.  Welcome!  I agree that this discussion has gotten off topic.  To nudge it along in the right direction, let me present the real argument:  The United States Constitution guarantees every person the right to marry the person of his or her choice.  To use a bit of legalese, marriage has long been recognized as a fundamental right, meaning that restrictions on the ability to enter into a marriage are subject to strict scrutiny, and are unconstitutional unless said restrictions are narrowly tailored towards furthering a compelling state interest.  Note that this applies only to legal marriages created under the laws of the state, not to the symbolic rituals performed by religious entities.

You seem to think that because members of the Church (yes even the leaders) that the Church has lost the right to teach morality to the world. This is not the case. You cannot separate the Church as you are trying to do. The Church was divinely instituted and given a mission by God. It cannot be taken away or lessened by any person or nation. THe Church does not lose Its mission because of sins of the members. The doctrine and moral teaching will always be 100% the Truth. We have God’s promise on that. This does not mean that people will not fall short of how they should be living, (being evil even). This does not take away from the Truth of Its teaching. The Church does not condone and child molestation and never has. It is the teaching of the Church that it is a grave evil, a mortal sin, which is the most serious kind of offense againsty the Law of God.

Back on topic, the Constitution does not have the right to go against the Laws of God regardless of what the majority want. Homosexuality is against the law of God, therefore the Church can never condone homosexual marriage.

Rakihi,

The constitution says whatever some judge/s says it says at any one point in time. That is why we need good moral Justices on the court and not moral relativists that you are arguing for.

Sam =“The doctrine and moral teaching will always be 100% the Truth.”

That is your claim and no it isn’t the truth, it’s just a belief.

Sam =“Back on topic, the Constitution does not have the right to go against the Laws of God regardless of what the majority want. Homosexuality is against the law of God, therefore the Church can never condone homosexual marriage.”

LMAO, it will happen no matter how much nonsensical propaganda you spew.

The Truth is the truth regardless of who believes it or not.

I’m not saying the country won’t let it happen. I am saying it will be a sad and evil day when it does. All of this effort to get sin accepted and approved shows how truly far gone we are as a society.  It is what is right that counts not what the majority want. Majority opinion does not make something true.
And Psy - if you hate the Catholic Church so much why are you on a Catholic blog? I don’t go posting on gay rights blogs and such.

Sam =“And Psy - if you hate the Catholic Church so much why are you on a Catholic blog? I don’t go posting on gay rights blogs and such.”

Well Sam, thank you for finally acknowledging you don’t post on gay rights blogs because you hate gays. Your statement is also one of those ‘shut up and go away’ comments that is I see often on this site. Are you afraid other opinions may sway you or others?
From polls I’ve seen over the past several months it would appear roughly half of those who call themselves Catholics are in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Psy = I did not say I hate gays. I do not. I just don’t condone what they do.
No I am not worried that your comments would sway me in the least. I can hold my own I am quite confident. It is just that you seem to be on here with the sole purpose of attacking the Catholic Church.

As for polls - that is meaningless to the truth. As I’ve said before - what is true is true regardless of how many believe it or don’t believe it. Majority opinion has nothing to do with Truth. So if 50 % of Catholics are in favor then shame on them for not living their Catholic Faith. The Catholic Faith is not something you pick and choose what you want. You take all of it or you are not really a Catholic in an ything but name.

Sam =“It is just that you seem to be on here with the sole purpose of attacking the Catholic Church.”
It seems to me your sole purpose here it to attack gays dehumanizing them as evil sinners as you believe you are so much better and more deserving of than everyone else. You don’t respect them as people to live their own lives and seek to force your personal beliefs on others.

Sam =“So if 50 % of Catholics are in favor then shame on them for not living their Catholic Faith.”
Shame? I commend them for their critical thinking and questioning the empty claims of the Church’s authority.

I never said I was better or more deserving than everyone else. You are totally putting words in my mouth. Again the truth is the truth because it is and not because I say it is. Again, we don’t have the right to do what is morally evil. I do respect them as people and hence hope for salvation for all of them. Valuing someone as a human being does NOT mean giving approval of every sort of immorality someone may want to do.

If one did their research critically with an open mind one would see the truth in the claims of the Catholic Church. We are not called to blind faith but should use our intelligence that God has given us.

You seem to be calling it critical thinking because it goes along with your world view. Is it not critical thinking if you happen to believe that the Church is correct?  It is not critical thinking just to go along with the flow of modern society either, just mindlessly accepting something as normal because TV, internet, movies, society etc is telling us it is.

There are studies that have been done showing reduced life expectancies for homosexuals.  One study showed an average life expectancy of only 38 years.  If this is true, anyone encouraging men to engage in this lifestyle would be guilty of a grievous sin.  It also would give quite a bit of credibility to Christianity’s long opposition to homosexuality.  It has nothing to do with hating people, it has to do with not wanting them to cut their lives short.

Sam, you talk about being open minded and thinking critically, and warn against blind faith, but you practice just the opposite.  It seems like every one of your posts is a variation of “My Catholic faith is the one and only true faith because God says so.”  Repeating ad nauseam that what you say is true because it is true is so fallacious that I doubt even a young teenager would be fooled by it.  It would be like me saying that Catholicism is a false religion because, as a Protestant, I simply know this to be true.

JD, none of those studies are considered credible.  By this I mean none of them have ever been published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

Anon:  “The constitution says whatever some judge/s says it says at any one point in time.”

You know what’s funny?  The same thing can be said about the bible.

rahiki - open minded means being open to the truth. You seem closed to the idea. You also keep repeating what you have said over and over with no higher authority backing you than human. Why would I take the word of something just because it is a majority opinion. If human opinion is all that matters why should I believe you over what the Church teaches.

    When I say think critically that means you need to study why people say what they do. You need to learn why the Church teaches what they teach. The teachings of the Church are in fact rational and in accord with right reason. They are supported by science and philosophy as well as theology.  What the general population wants is often based on not much more than instant self-gratification. That is how the animals behave. As rational human beings we are called to so much more than that.
    I have studied intensely and I accept the Catholic Church because what they teach is true, not because I was raised Catholic, don’t know any better, or don’t know what to think for myself. We do accept what the Church teaches because the Church teaches it and are called to learn more if it doesn’t make sense to us. I did not warn against blind faith, I was only saying that this is not sufficient. We are called to always be learning more about our Faith.

Posted by rakihi on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012 5:07 AM (EST):

Anon:  “The constitution says whatever some judge/s says it says at any one point in time.”

You know what’s funny?  The same thing can be said about the bible.
_________________________________________________________________

Only by people that have a facile understanding of Scripture and the Church. Our Lord left a living magisterium incapable of teaching error. Courts are simply men with no such protection.

Posted by Psy on Tuesday, Nov 6, 2012 1:11 PM (EST):
It seems to me your sole purpose here it to attack gays dehumanizing them as evil sinners as you believe you are so much better and more deserving of than everyone else. You don’t respect them as people to live their own lives and seek to force your personal beliefs on others.

_________________________________________________________________

Psy,

t seems to me your sole purpose here it to attack Catholics dehumanizing them as evil sinners as you believe you are so much better and more deserving of than everyone else. You don’t respect them as people to live their own lives and seek to force your personal beliefs on others.

Rakihi, you might be technically correct, but it is disturbing nevertheless that one survey of obituaries in homosexual newspapers showed and average age of death of only 38!  A sane person would ask for larger and more detailed studies to be done.  But I don’t think the homosexual community will be pressing for this any time soon because the results might be shocking.  It should be intuitive to anyone bothering to stop and think about it that the Bible speaks out against same sex relations because in that time period uncircumcised men having anal inercourse could breed bacterial infections for both partners.  In a world without antibiotics or even proper bathing facilities, anal sex could easily result in a rather unpleasant early death.  Further, if one of these men had relations with a woman, without properly bathing, it could be a death sentence for her as well.  You don’t need to have a degree in microbiology to observe cause and effect.  So today we do have antibiotics and proper bathing facilities - but we also have AIDS, which got a firm foothold in the homosexual community and was given a boost by an ever increasing promiscuous heterosexual community.  No law you pass with ever supersede the Natural Moral Law.  And, telling people that it’s not in their best interest to have same sex relations is not hating them.

Sam, you just don’t get it.  Your reasoning is circular.  In other words, you begin with what you’re trying to end up with.  You insist that the Catholic Church’s teachings are infallible and then use that assumption to “prove” that marriage equality is somehow “evil”.  You can say you know the Church’s teachings are infallible because you’ve studied extensively but your argument does nothing to convince anyone who does not already accept your premise.  I, too, have extensively studied the arguments for and against equality and have found the arguments that say the state should not treat its citizens equally to be fatally flawed.

JD, that survey you cite was conducted by the disgraced former psychologist Paul Cameron, who was expelled by the American Psychological Association for pushing junk like the paper you mentioned.  Every legitimate scientific professional organization like the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. all condemn the kind of garbage put out by these fringe anti-gay groups that masquerade as legitimate scientific think tanks.  And knowingly telling people dangerous and destructive lies that endanger their physical and mental well-being IS hating them.

As an aside, I wanted to say how happy I am that the real PRO-MARRIAGE side swept to victory in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington on Tuesday.

Rakihi, they are not dangerous and destructive lies.  There are real issues here that are being ignored because they do not fit your agenda.  Yes, Cameron’s study was debunked because it did not follow statistical protocol.  But, homosexual activists have a terrible habit of attacking anyone who even suggests questioning the wisdom of endorsing same sex relations.  This just happened to Mark Regnerus.  Even if flawed, the results are disturbing.  At the very least they should trigger better studies.  All of those organizations you mentioned were pressured to redefine homosexuality as normal by an ill informed society with a misplaced sense of compassion.  Notice you did not dispute the fact that anal sex is not healthy and that there are legitimate health concerns with that activity as it damages delicate human tissue.  Considering these health concerns it is not beyond reason that reduced life expectancy is a very real possibility.  Then there’s also concerns with elevated levels of substance abuse, depression and suicide - even when hommosexuals live in communities that openly embrace the life style.  Even men get tired of being sex objects and it impacts their psyche negatively.  I don’t for a minute believe that everything is honky dory in the homosexual world.  I think the public has been snookered by a very vocal minority that has swept some unpleasant problems under the carpet.  Considering this, it is evil to hide issues from people and to summarily dismis concerns because they do not neatly fit into your agenda.  It is not hatred to raise questions, especially if those questions deal with public health cincerns.

I do feel bad for anyone who has a same sex attraction.  I don’t think it is an easy way to go through life and quite frankly many of the gay guys I have met are decent human beings.  But I would not endorse the life style on any level because I do fear it is ultimately detrimental.

Rakihi,

Moral collapse is no victory. Your false view of equality fits well with your moral relatvism. Also, political groups like the APA, AMA are not infallible. In fact, their propaganda is accepted by many miseducated relativists.

Rahiki - you don’t get it. What is moral is not decided by majority vote. Homosexuals by very definition cannot marry because marriage by definition is between man and woman. You can’t just go and change the definition of marriage. That is just a word game, aside from the whole immorality of it. This is not unequal treatment anymore than when laws prevent some people from stealing, raping, or doing anything else prevented by law.

As for circular reasoning, you keep doing the same. I can argue my point from science or philosophy and prove my point also but I don’t think you would accept that either even if I left what the Church says out of it. You won’t accept anything unless it agrees with your pro-homosexual agenda.

It is the heterosexual world’s fault that we’re even having this conversation.  Artificial contraception has increased the rates of promiscuity, divorce (even married people can be promiscuous), broken families, pornography (do you think most women would do those things if there was a cnatural hance of pregnancy?), and abortion (for those inevitable times when contraception fails).  Couples fornicate and cohabitate on a regular basis and no one thinks anything of it because everyone is doing it.  We have so cheapened the relations between men and women that now it is plausible for two men to ask to be married.  All of these immoral things are connected and they all lead back to artifical contraception.  Collectively, these things comprise the Culture of Death because none of them ultimately brings life and happiness.  Steven Greydanus wrote a great series of articles on this subject.  I’d encourage everyone to look these up on this web site.

Sam:  “As for circular reasoning, you keep doing the same.”  Uh, no I don’t.

I laid out the constitutional case as to why the state may not discriminate against gays, and instead of responding to that argument, you simply said the Constitution doesn’t matter, the courts and judges don’t matter, that legislators don’t matter, that the American people don’t matter and that other religious views don’t matter.  The only thing that matters, you say, is your own religious views, and that everyone else must bow down and submit to them.  Thank you for finally admitting that you have NO ARGUMENT aside from screaming “because MY god says so!!”

You say you can argue against marriage equality without resorting to religious dogma?  Then do so.  Go ahead and try to make a legal case against it.  I doubt you’ll be any more successful than the hapless lawyers who are trying to defend Prop. H8 and DOMA.

JD:  “All of those organizations you mentioned were pressured to redefine homosexuality as normal by an ill informed society with a misplaced sense of compassion.”  I’m afraid I have to call you out on this BS.  These organizations, beginning with the APA, started to revise their positions in the mid-1970s, when it was essentially a criminal offence to be gay in the vast majority of states.  Back then, the phrase “gay rights” would have been an oxymoron; to be gay was to have no rights.  To suggest that a fanatically anti-gay public pressured these groups to change their stance is absurd. 

You mention elevated levels of depression, suicide and substance abuse among gays.  That of course is a huge issue as the string of teen suicides recently demonstrated.  But you merely point out the symptom and incorrectly assume that being gay is the cause.  Have you ever considered that young gays and lesbians are more prone to these misfortunes because they are told on a daily basis by society that they are immoral, perverted, sick, even dangerous; and are systematically discriminated against in a thousand ways, big and small?  No?  Well maybe you should.  And there is no where in America where gay people enjoy the equal protection of the law.  What about San Francisco? you may respond.  Oh, you mean that place in the state where the Catholic and Mormon churches spent tens of millions of dollars successfully amending the constitution to strip from gay couples their right to marry?  I’m sure gay Californians can just feel the love.

Regnerus’ study was slammed because he claimed it showed that gay parents are inferior to heterosexual ones when what it really compared was stable versus unstable households, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.  The number of studies involving gay married couples raising children will no doubt increase exponentially over the coming years and that is a good thing.  The problem lies when anti-gay activists seize upon and trumpet the results of one (flawed) study that purportedly shows that heterosexuals are better in this or that way, while ignoring the dozens of other studies that find no meaningful difference.

And, uh, as far as anal sex goes, I’m guessing that you’re unaware that in terms of raw numbers, there are A LOT more heterosexuals who engage in that then gays.

Rakihi,

All you offer is relativism and hedonism. What you want is wrong and will never be right in this world or the next one.

We do not live in a Catholic Theocracy. We have a Constitution that does not control our sex lives. Live your own life and let others live theirs.

The constitution does not support perversion. Stop foisting your immoral beliefs on others.

Thank you, Anon, for proving my point.  Well Sam, I guess it’s up to you.

Rakihi, my friend, I’m sorry, but I think you are white washing problems.  You admit there are issues with high suicide and substance abuse rates.  You claim it is because of all the hatred and abuse suffered at the hands of ignorant people.  But why is the problem particularly acute in homosexual communities where the life style in embraced and celebrated?  Is it because gays move to these areas so they can live freely and then discover that once they indulge there are psychological/physical problems they had not considered?  Maybe the promiscuity gets to them? 

And, as far as all the hate crimes against gays causing the high suicide rate etc, they are about on par with religious hate crimes according to FBI crime stats.  The news is not filled with hate crimes against gays.  No, Rakihi, there is something deeper going on here that has nothing to do with the heterosexual community.

So what if heterosexuals engage in anal sex?  That doesn’t make it any less dangerous and it certainly doesn’t legitimize anything.  And I think your opinion on the rates at which this engaged heterosexuals is skewed.  I’ve just not seen this on the scale you seem to indicate.

I was around in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  That was the dawn of the sexual revolution and immorality was sweeping the nation as never before.  The general public was not rabidly anti-gay as you portray.  The APA and those other organizations got swept up in all of this and that is what fostered the change in their positions - the political correctness of the times. 

Nothing I say will change your mind.  And, rest easy, the public opinion is slowing turning in your favor and same sex marriage will eventually be nation wide.  You will then start forcing improved “education” on school kids and file law suites against churches for not marrying you or renting out their halls to you.  You will be responsible for Catholic adoption agencies shutting down and you will eventually seek to lower the age of sexual consent.  These things have already happened in Canada and in some areas of the USA, which already have same sex marriage.  But the really sad thing is that at the end of the day, no matter what law is passed or what decree is made, you will never be happy.  There will always be a deep down sense that something is wrong and you will never be able to shake it.  This feeling ultimately causes the early demise of so many gays.  What’s even sadder is that the people who are actually trying to help by pointing out problems nad calling for more research have been shouted down as ignorant biggots. 

So, go right ahead and do what you are doing and we will see where you end up.

Rahiki - You are using circular reasoning. You keep saying that everyone should be able to do such things because the Constitution allows it. That proves nothing. You tell me to make a legal case against it. That is not the point. I don’t argue that it is legal in some states and may soon be everywhere. The point is that legality doesn’t make something right. and Anon is right that you keep trying to force your beliefs on us while condemning us for supporting the opposing view.
So once again whether a thing is legal has nothing to do with it being moral or not.
——
The sexual act is designed for the propagation of the species. That is what they were made for and how they were designed to function. They do not strictly speaking, from a viewpoint of survival, aid the individual to survive. The reproductive organs can be removed when they are diseased (ie cancerous etc) and the person can still live fairly normally. The other systems of the body were designed for the survival of the individual (such as respiratory, digestive, etc)and without such the individual would die, while the reproductive system is for the survival of the species.
Not using the the systems of the body in a way consistent with their design goes against nature and makes no sense biologically. It violates their function from a strictly natural point of view. As a human being endowed with right reason we would normally use things in the way they were intended, this being what reason would tell us. Whenever we do not, this is intrinsically disordered and something to be curbed. You could reference Aristotle for more on these things. He was a pagan living before the time of Christ so you can’t acuse him of Catholic bias.
—-
If you can’t accept science, religion, reason , or philosophy, and reject such time revered masters such as Aristotle then I don’t think there is anything anyone can say to help you see the truth. You seem to believe that people should do whatever they feel like, as if feelings and passions are all that matter. This of course throws reason out the window and lowers us to the level of the animals.

Rakihi,

Your are not making sense. I simply pointed out the obvious.

JD:

“You claim it is because of all the hatred and abuse suffered at the hands of ignorant people.”  It’s not really “me” that’s making this claim.  This represents the consensus view of America’s major professional health organizations in response to decades of scientific studies.  You may assert the contrary, but with all due respect, you’ve given me no reason to believe you possess greater knowledge in the topic than they do.

 
“The general public was not rabidly anti-gay as you portray.”  Do you ever provide evidence for your claims?  If you really were around in the 1960s and 70s, then you should remember Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” crusade where she accused gays of preying upon children, to name just one example.  Heck, even in 2003 when the Supreme Court said states could no longer make being gay a crime, many conservatives threw a hissy fit.

With regard to parade of horribles: 1) Show me which state lowered its age of consent.  I haven’t been able to identify a single one.  And as far as Canada goes, it actually RAISED its age of consent back in 2008; 2) Adoption is a legal process under the jurisdiction of the state.  Adoption agencies must adhere to the legal requirements set forth by the state.  If an agency is unwilling or unable to adhere to those regulations, then it must exit from providing such services.  The state obviously can not force an adoption agency to continue providing services against its will.  3)  No church has EVER been successfully sued for refusing to perform the appropriate symbolic rites that accompany a religious ceremony.  4) If that church hall is reserved for official church functions or the use of its members, then I see no problem.  But if that church turns said hall into a public accommodation by renting it out to anyone with enough cash, then it may fall under a relevant non-discrimination law.  5)  I don’t know what you mean by “improved education”.  Perhaps you refer to your fear that students will learn that gay people exist, that they marry and have families just like anyone else, and that there was, unfortunately, a time when it was considered acceptable to harass fellow students who are or are thought to be gay. Stop making stuff up.

Nothing I say will change your mind.”  If all you offer are the same tired old anti-gay stereotypes and junk science from the likes of Paul Cameron, then I suspect you’re quite right.  By the way, I find it quite disingenuous to criticize a group of people for allegedly being “promiscuous” while simultaneously arguing for policies that make it difficult, if not impossible for this group to actually form long-term, stable relationships.

Sam:

“You keep saying that everyone should be able to do such things because the Constitution allows it.”  No, I’m not saying the Constitution “allows” a state to recognize marriage equality; that has been self-evident for a very long time.  I’m saying the Constitution “requires” that all states to recognize marriage equality. 

“Anon is right that you keep trying to force your beliefs on us while condemning us for supporting the opposing view.”  I’m sure white supremacists felt the same way after the Supreme Court, and later the president and congress decided state law could not constitutionally enforce their racism.  Thankfully, many, if not most of these individuals came to realize the error of their ways.

“The point is that legality doesn’t make something right.”  This is a mere truism. 

“whether a thing is legal has nothing to do with it being moral or not. ”  I quite agree.  I find some of the Catholic Church’s positions to be immoral but it certainly has the legal right to espouse these views. 

“The sexual act is designed for the propagation of the species….”  So sex can result in procreation.  Got ya.  Now try to link that fact with your argument that the state can refuse to recognize the right of gays to marry given that no state makes a couple’s intention or ability to procreate a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage licence, not to mention the fact that couples have a constitutional right to NOT have children through the use of contraceptives. 

By the way, Aristotle, however admired as a philosopher, is not recognized as an authority on the U.S. Constitution.  Besides, most people would find his endorsement of slavery to be…outdated to say the least, in the 21st century.

Contrary to your charge, I respect logic, reasoning and the Constitution too much to accept as valid your very weak arguments in favour of legal discrimination.  I also find your characterization of marriage as an exercise in selfishness to be, quite frankly, downright bizarre.  Marriage, in entailing as it does, the wilful decision to take on responsibility for another human being is an act of almost unparalleled selflessness. 

Anon:  I was merely commenting that you weren’t providing any legal argument against marriage equality, and instead were merely parroting religious dogma.  Maybe this example will help you understand.  Imagine someone saying that Catholicism is incompatible with the Constitution.  When you ask why, the person merely replies, “Because the Constitution can not endorse perversion, as though it were obvious that Catholicism equals perversion.  In response to your angry retorts, the person repeats again and again, that his sect, which of course represents the one and only TRUTH, has decreed that Catholicism is immoral and a perversion of the true faith.  This person is never able to explain WHY Catholicism is a perversion aside from pointing to his religious beliefs.  It sure would be a frustrating exercise arguing with such a person, wouldn’t it?  That is what it’s like trying to have a debate with you.

Rahiki - first of all I never said marriage was selfishness. I don’t where you got that from.
The Constitution has nothing to do with whether homosexual marriage is good or bad. Also the argument about the sexual act being for the propagation of the species- the link is that any sexual act must be open and lead to the possibility of children. Homosexuality can’t lead to children and is a violation against nature. I also condemn the use of contraception and maintain that it should be illegal as well just as cocaine or heroin is.
—-
Clearly you do not value logic and reasoning since you intentionally twist everything I say. You also seem to put the Constitution on a pedestal that it does not deserve. It is a legal document. It is not an authority on right and wrong which is the crux of the matter here. And since you don’t like what Aristotle has to say you dismiss him and go back to the Constitution. You need to get something other than the Constitution. Once again it does not teach right and wrong nor was it intended to.

Rahiki - You’ve made a strong argument for your point of view - nitpicking every argument against your position- finding an exception here or there and drawing a conclusion from it.  But in the long run it doesn’t matter what law is passed or how much we “educate kids that gay people exist”.  And, you can criticize every bit of research that doesn’t go your way.  Deep down you will never be happy.  There will always be a feeling that something is wrong.  You can try and convince yourself that everything is OK, but you will never shake the feeling that something is “off”.  This sad fact ends in the untimely demise of many homosexuals even when they live in a community that openly celebrates same sex relations.

By the way, I noticed a pattern with gay men.  Seems like there’s a recurring theme of problematic relationships with their fathers and I don’t mean AFTER the fathers find out their son has a same sex attraction.  I mean they have problems with their fathers from very early childhood - long BEFORE the child displays a sexual preference.  I’m sure you have an explanation of this.  I’d like to hear it.

Anon:  I was merely commenting that you weren’t providing any legal argument against marriage equality, and instead were merely parroting religious dogma.  Maybe this example will help you understand.  Imagine someone saying that Catholicism is incompatible with the Constitution.  When you ask why, the person merely replies, “Because the Constitution can not endorse perversion, as though it were obvious that Catholicism equals perversion.  In response to your angry retorts, the person repeats again and again, that his sect, which of course represents the one and only TRUTH, has decreed that Catholicism is immoral and a perversion of the true faith.  This person is never able to explain WHY Catholicism is a perversion aside from pointing to his religious beliefs.  It sure would be a frustrating exercise arguing with such a person, wouldn’t it?  That is what it’s like trying to have a debate with you.
_______________________________________________________________

I am not speaking of Dogma, you are. Legal arguments as based on the private interpretation on whichever judge is making the opinion. That means if he/she is devoid of moral logic then the opinion is useless.

Catholicism is not perversion by any rational definition. Homosexual acts are perversion as any reasonable person sees and has seen since the start of recorded time. Your analogy fails from the start.

You know full well that certain acts are perverted by their very nature. This can be explained but frankly it is self evident. Only in very recent times would any sane person ask for “proof” that homosexuals acts are disordered.

Sam:

It might have been Anon who said that.  It’s hard to keep the three of you separate.

“The Constitution has nothing to do with whether homosexual marriage is good or bad.”  That may be true, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution guarantees everyone the equal protection of the law. 

I don’t think you understood what I wrote earlier because you still have failed to link your statement that sex can result in procreation with your belief that the Constitution allows the state to deny gay couples the right to marry.  To repeat:  No state either requires the ability or intention to procreate before issuing a marriage licence.  And if a state, for some unfathomable reason, tried to do so, it would be blocked by the courts.  You’re trying to impose your own personal litmus test where none exists in the law.  Also legally irrelevant is your condemnation of contraceptives.  You can curse them with every fibre in your being but that doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution protects the right of other people to use them. 

You may not like it, but the Constitution is America’s ultimate governing document.  It’s what protects not only your religious freedom but everyone else’s as well.  What you don’t seem to understand is that people who are not Catholics, and even many who are, do not feel obligated to obey every edict handed down by a man in Rome.  It seems like you’d be much happier living under a Catholic Taliban.  But as long as you live in the U.S. you are under the jurisdiction of governments bound by the authority of the Constitution. 

By the way, pointing out the flaws in your logic is not the same as twisting your words.  The Constitution may not teach what is right or wrong, but it is used to determine what is, and what is not, constitutional.

I don’t know if you were aware, but I really don’t care what the Catholic Church says about marriage and procreation.  It does not get to force the state to adhere to its views.

JD:  You may call what I’m doing “nitpicking”, but I think you’re just upset that I call you out when you post obvious falsehoods like when you said recognizing marriage equality led to a lowering of the age of consent, and the fact that all of your legal arguments fall apart under examination. 

“By the way, I noticed a pattern with gay men….”  Oh, really?  I had no idea you possessed professional expertise in the topic.  How large was the sample that you included in your rigorously scientific study?  Was Paul Cameron your dissertation advisor?  Do tell! 

Personally, I’m not the type of person who finds anecdotal evidence to be convincing but if you do, how’s this one:  The people who are most vociferously opposed to equal rights for gays tend to be overcompensating due to their own internal homoerotic tendencies.  See ex- Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig, Ted Haggard, George Rekers and a bunch of other religious and political conservatives.

Anon:

“Legal arguments as based on the private interpretation on whichever judge is making the opinion.”  You’re wrong.  Legal decisions regarding fundamental rights are based on precedent, on connections to other rights, on whether the government has sole jurisdiction over said right, among other things.  The Supreme Court has laid out many principles of constitutional law that all lower judges are obliged to follow.  The freedom of speech and expression, for example, protects both the popular and the unpopular.  Judges have upheld the rights of neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan members not because they sympathize with Nazism or racism but because they take seriously the importance of adhering to the principle that the government may not censor speech just because it doesn’t like the content expressed.

“Catholicism is not perversion by any rational definition.”  Of course it is.  My religion says so and since mine is the one true faith, what it teaches must be true.  Ergo, Catholicism is a perversion.

 
Do you see what happened there?  That’s what happens when people are unable to come up with an argument that is not rooted in sectarian dogma.  You get caught in an endless cycle of “My religion is correct!  No, mine is!—Nuh-uh!; Yeah-huh!”  Thank goodness we have the Constitution that separates the state from squabbling religious conflicts.  It sure beats having the religious wars that plagued Europe for centuries, and still does in places like Northern Ireland.

“Homosexual acts are perversion as any reasonable person sees and has seen since the start of recorded time….You know full well that certain acts are perverted by their very nature. This can be explained but frankly it is self evident.”

Translation:  “I say homosexuality is perverted.  What do you mean, where’s my proof??  You don’t need no stinkin’ proof!  It’s obvious!  Duh!” That is the most winning-est argument I’ve ever seen.  LOL And yes, that is an accurate paraphrase of your argument.

Rahiki - You keep arguing from a legal standpoint. That is not the issue. I have no doubt the US government will make homosexual marriage legal. The issue is whether they have the right to. The issue is the morality or immorality of homosexual behavior and marriage. That is why I keep saying that it is irrelevant because the Constitution is not there to dictate the morality of things. Legality does not equal morality.
The link between sex and procreation that I am making is that from a purely natural and biological view this act is for the propagation of the species. Acts that cannot result in this because we have prevented it goes against nature. Hence my mention of contraceptives as also being against nature whether for homosexuals or heterosexuals because they too block the possibility of a child resulting. Sex separated from its natural possible endpoint becomes immoral. It must always be linked to its endpoint.
—-
Furthermore legal documents should uphold morality in law. It is a travesty that this is no longer the case. The way this is going soon no one will be safe.

Rahiki, I may have been wrong about the sexual consent age being lowered in the USA, but all the other things I mentioned have actually been covered in articles on this web site and on others.  If you are a frequenter of this web site you would have seen them.  I’m not going to line them all up for you because you will find a way to conveniently explain them away.  There are homosexual groups out there like NAMBLA that advocate for lowering the age of sexual consent.  I’m willing to bet in the next 10 to 20 years some blue states will see the “wisdom” in this and actually let it happen.  The warped reasoning for this would likely go along these lines: Kids are much more sphisticated today and can make these decisions for themselves at younger ages.  Once Obama appoints more judges who think along the lines of Kevin Jennings, this scenario is not out of the question.

The concept you propose, that letting homosexuals marry so they can form long term relationships and be less promiscuous is ridiculous.  If that worked we wouldn’t have the rampant promiscuity in the heterosexual world, which by the way is also wrong.  By the way, what studies prove your point (that homosexuals can form monogamous long term relationships)or would you like me to believe you based on anecdotal evidence?

Even if I did have homoerotic feelings as you propose, it would not matter.  It’s the actions that are the sins, not the desire.  A person cannot help their feelings, but they can control their actions.  And they can certainly see that something is harmful and try and prevent themselves from doing it.  They can also speak out and try to prevent others from doing something that will hurt them.  Cannot a recovering alcoholic warn a teenager not to do the things he/she did?

Again, sadly, the bottom line is that no matter how much you argue, no matter what law is passed, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself, you will never be happy.  There will always be a deep down sense that something is wrong….and you know it.

Rahiki,

We have thousands of years of history that show people of all cultures of all times have rejected same sex acts as wrong. You have a few years where deceived people want the entire culture to accept their acts as normal.

The civil law ought to reflect the moral law and not contradict it. You refuse to accept the moral law. That does not mean it does not exist. It means that any explanation will be rejected by those that want to keep doing what they are doing.

It is not a failure of proof or explanations or any other such thing. It is that you refuse to be convinced.

Sam:

“You keep arguing from a legal standpoint. That is not the issue.”  Of course that is the issue.  That’s what the article to which we are responding is about.  I’m not here to argue that the Catholic Church should marry gay couples.  Quite frankly I could not care less what their policies are regarding which couples they will marry.

I understand the link you’re trying to make between sex and procreation.  What I’m trying to get you to understand is that as a legal matter, it’s irrelevant insofar as marriage is concerned.

You think marriage equality is morally wrong.  I am equally convinced that it is morally right.  We disagree and that’s okay.  If the Catholic and Mormon Churches simply refrained from trying to shove their religious dogma down everyone’s throats by trying to impose their theology upon everyone through the power of the state, then this wouldn’t be an issue and we could all move on with our lives.

“legal documents should uphold morality in law.”  No they shouldn’t, at least not when this so-called morality’s sole justification is that it conforms to the teaching of a particular religious sect.  Maybe this example will help illustrate my point.  I don’t think Fred Phelps and his hate group are moral people but I still acknowledge their right to express their opinions.  Do you know why?  Because I recognize the fact that a government that is allowed to silence a group because its views are unpopular is far more dangerous than allowing that pathetic bunch of losers to make a public spectacle of themselves.  Be thankful that is the case, because the Catholic Church’s positions on many issues, such as contraception, is decidedly unpopular with the vast majority of the American public.

JD:

“I’m not going to line them all up for you because you will find a way to conveniently explain them away.”  In other words, you’re afraid I’ll be able to easily refute them as I did with your bogus age of consent claim.  That’s what happens when you just repeat things you’ve read on random websites without taking the time to verify their accuracy.

 
“There are homosexual groups out there like NAMBLA that advocate for lowering the age of sexual consent.”  Once again you trot out the same tired, old anti-gay slanders.  If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop taking your talking points from hate groups that accuse gays of being pedophiles. 

“The concept you propose, that letting homosexuals marry so they can form long term relationships and be less promiscuous is ridiculous.  If that worked we wouldn’t have the rampant promiscuity in the heterosexual world, which by the way is also wrong.”  Are you really suggesting that marriage does nothing to encourage monogamy among heterosexuals?  That when two people pledge to each other, in front of their family and friends that they commit themselves to each other, that they feel no pressure to live up to that promise than couples who make no such commitment?  That, I think, is a far more ridiculous opinion.  It’s sad that you have such little faith in the power of marriage.

“what studies prove your point (that homosexuals can form monogamous long term relationships)or would you like me to believe you based on anecdotal evidence?”  Unlike you, I don’t need to rely on anecdotal evidence.  For starters, try this:  http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

The success of gay relationships is all the more impressive given that just a few short years ago (2003), such relationships were a criminal offence in 16 states, and discouraged in all 50.  Even today, none of these relationships are accorded the same legal and societal support that heterosexual ones have always enjoyed. 

“Again, sadly, the bottom line is that no matter how much you argue, no matter what law is passed, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself, you will never be happy.  There will always be a deep down sense that something is wrong….and you know it.”  There’s no need to project your own insecurities onto others.  Wait a minute…maybe you ARE struggling with some, shall we say, identity issues.  :-P

Anon:

With every post you just continue to prove my point.  Your appeal to history and tradition is as unconvincing now as it was when others did the same to justify slavery, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all other forms of evil.  Slavers and segregationists were no less sincere than you are in their belief that the practices they advocated for reflected the moral law.  So I ask you, did the moral law change from once supporting slavery to now opposing it?  Or did these men merely confuse the moral law with their own personal bigotry?  You tell me.

Rahiki - you said:
“legal documents should uphold morality in law.”  No they shouldn’t, at least not when this so-called morality’s sole justification is that it conforms to the teaching of a particular religious sect.

I have already shown you that morality’s justification is not just from Catholicism but is something that conforms with the Natural law. I have also shown that it corresponds with philosophical and biological principles but you choose to reject that.
—-
Do you even believe in God? Because if you do you would have to admit that he has some say in what we do or don’t do as his creatures. He has the right to impose morality on his creatures. And yes we have free will so that we can freely choose to obey him and if we do not He will punish as his his right.

Rahiki, help me out here.  NAMBLA is an organization of men who advocate for the normalizing sexual relations between men and younger men in the junior high age bracket.  How is that not a same sex attraction issue?  This organization advoctes for the same types of thngs that were going on in the Greco Roman error.  Clearly, this organization has existed for a long time and their positions are well known.  And this causes you no concern?  Not even outrage that there is a group of homosexual men giving other homosexual men a bad name?  Your reation to my initial comment was, more or less, “don’t bring up this subject because it is hate speech”.  Are you defending this organization’s positions?  You don’t need to go to the web sites of hate groups to know about NAMBLA, they have been in trouble with the police many times and it has been well publicized in the main stream media.  I guess it’s just plain wrong to question this whole topic because it spoils picture perfect image you’d like us all to believe.

That APA link you provided was a politically correct puff piece that offered no evidence that homosexuals can form monogamous long term relationships.  Surely there must be some since 1973.  And please don’t go on about how bad things were up until just recently when the right to marry was just granted in a few states.  I lived through the sexual revolution and even though the APA did not normalize same sex relations until the early 1970’s people were living the life style very openly.  And, no, the news was not filled with Christians dragging homosexuals out of their homes and harming them (which would be utterly deplorable).  You’re exagerating all of this to justify your position that long term monogamous relationships in the heterosexual and homosexual worlds are not equivalent.  Suggest you research the works of McWhirter and Mattison and also Kinsey. 

Marriage means nothing if God is not involved.  Without God it becomes nothing more then meaningless paper, which can be torn up at will.  The concept of marriage has been so badly degraded (thanks to artifical contraception) that this is exactly what heterosexuals will do.  “Marriage” for many has become “until death due us part or until we get tired of eachother”.  Marriage under these premises is not effective.

You can try all you want to deflect the ultimate issue, but you can never escape the deep down feeling that something is wrong.  There is something inherently disordered about the same sex attraction that is inescapable.

Rakihi,

With each post you reveal your moral relativism and hedonism. Catholic Chutch never supported chattel slavery. Your position is that all moral truth is relative which allows you to advocate for evil acts.
You want license not freedom. You want to shove your immoral liberal dogma down the throats of everyone else. Yours is a selfish ideology. You know it is wrong but refuse to acknowledge it.

Sam:

You are basing your case against marriage equality on a peculiar view of marriage that is resoundingly rejected by both law and society.  If civil law regarding marriage was in accordance with your “natural law” then you might have a case.  But it is not, so you don’t.  The civil law, in addition to allowing the use of contraceptives, allows people who are incapable of procreating to marry.  In fact, a couple need not even have sex a single time, and their marriage is just as valid as anyone else’s.  For your argument to be plausible, the state would also have to deny marriage licences to those who failed fertility tests or could not convince bureaucrats that they do, in fact, plan to have children.  Of course that proposal would be DOA in both legislatures and courts.

“He has the right to impose morality on his creatures.”  Ah, there’s the rub.  Just like everyone else who is not Catholic, I do not believe that church has an exclusive claim to speak for Him.  And I certainly would reject any claim on your part to do so.

JD:

“Rahiki, help me out here.”  I suspect you need more help then I’m qualified to give. 

“How is that not a same sex attraction issue?”  I’ll try to explain this in terms so simple that even a child could understand.  I hope you will too.  There are some people who are attracted to persons of the opposite sex.  They are called heterosexual.  There are some people who are attracted to persons of the same sex.  They are gay.  Then there are people who never develop a capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, whether male or female.  Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.  These people are pedophiles.  The members of the group to which you refer belong in this category.  I hope that explanation clears things up for you.

“Are you defending this organization’s positions?”  This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard you say, and you’ve said A LOT of stupid things.  Don’t try to pull that straw man BS with me, buddy.

Accusing minority groups whom you despise of endangering society’s most vulnerable members has long been a favoured tactic of bigots.  Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies and blacks were accused of preying upon white women.  You are simply the latest heir to that long and ignoble tradition. 

“And please don’t go on about how bad things were up until just recently when the right to marry was just granted in a few states.”  You don’t think being arrested and jailed for being in a relationship is a big deal?  You don’t think being presumed a criminal is a big deal?  You don’t think being fired for being in a relationship is a big deal?  You don’t think losing custody or visitation rights over your child is a big deal?  You don’t think being evicted by your landlord is a big deal?  You don’t think being disowned and ostracized by your family and friends is a big deal?  Well, do you?  These are not rhetorical questions.  I want you to answer each one of them.  You obviously have NO CLUE how hard it was and is maintain a relationship where society despises you. 

“And, no, the news was not filled with Christians dragging homosexuals out of their homes and harming them”  When so-called “Christians” push anti-gay ballot initiatives, they are inflicting a great deal of harm. 

“Marriage means nothing if God is not involved.”  Some gay couples agree with you on that point, and therefore decide to have their marriage blessed by their pastor.  And those who don’t could not care less about what some stranger whom they have never met and will never meet thinks about their marriage.

Anon:  “Your position is that all moral truth is relative”  Not at all.  I do not believe that all moral truths are valid; some moral truths are right and some moral “truths” are neither moral nor true.  Your moral truth, with its support of prejudice, fear, ignorance, suspicion, and bigotry leads to a great deal of evil and I condemn it without reservation.

JD:  I included a link in my reply to you and I think that’s what got it flagged as for review so it may not show up.

Rahiki - Your response shows an ignorance of what the natural law is. It is has nothing to do with civil law. Civil should reflect the natural law of course and it is unfortunate that in today’s world if often does not. THe natural law is that sense that is part of our nature whereby we instinctively know that something is wrong. It has nothing to do with its popularity in today’s culture. People know that it is wrong and that is one of the reasons why they are pushing so hard to get everyone to “accept” it and say that its ok.
—-
Infertility is not an issue for a valid marriage provided the couple behave in a way according to nature would produce children. They are doing what they are supposed to. By the way, a marriage IS in fact invalid if the couple goes into it saying they willingly choose to never have children and intend to prevent it. Again this does not apply if a couple intends and wants children but cannot due to infertility.
—-
If you deny the right of the Church to teach faith and morals then who do you look to tell you right and wrong on thorny issues or problems? yourself? That would be the heighth of arrogance since you would be in effect making yourself God.  If you look to Scripture then you still need someone who has the authority given them to interpret because private interpretation leads to making it mean whatever you want or whatever is convenient. The Truth is not always easy or popular but that is not the measure of Truth.

Posted by rakihi on Friday, Nov 16, 2012 6:55 AM (EDT):

Anon:  “Your position is that all moral truth is relative”  Not at all.  I do not believe that all moral truths are valid; some moral truths are right and some moral “truths” are neither moral nor true.  Your moral truth, with its support of prejudice, fear, ignorance, suspicion, and bigotry leads to a great deal of evil and I condemn it without reservation.
___________________________________________________________________

You do not think all moral truth is valid? That is a contradiction. It is true or false. What you mean is you reject certain moral truths because it is inconvenient and you would have to stop doing what you are doing.

True love is doing our Lord’s will. That will bring true joy. Your obfuscation and denial only reveal the poverty of your position.

There is still hope. I hope we all pray for you. Please stop.

OK, OK, Rahiki.  Settle down.  All of those things are wrong and the Caetchism of the Catholic Church specifically states so.  No good Cathoic would ever support such things.  I live in a major city with a very sizeable gay community.  No one is harrassing them and they walk about freely and in the open.  So, you’ll have to excuse me for not seeing what you are seeing.

I’m going to guess, due to the passion of your argument, that your parents have turned their back on you because of a same sex attraction and I’d almost be willing to bet a poor relationship with your father is a major factor in your development.  If this is true, words cannot express how badly I feel for you - or anyone who has faced such a thing.  It is horrible to be abandoned like that.  I can understand such a person taking the positions you have taken, because you have been so badly injured.  Parents should NEVER EVER abandon their child because of such a thing.  Any Catholic truly following church teachings would believe this to be true.

My daughter and her girlfriends are friends with a young gay man.  He has been over the house for social gatherings a number of times.  He’s a nice kid.  Very sensitive.  He has a terrible relationship with his family and specifically he has been abandoned and rejected by an estranged father from a very young age.  The father apparently has a mean streak in him.  So, this friend has spent the majority of his youth with his rather dominant mother and her sisters/lady friends.  This is a good thing, but young boys need to be loved by their fathers.  They need to spend time with loving fathers.  Something went off track in his development.  When my daughter told me about his background, the first words out of my mouth were, “I’d like to slap his father for treating his son like that”.

I have another story, which I won’t bore you with here.  It parallels the above story, but it has a much sadder ending.

I do have a heart, Rahiki.  My feelings on same sex marriage are not based on hatred.  They’re based on some simple observations that there’s more then meets the eye here and that the development of a same sex attraction is not fully understood.  I have a concern that indulging in same sex relations might be physically and psychologically harmful to a person.  Unlike you, I am not convinced everything is fine.  You can call Catholics bigots for challenging the prevailing current wisdom on this topic, but you will find no better friend in your loving defense then the Catholic Church.  Please consider that loving a person does not mean you endorse everything they want to do.

“The natural law is that sense that is part of our nature whereby we instinctively know that something is wrong.”  I thought you needed a man in Rome to tell you what is right and wrong? 

“Infertility is not an issue for a valid marriage provided the couple behave in a way according to nature would produce children. ”  The distinction that you draw is without difference.

“By the way, a marriage IS in fact invalid if the couple goes into it saying they willingly choose to never have children and intend to prevent it.”  Only in your own mind.  It certainly is valid to the only parties that matter.

“If you deny the right of the Church to teach faith and morals then who do you look to tell you right and wrong on thorny issues or problems? yourself?”  If you want to fight the Protestant Reformation, you’re more than a few centuries too late.

Anon:  “There is still hope. I hope we all pray for you. Please stop.”  I have no idea what you’re babbling about.

JD:

Wow, you went from being Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll so fast I almost got whiplash. 

“I live in a major city with a very sizeable gay community.  No one is harassing them and they walk about freely and in the open.  So, you’ll have to excuse me for not seeing what you are seeing.”  Well I’m glad gay residents of your city aren’t being chased around by mobs armed with torches and pitch forks but that’s hardly worth bragging about.  For someone who claims to know enough about gays to set forth an opinion on why some people are gay, you seem strangely unaware of the discrimination and indignities that gays face on a daily basis, especially when you say you live in a city with “a very sizeable gay community”. 

“I’m going to guess, due to the passion of your argument…”  May I suggest you do less guessing and more inquiring and critical thinking?  The idea that children “turn gay” because of a distant relationship with their father is laughably antiquated and lost all credibility many decades ago.  By the way, my passion in this and other issues comes from a deep-seated commitment to justice, not because they personally affect me. 

 
“Any Catholic truly following church teachings would believe this to be true.”  The unfortunate reality is that the Catholic Church’s teachings, whatever its intent, has the effect of making the lives of gays unbearable in the vain hope that they’ll “decide” to turn heterosexual or at least live a life of loneliness, free of the “sin” of ever loving another person.  The Church’s teaching that gays are “intrinsically disordered” is inevitably used as a club with which to bash gays, which is exactly what you yourself have done repeatedly in this conversation, i.e. tell people you think are gay that there’s something deeply and inherently wrong with them, over and over and over again.  (Scroll back up to your posts and see for yourself)  Some of the victims of this verbal abuse and harassment end up taking their own lives.  How you can live with that on your conscience, I’ll never know.

“My feelings on same sex marriage are not based on hatred.  They’re based on some simple observations that there’s more then meets the eye here and that the development of a same sex attraction is not fully understood.”  I might believe this if you showed a willingness to consider evidence from empirical studies conducted by people who possess the requisite qualifications, but you’ve already shown that when the APA summarizes these studies’ results and they clash with your “simple observations” you reject the former as “politically correct” puffery and cling to the latter.

 
“you will find no better friend in your loving defense then the Catholic Church.”  The saddest part of this whole discussion is that people like you might actually be sincere in your belief that you’re showing love, and fail to see how destructive your attitude and the actions that flow from it really is to the lives of millions of people.

Sure you do.

Anon:  I’m flattered that you think that I always know what goes on in your head, but I am neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. 

JD:  I’m still waiting for my post for you to show up.  Apparently always responding to all three of you in quick succession has my posts automatically flagged as potential spam, so in the future I may not bother responding to substance-free posts.

Rahiki - The Church is there to guide us but on many things we do know instinctively what is right or wrong.
—
If you cannot tell the difference between acting against nature to prevent kids and doing everything right but being infertile then there is nothing more I can say to make it clearer. Rational human being not enslaved by the passions should be able to tell the difference.
—-
Validity of marriage - whether its valid in the eyes of God matters.
—-
I do reject the protestant reformation with every ounce of my being. It is never too late to fight evil in all of its forms. the protestant reformation was arrogance and pride and man trying to act like God as I mentioned before. You cannot look to yourself as the final judge. And yes I will always fight against the protestant reformation and all that it stood for.

Rakihi, I listen to you and you almost make sense.  Then I read something like this and I wonder.  http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/san-francisco-officials-to-vote-on-public-nudity-ban?ocid=ansnews11

The there’s this story:  http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100625/NEWS/6250328

What’s your take on this?

Sam:

You know what I find peculiar?  Generally religious minorities are the ones who have the greatest appreciation of religious tolerance while intolerance is more commonly found among members of the majority religion.  If militant Catholics like yourself really were to wage jihad against the Protestant majority and everyone else, the end result would not be pretty for anyone but especially Catholics.  Thankfully, the VAST majority of Catholics do not hold such un-American views. 

JD:

I noticed that you didn’t include your usual ominous warning against what you believe to be the disordered nature of gays and lesbians.  I’m curious, was this a mere oversight on your part or did my earlier comment actually make an impact on you?

It sounds like you’re getting bored discussing marriage equality.  I guess that’s understandable since we’ve been at it since before Halloween.  It’s too bad the Supreme Court pushed back the date it would decide whether or not to grant certiorari on the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases from the 20th to the 30th.

Rahiki, I still think it’s disordered, but no sense beating a dead horse.  One of the reasons I think it’s disordered is because from time to time I see articles on stories that are off the wall.

What commentary do you have on the articles I mentioned above?

Rahiki - The fight is about Truth, not about being popular and certainly not about being politically correct. Desiring the greatest good for ones country, that they realize and embrace the Truth and lead moral and upstanding lives and having the government reflect this, is the true meaning of patriotism. It is not un-American in the truest sence of the term. One can be totally against the abuses of one’s country without being against one’s country. I am sure you will disagree of course.

Sam: 

There’s nothing wrong with trying to persuade fellow citizens that one’s own views are correct, or to outright proselytize.  The Constitution guarantees to everyone the freedoms of speech and religion, among other things.  One can even advocate for laws that are inspired by religious teaching.  The Constitution draws a bright line, however, between persuasion and coercion. 

JD:  Try to stay on-topic, thanks.

Rahiki, I am on topic.  According to you, there are no troubles in the world of same sex relations.  But I say, not so fast.  I have reason to doubt your claims.  When I read articles like the two above, why should I not have cause for doubt?  And those are just two articles there are others.

Here’s another disturbing news item: the “Code of Conduct” for the Folsom Street East festival.  In partuclar, it is disturbing that citizens have to be reminded that public sexual activity is unlawful.  I guess the participants need to be reminded of that because it’s not obvious to them.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=41844

JD: 

So your “argument” is that gays should be banned from marrying because a tiny school district felt compelled to reword its policy on condoms in order to allay the paranoia of conservatives who think that kindergartners would be handed condoms…

You truly are grasping at straws now, and then you make men out of them.

Rahiki, my question is simple: why do these odd ball stories keep popping up in communities with high concentrations of people with same sex attractions?  To the casual observer it might lead one to believe there is something disordered going on - that something is not quite right. 

Also, grade scholl children of any age should not be given condoms.  Parents worried about their children’s development should not be labelled as “paranoid conservatives”.

I referenced three articles.  You commented on one - and, as usual, dismissed it because it raises questions.

JD, simply posting links to random articles does not make your argument for you.  You still need to actually explain why these articles are relevant and how they support your argument.  At best, someone reading your post will be left with the impression that you think gays are “odd balls” and is left wondering, “What’s your point?”

 
By the way, I could open up any newspaper or listen to any news/entertainment show in the country and find stories about murder, rape, physical and sexual assault, robbery, infidelity and any manner of other criminal or bizarre behaviour being perpetrated by heterosexuals. 

Now I could say these stories, which keep popping up in communities with high concentrations of people with opposite-sex attractions, could lead a casual observer to conclude that perversion, violence, debauchery and all-around weirdness is part of the inherent nature of heterosexuals…but that would be stupid, as is your reliance on homophobic stereotypes that presume the nudists mentioned in the article is an accurate reflection of the general gay population.

PS:  Your inclusion of that article on condoms was nothing but a distraction with no relevance to our discussion.  Again, try to stay on topic.

This is like having a discussion with my kids when they were teenagers, unable to see connections or think long term. 

Overall, looking back over this thread, you’ve made an awful lot of weak excuses for every objection raised.  Your understanding of church teachings and history is severely lacking.  I don’t have enough time to point out all the flaws in your thinking.  However, fortunately for you, the majority of Americans can’t or won’t think deeply enough to challenge your superficial arguments and we’ll eventually end up with same sex marriage throughout the USA.  It will take many decades to see what effect this has on us and no one can say for sure exactly where we will end up.  But, if the arrogance shown by you in this thread is any indication of what to expect, the end results will not be pretty.

When you already know everything, you can’t be taught.  And, it’s apparent you already know everything.  So, no sense in continuing.  This conversation is over.

I, too, feel like I’ve been trying to explain things to a child.

I’ve gone over your posts and here is what I found.

You’ve clung to junk science being peddled by the disgraced former psychologist Paul Cameron while rejecting the findings of every major professional medical and health organization as being “politically correct puffery” for no other reason than they conflict with your preconceived biases. 

You point to the problems that some gays experience and blame their sexual orientation as the cause rather than the widespread and systematic discrimination, bigotry, and violence directed at gays on a daily basis by people just like you, and you yourself have repeatedly attacked gays as being disordered, and then you have the gall to insist that gays don’t suffer from any discrimination to speak of.

 
You have spread outright lies like when you claimed that gays want to lower the age of consent and slandered gays by repeating the hateful lie that gays are pedophiles.

You’ve acted as an arm chair psychologist, putting forth discredited ideas as to the nature of sexual orientation within any training in the field.

You claim that making the lives of gays and lesbians as miserable as possible is really a form of Christian “love” and if some gay kids react to this “love” by taking their own lives, well, at least they won’t have to “suffer” by living anymore. 

You seem incapable of understanding that American is governed by a Constitution that guarantees equality under the law, not some Catholic Taliban.  I am not surprised in the least that your “argument” fundamentally came down to “gays cannot marry because MY god says so,” augmented by the slippery slope fallacy where you say since we can’t predict the future, we shouldn’t make any changes in the present.  If this isn’t an example of intellectual laziness and superficiality, I don’t know what is. 

It is not I who thinks that he knows everything.  I am open to the results of credible new evidence.  You on the other hand, have demonstrated a tendency to reject anything that conflicts with your theological understanding of the world. 

You’re not the first person I’ve debated in a comments section like this, but I have to say your performance was, at best, mediocre.  In the past, I’ve known a few other people who have truly challenged me by using intellectually respectable reasoning and logic. 

And I already know that I’m standing on the right side of history.  There’s no need for you to remind me of that fact.  The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this week to take up challenges to anti-marriage laws like DOMA and by June of next year, will properly consign them to the dustbin of history, just as it did with the body of Jim Crow.

It is clear that you believe in Heterosexual Supremacy, and that it is this belief, rather than any actual concern for the well being of gays and lesbians, that drives your actions.  I pray that before you meet your creator, that you will come to understand all of the pain and suffering you have inflicted upon others, and that God will forgive you for your sins against Him and His children.

NOW this conversation is over.

Wow, such arrogance with no basis in fact Rahiki! You clearly don’t get the difference between morality and legality. and to think that you think we need to repent for obeying God’s Law!

Sam, I think you will find more ‘arrogance’ challenging the church’s interpretation of “God’s Law” in the fall out from the church’s political involvement in opposing gay equality from within and outside the church.

Many are determined to remove the church’s tax exemption while there are many within the church are now more determined and outspoken to change the church’s view on gay marriage. Besides the public relations problem of the on going world wide pedophile scandal they now have to deal with current ‘hate group’ label that the anti-gay political campaign has produced.

Psy - well of course we know another persecution is coming. It is within the Church’s right to teach that all must vote according to their Catholic Faith. That is just obvious. You can’t put your faith in a box only to be taken out on Sundays. Your faith should inform every action you take. Trying to get the Church “in trouble” for teaching the truth falls under the heading of persecution even though many will try to claim it is not.
—-
Yes I expect a lot more people will continue to disobey and try to get the Church to change Her teachings. They will be disappointed however. Many people will continue to think they know better but that certainly does not make them right.

It will be interesting to watch over the next year with so many countries and states now pushing for gay marriage, the UK, Uruguay, France, Ireland, Australia and the US. We live in exiting times.

Sam:

“You clearly don’t get the difference between morality and legality.”

No, you fool.  I’ve been the one trying to explain to you that in America, there is a difference between morality and legality.  You are the one who has tried to deny that there is any distinction between the two, and you further argue that both morality and legality should adhere to Catholic dogma, thereby forcing it down everyone’s throats.

Refer back to my post from Thursday, Nov 15, 2012 2:35 AM

Rahiki - I have not said that they are the same thing. In fact I am the the one who has repeatedly said that just because something is legal does not make it moral. Yes they should adhere to Catholic dogma which is the Truth. Truth has a way of being what it is reagardless of who believes or not. The Truth doesn’t change because you or I want it too. What is true is true and it doesn’t change just because a person, group, or nation decides to say it does. It doesn’t matter if we are in America or elsewhere, the Truth DOES NOT CHANGE.
—-
As to your previous post - the unpopularity of Truth does not change anything. I fully expect this country to become increasingly more anti-Catholic. The time will certainly come where we will be fined, jailed, condemned for newly created crimes. It has happened before and it will happen again. Often in the past Catholic were killed under the pretext of treason with their treason being the fact that they were Catholic. Next it will probably be for made up crimes like hate speech, crimes against humanity, denial of civil rights etc.—- because the Church will continue to speak out against sin in all of its many forms. And when it comes to the ultimate test, Catholics must have the courage to stand up and say with St Peter ” We ought to obey God rather than man!”
—
I am in the company of the all the most intelligent people throughout the ages. The Roman Empire became increasingly allowing of homosexual behavior towards the end and they fell. Do not throw away the wisdom of the ages for the fad of the present.

If standing up for the Catholic Faith makes me a fool then I am proud to be one!!

Sam, speeches like that bring 9/11 flashbacks to the general public.

I should also mention the rhetoric about gays being discorded sets of alarm bells of bigotry towards people with disabilities. No wonder gay marriage passed with a clean sweep.

discorded should be disordered, stupid spell chk.

Sam:

My “fool” comment was directed at your inversion of our respective positions.  I have repeatedly maintained that a particular sect’s theology should not be enshrined through the civil law for its own sake.  You claimed I don’t understand the difference between legality and morality.  On the contrary, I gave a clear example that I do, in fact, understand that difference in the post I referenced. 

You, on the other hand, while conceding that the law does not, at present, accord with Catholic teaching, nonetheless would like nothing better than to erase any distinction between the two, with Catholicism reigning supreme over both the Constitution and other religions.  That is why you do not understand the difference between morality and the civil law.

“I fully expect this country to become increasingly more anti-Catholic. The time will certainly come where we will be fined, jailed, condemned for newly created crimes.  It has happened before and it will happen again. ”

Are you aware just how paranoid you sound when you write stuff like this?  If the Supreme Court can rule that the Constitution protects the right of a hate group called the Westboro Baptist Church to picket at the funeral of a deceased service member, then your hysterical fears that Catholics will be rounded up and sent to internment camps en masse is all the more delusional.

One of the ways you get people to respect your rights is by respecting theirs.  A simple concept, I think. 

Psy:  Welcome back.  Have you been keeping an eye on this discussion the whole time?

Rahiki - you still fail to grasp the essential point. Also not paranoid at all here. Paranoia indicates fear. I’m just observing how these things go. History repeats itself. People often fear the Truth and like to attack it under one pretext or another because it makes them uncomfortable.
—-
Psy - You can’t equate truth with error. That is the distinction those not of the true faith cannot grasp. I said that Catholics should obey God rather than man. That is biblical. One obeys Civil laws in all things except sin. In those cases one must appeal to the higher law - that of God. That is not a new concept for Catholics. Example - the early Christians died rather than offer incense to idols. Another example - in England under Queen Elizabeth I Catholics would attend Mass in secret rather than go to the new Church of England. This is what I am talking about.
—
I have been in the military supporting the war effort so I absolutely REJECT your idea that what I said has anything to do with 9/11.

Rahiki - We can talk in 20 years or so and lets see how delusional the concept of persecution of Catholics is then.

“Also not paranoid at all here.” 

I looked up the definition of paranoia on Wikipedia and here’s what it says:

“Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. (e.g. ‘Everyone is out to get me.’)”

I’m not saying you ARE paranoid in a clinical sense; only someone with the proper credentials came make that diagnosis.  I’m just saying that when you claim Catholics will be rounded up and jailed at some indeterminate point in the future, you certainly SOUND paranoid to me and no doubt a lot of other people, especially when you’ve given no evidence at all to support your fears.  Noting that a particular form of persecution has happened in a different age and under different circumstances does not constitute evidence that such persecution will happen today or in the relative near future.

“I have been in the military supporting the war effort so I absolutely REJECT your idea that what I said has anything to do with 9/11.”

I think what Psy was alluding to was the fact that both you and Al-Qaeda are convinced that your religious interpretation is the one and only truth, that other religious views are evil, and that for their own good, people should be forced to obey the Truth, as you and al-Qaeda respectively see it.

Only God knows the future. So, why and who has exiled God from our culture? Does God take our future with Him when He goes?

The Supreme Court made “wards of the court” of all future generations known as “our posterity” in the Preamble to our U.S. Constitution, then handed these wards over to the militant feminists to murder at will. Men were dispossessed of their seed and emasculated. The wards of the court were disenfranchised of their fathers. Roe was predicated on the court’s disenfranchisement and dispossession of the Person of God of all unalienable rights endowed by God, and the replacement of God in our culture with NOTHING. The court never proved that the Person of God was criminal and deserved to be exiled. Never did the court prove that the newly conceived was criminal and deserved capital punishment. Nevertheless, babies’ skulls were crushed and their brains suctioned out in partial birth abortion. Will the Supreme Court “Roe” Gay Marriage? is a rhetorical question. Never did the court consider their human souls in existence at the will of their Creator, since the Person of God had already been banished from the common good. Why should the court consider the human beings’ rational immortal soul now? Gays prefer to ignore their eternity, their posterity and their common good.

Rahiki - From your own quote you say “influenced by anxiety or fear.” I am just making an observation of facts and drawing a conclusion much as a weatherman looks at clouds, computer models etc and makes a weather prediction. It has happened before in history such as with the early Christians or the Jews in World War 2. People told lies about them often enough until many believed it on some level and acted accordingly - Hitler’s Big Lie Theory.
—-
Someone who is observant and knowledgeable of history will observe and draw similarities to how such things have occurred in the past. Of course the exact specifics of how or when it would happen this time no one knows. But have you noticed how it is ok to publicly say whatever ones wants about the Catholic Church and that it ok? Whereas to any, and I mean ANY other group it is immediately political suicide, hate speech, intolerance, bias, prejudice—- you name it. Again, I am just observing the facts.
—-
Those that ignore History are doomed to repeat it. Human nature doesn’t change. Mankind makes the same mistakes over and over. So again, observations, not paranoia.
—-
Your rejection of history as an example is a reflection of the modern world which fails to think we could learn anything from the past and who believe such things couldn’t possibly happen again.
—-
Your continued comparison of AL-Qaeda with the Catholic Church shows that you have failed to grasp the distinction between Truth and Error. The Catholic Church is true therefore can claim to speak for morality and has the right and duty to do so. Error has no such right. The fact that they believe otherwise has no bearing on the matter. Error still has no right to impose on Truth—- hence the ongoing struggle between good and evil.
—-
  Besides, why would you care about a coming persecution since it would mean that you have temporarily won. Of course Truth will win in the end and Christ will truly reign in the hearts of men.

Sam:

I’m afraid your weather forecasting analogy is quite a bit off. Meteorologists use radar and other tools to spot clouds, moisture, approaching storm systems, wind speed and air pressure to predict the weather a few days in advance. In other words, they have actual evidence before them that they can analyze. You, on the other hand, are more akin to someone trying to divine the future using a Ouija Board, with nothing solid to back you up.

“But have you noticed how it is ok to publicly say whatever ones wants about the Catholic Church and that it ok? Whereas to any, and I mean ANY other group it is immediately political suicide, hate speech, intolerance, bias, prejudice—- you name it.”

No, I haven’t because this is another figment of your paranoid imagination. Criticizing the actions and policies of the Catholic Church, whether for protecting pedophile priests or excommunicating the mother of a 9 year old rape victim and her doctor for saving the girl’s life by ending the pregnancy, is not the same as hate speech. Disagreeing with the Catholic Church’s position on birth control is not persecution. Individuals in a free society such as ours do have the right say what they want and a few people take that right to its extremes. But these people do not have the power to oppress the Church and its adherents, both because of their small numbers and because they are opposed by the power of the state. I challenge you to name one state that has passed laws that truly discriminate against Catholics in the same manner that states discriminate against gays.

“Those that ignore History are doomed to repeat it. Human nature doesn’t change. Mankind makes the same mistakes over and over.”

This still doesn’t provide any evidence to support your contention that Catholics are in danger of being rounded up and sent to internment camps.

I do believe that we can learn from our mistakes. But you have unwittingly grasped onto a grain of truth here. There is a long and sad history of humans fearing “the other” and persecuting them. Hansen’s disease patients, religious and ethnic minorities like Jews and blacks, women, etc. The specific identity of “the other” has changed over the centuries but that fear and loathing of people who are some how different has remained. Gays and lesbians now have the misfortune of being “the other” of our time and you are all too eager to continue the tradition of persecution.

“Your continued comparison of AL-Qaeda with the Catholic Church shows that you have failed to grasp the distinction between Truth and Error.”

Actually I was merely trying to explain what I thought Psy meant when he made the 9/11 comment, but since you raised the issue…

Insofar as both you and al-Qaeda are religious fanatics who insist that you alone speak the Truth while being intolerant of any other religious viewpoint, you and al-Qaeda share some similarities. Obviously the comparison can only go so far, as unlike al-Qaeda, you have not personally hijacked an airliner and flown it into a high-rise building, killing thousands of people.

“Besides, why would you care about a coming persecution since it would mean that you have temporarily won.”

Just because I think your fear about a coming pogrom against Catholics is as foolish as those who believe the Mayan calendar’s alleged prediction that the world will end this year doesn’t mean I would take joy in the persecution of anyone. Please, give me a little credit.

It is amazing how you always seem to miss the point and think you have turned it back on the other person. Accusing Catholics of discrimination and intolerance is always the cry of the liberals! There is objective truth. Morals are black and white. Not everything is gray as you seem to want it to be.
Also you seem to not get the meaning of paranoia because that is definately not me! Stating that it will happen someday etc is not fear. So, you need to find a different word. It is just an observation and that is it. Looking at the facts at hand and making an educated guess is what I am doing. This is done in science and many other branches of study all the time. I did not say tomorrow—it may not even be in my lifetime. This is what meterologists do. Use the tools at hand (as you pointed out) and make educated guesses and observations. Human behaviour is something that can be observed and predicted in large broad ways. As for laws that discriminate against Catholics - what about Obamacare? trying to force Catholics and Catholic business owners to provide contraceptyion in the insurance policies for their employees? Its no use saying that not all their employees are Catholics because that is beside the point. It would still be wrong for me to supply it to anyone whether they are Catholic or not because I know its wrong. These companies will be forced to do this or pay fines - so there you have it.

You keep saying you’re just looking at the facts on hand.  What “facts”?  What warning signs do you see that no one else does?

 
It seems to me that your reasoning, such as it is, can be distilled to this:  People have done bad things in the past, people will do bad things in the future; Catholics being sent to internment camps would be a bad thing,  therefore, at some point in the indeterminate future, Catholics will be rounded up and sent to internment camps.

 
Also, saying that it may not happen in your life time is quite a clever trick.  It allows you to say whatever you want with no accountability because no one can ever prove you wrong.

Your problem is that you’re trying to take a legitimate observation of human nature and trying to predict a very specific event (persecution of Catholics) rather than making a more general one (e.g. our history of warfare suggests that armed conflict will never be totally eliminated.)

With regard to your last point, I’m sorry, but being Catholic does not place you above the law.  Running a business is not an act of religious worship.  You still need to obey all laws regulating employment and commerce, including the Affordable Care Act.  Don’t feel like paying your employees at least minimum wage?  Too bad, you can’t pay them any less.  Don’t feel like considering a woman to work in your company.  Tough.  And you better not pay her less than a man either.  Although I suppose if you REALLY wanted to get around the health care law, you could hire only part-time workers and give them just ten hours of work a week with no health benefits at all.

BTW, Ratzinger can’t even convince Catholics to obey his decrees on contraception, let alone the general public.  On this topic, yours is truly a fringe view.

So, why does our government feel the need to extort immoral contraceptives from Catholics? Surely, government has more than enough of our tax dollars to do what it wants, sex changes,transhumanisn, hair folicle implantation, sterilization, viagra? This is just another ploy to dump us over the fiscal cliff so that the UN can tax us, after it makes serfs of us, property of the state. Being a human person is so much more joyful when one has freedom.

Rahiki - once again your syllogism is wrong and NOT what I said. And secondly, you don’t like my example of persecution so you dismiss it. Our faith is supposed to inform every aspect of our lives. It is not supposed to be taken out of the workplace. Someone cannot do something because it is in the workplace. Providing contraception by paying for it etc is wrong and participating in the sin of using it just like providing a gun to a criminal who wants one for a crime. When a law is evil (i.e. telling employers they must provide contraception) then we have a duty to disobey. This has always been teh case down through the ages. St Peter said ” we ought to obey God rather than man!”

insert “someone cannot do something wrong because its in the workplace.

First of all, if a provision of the Affordable Care Act is the best example of Catholic “persecution” you can come up with, then you have little to complain about.  In fact, the comparison is insulting to those who have genuinely suffered from persecution.

If your religious views compel you to violate the law, then do so.  But do so openly and be accepting of the consequences.  But I’m afraid there’s little chance you’ll succeed in becoming some kind of martyr by ignoring the ACA since its minimal financial penalties probably won’t even affect you.

rakihi: Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute. In denying the human being, composed of body and rational, immortal soul, the ACA is not a penalty, tax or insurance premium. The ACA is a sacrifice demanded as tribute to a state that is a servant to its people, but acting as their God. All people are being affected by it and all people will be affected by it now and in the future.

Rahiki - You fail to see the point. One CANNOT participate in something wrong. Even giving approval to it makes one a participant in the EVIL. As far as those suffering persecution - This is just the beginning. It will get worse over time. I again refer to the fine penalties required of Catholics not going to the state approved Anglican Church in Elizabethan times. They soon escalated to harsher penalties. You cannot claim persecution for being forbidden to do evil however. So, if you are claiming persecution because homosexual marriage is forbidden and things like that then you have no case. It is not a matter of tolerance, it is a matter of Right and Wrong. You seem to confuse God and State with who gets to call the shots. Those mired in immorality and their own selfish desires and pleasures are incapable of seeing the Truth. They look at everything as “What is gratifying to me? What do I want? Thats what counts!” Look at things objectively and not from your own selfish desires. Look at God’s Law and what is good for mankind.

Sam, you sure love your slippery slope fallacies don’t you?  I’m sorry, but the ACA is not the first step of some diabolical scheme to eventually persecute Catholics at some undetermined point in the future.  No one is out there plotting to “get you”.  Enough with the conspiracy theories already. 

I agree that the issue is one that concerns right and wrong; whether it is right or wrong to treat your fellow man as inferior beings, and to ostracize and denounce them, because you are as convinced as the slavers and segregationists of yesteryear that God is on your side.

And I believe it is you who confuses the respective roles of government and religion.  Ratzinger may be the master of his church, but his religious edicts are not binding on non-Catholics, who make up the great majority of the U.S. population.  He may claim to speak for God, but that doesn’t make it so.  Nor does his political authority extend beyond Vatican City.

I have never sworn an oath to obey that man and am under no obligation to do so.  I am, however, obligated to respect the U.S. Constitution, as is every other American, especially those who have explicitly sworn an oath to protect and defend it.

Rahiki - You certainly confuse God and man don’t you? One cannot do what is wrong or participate in it regardless of who says to do it. That is why Catholics cannot provide contraception even to non Catholics. The mere providing it is participating and is therefore wrong. Also, condemning evil is not saying or treating fellow human beings as inferior.
Once again, you can obey in all things except sin. You are never required to do what is sinful, and in fact, have an obligation to resist. One must resist evil at all times. You cannot deny that the government is coming down on people who believe contraception to be evil and is penalizing them for it. Look at what the government is doing to HOBBY LOBBY. The owners are not Catholic but they are Christians who are being punished for not providing what is against their religious beliefs. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment. No one can deny what is happening without making a fool of themselves.

It is also clear, that since you are incorrect you like to try to impress by throwing around phrases like slippery slope fallacies and similar things. However it is clear that you don’t have any training in logic or philosophy. You also like to get sidetracked on tangents to distract from the main issues. This is a common tactic when one’s arguments are weak.

Are you suggesting that business owners, and everyone else for that matter, have the right to refuse to follow any law they believe is sinful?

And really, Sam, someone who peddles crazy and paranoid conspiracy theories about the coming “persecution” of Catholics is in no position to lecture others about their supposed lack of knowledge regarding logic.

As I have said many times - All can and must not obey anything that is sinful. For example if it became against the law to be Catholic I would not have to obey such a law and in fact would be obliged to refuse to do so.

Furthermore my mention of a future persecution is not crazy or paranoid. Christ Himself said that his followers would be persecuted. To claim that there is none, will never be any, or that all who say that there will be one are crazy is foolish in the extreme.  There are always those who speak like that until it happens.

You demonstrate this lack of knowledge and ability to think and refute clearly with each post as you ignore the examples I mention and just dismiss it with a “he’s crazy” remark. Earlier in this blog you were arguing for all sorts of supposed “rights” for homosexuals and yet you think the government is perfectly right to deny these basic rights of Catholics and anyone else who agrees with them—illogical in the extreme - especially since you don’t believe in absolute Truth but instead think its relative.

What I don’t understand is why you’re arguing in favour of a legal regime in which discrimination against Catholics WOULD be allowed.
 

I know you your grasp of logic is shaky at best, so let me explain.  If anyone is allowed, indeed morally obligated, to disobey laws that they perceive to condone sin, then someone who thinks Catholicism is a cult that spreads lies and evil deeds would feel justified in shunning and discriminating against Catholics.  A business could refuse to hire suspected Catholics and refuse their services to “those people”. 

I agree that this discussion has gone off track though.  The bottom line is that sooner, rather than later, the Supreme Court will affirm that the Constitution’s protections apply to every American and marriage equality will the law of the land in every state.

It is you who have no grasp of logic as demonstrated by your responses. The bottom line here is that equality cannot be used as an excuse to make sinful behavior legal. Homosexual “marriage” is not a right and is in fact sinful.