New York Legalises Same-Sex Marriage

[Ice_nine]

I don't like when people use the "p" word lightly. If you speak out against gay marriage you may be branded with unfair and narrow pejoratives, but that doesn't quite equate to persecution.

Red, condensing things that are nuanced and often emotionally-charged into two minutes . . . good luck. People want short, simple categories to fit into. If you can get past a person thinking you're bigoted, dumb, and/or scared after you declare you ain't down with teh gay marriage I will be super impressed.

[Jesus_lol]

I kind of find the concept of christians being persecuted in north america to be a little laughable. sure a priest or two is getting in trouble, but people and other groups are getting unfairly treated all the time, it is kind of the way of things, likeable or not.

heaven forbid a christian come under a bit of fire for the beliefs they hold. jesus said something on the topic of that you will always come under fire for being a christian.



when fully half of the country is on your side, its hard to keep playing the persecuted bit.


Lil Red, probably the best thing you could do would be to distance yourself from the vast majority of american christians that speak out against homosexuality. I know the catholic position is to hate the sin and not the sinner, and that there are some theological reasons behind your beliefs, but most of the people you see preaching against the evils of gaydom, are just mouthbreathing bigots. that right there is your problem.
someone told these people that God said its ok to hate gay people and they are running with it. It aint socially acceptable to laugh in bars about how ____ black people are, or to point fingers and laugh at them, so they have a new target. Most of those guys have boiled it down to a "they are different and we dont like that" approach, and it would be best to assert that that point of view is not only not true of every christian against gay marriage, but also that the catholic church actually teaches a measure of kindness towards those with SSA.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1309218023' post='2259257']
Yeah, flaws in logic are like soooo annoying. I'm personally not a fan of the ad hominem, relativist, poisoning the well, questionable cause, or red herring fallacies.
[/quote]


im really not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. if so, cool, if not at least say it straight, im not gonn cry bout it.

[jmjtina]

really?

is persecution only blood and beheadings?

ever heard of white marytrdom?

Seriously, people are losing jobs, families, etc, over standing for traditional marriage and Church teachings. I've seen people people persecuted for their faith. I've been persecuted for my faith. I don't think I need to prove it to you that persecution is happening today, and if you haven't seen it, well, is ignorance bliss?

Do you think I take this lightly? Obviously, there will always be those who take it too lightly.

Edited June 28, 2011 by jmjtina

[TeresaBenedicta]

There may be a religious exemption clause, but there's going to be trouble:

[quote]Religious exemption language that was part of a successful “gay marriage” bill in New York addresses a handful of religious liberty concerns but ignores a large number of other religious conflicts, says an attorney familiar with the issue.

The religious exemption language was critical to getting a handful of Republican senators — four total — to support the bill, allowing it to pass, 33-29.

The issue of religious liberty has been at the forefront of conservative concerns about “gay marriage.” After it was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, Catholic Charities chose to get out of adoptions instead of being forced to place children in same-sex homes. While the language might prevent that from happening in New York, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin R. Nimocks says, it would not protect a husband-and-wife photography team from state action if they declined to take pictures at a same-sex “wedding.” It also would do nothing to prevent the teaching of “gay marriage” in New York schools. Alliance Defense Fund is a legal organization that fights for religious liberty.

Following is a partial transcript of an interview with Nimocks:

BAPTIST PRESS: Give me an example of what the bill supposedly would cover in its religious exemptions.

AUSTIN R NIMOCKS: A church or religious organization that, for example, owns property, would not be required to have their property used or appropriated for purposes inconsistent with their theological beliefs or views about marriage.

BP: Would the exemption protect Catholic Charities and prevent the problem that they had in Massachusetts?

NIMOCKS: It’s hard to say because you don’t know how all this is going to be interpreted. But I would say that Catholic Charities would likely be covered [by the exemption] because of the religious nature of Catholic Charities. But if you have a private adoption agency that is not overtly religious but believes they want to adopt kids out only to moms and dads — they’re not covered.

BP: You’re saying that the term “religious” is up to a judge’s interpretation.

NIMOCKS: Absolutely. Where a conflict arises, it will be played out in court or some tribunal. This language does not cover everything it needs to cover and everybody that needs to be covered. In terms of what it purports to cover, it remains to be seen whether it will be interpreted in the way that many legislators who enacted it are promising it will be. There are significant holes in this religious liberty language.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35647"]Read more here.[/url]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309249449' post='2259587']
im really not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. if so, cool, if not at least say it straight, im not gonn cry bout it.
[/quote]

While trying to attack what you erroneously claim is a flaw in logic you are using a ton of them yourself. In other words, I am calling out your hypocrisy.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309249012' post='2259584']
I kind of find the concept of christians being persecuted in north america to be a little laughable. sure a priest or two is getting in trouble, but people and other groups are getting unfairly treated all the time, it is kind of the way of things, likeable or not.
[/quote]

If you can cease to try to argue out of an appeal to emotion, you will likely stand a better chance of making a point that will stick.

http://catholicleague.com/annualreport.php

[kujo]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309043012' post='2258748']
Im cool with whats going on in New York.
[/quote]

Me too (which is why I no longer "rep the Church")

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1309119426' post='2258902']
His current squeeze's brother is gay.
[/quote]

Yeah, because it's easy to villainize a whole group of people for something you see as "wrong" and "evil" and "disgusting," but when you actually know and love someone who is a homosexual, it tends to change your tune.

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1309216043' post='2259246']
Well, besides destroying the definition of marriage, which will lead to a more lackadaisical view of marriage (see birth control leading to more lackadaisical view of parenting) , which will lead to higher divorce rates, single parent homes, and ultimately the destruction of society as we know it... you know, besides all that minor stuff... This could lead to it being against the law to teach that homosexual marriage is wrong, causing the church to commit a crime for teaching a universal truth that existed since the beginning of time as we know it, making all our priests and CCD teachers criminals.
[/quote]

Seems like there's a persistent lack of understanding around Phatmass regarding causation and correlation. Apparently it starts at the top.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309274678' post='2259682']
Yeah, because it's easy to villainize a whole group of people for something you see as "wrong" and "evil" and "disgusting," but when you actually know and love someone who is a homosexual, it tends to change your tune.
[/quote]


All sin is wrong, evil and disgusting...


... and you don't stop loving a person just because you disagree on their choice to live in sin... in fact, you love them more by disagreeing with their decisions that seperate them from God's grace...

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309274678' post='2259682']
Yeah, because it's easy to villainize a whole group of people for something you see as "wrong" and "evil" and "disgusting," but when you actually know and love someone who is a homosexual, it tends to change your tune.
[/quote]

Not if you believe in Jesus Christ. I have more than a few close friends who have same sex attractions. One of them recently went through a wedding ceremony in MA with her partner. I love all of them dearly, but openly reject their sin. They know where I stand too. It seems that the people here at phatmass with the martyrdom complex are actually pro-gay agenda members who are totally blowing the Catholic position out of proportion.

And I am sorry you have lost your faith. Your heart will never be at peace until you surrender yourself to Jesus and His Church. We can either be slaves of sin or live in the freedom of God.

[Papist]

[font="Arial"][size=3]The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its [/size][/font][font="Arial"][size=3]fruitfulness[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size=3], is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.[/size][/font]

Edited June 28, 2011 by Papist

[Maria]

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to say that it destroys the true sense of marriage, with all the societal decay that follows from that, because that's been going on for decades. If it hadn't been, gay marriage would be unthinkable. However, it reinforces/strengthens/intensifies that destruction, making it that much harder to pass on and live out what marriage is really about.

[kujo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1309275734' post='2259687']
[font="Arial"][size=3]The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its [/size][/font][font="Arial"][size=3]fruitfulness[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size=3], is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.[/size][/font]
[/quote]

Is sexual love the only way describe the homosexual relationship?

[kujo]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1309275293' post='2259683']
All sin is wrong, evil and disgusting...


... and you don't stop loving a person just because you disagree on their choice to live in sin... in fact, you love them more by disagreeing with their decisions that seperate them from God's grace...
[/quote]

There's a difference between disagreeing with their choices (of course, whether or not it's a [i]choice[/i] is debatable) and saying mean, hurtful, vile things. I think you and I both know that the latter of those two situations goes on around here...a lot!

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1309275467' post='2259684']
Not if you believe in Jesus Christ. I have more than a few close friends who have same sex attractions. One of them recently went through a wedding ceremony in MA with her partner. I love all of them dearly, but openly reject their sin. They know where I stand too.[/quote]

I praise you for your charity, and hope that you realize that sometimes our brothers and sisters don't espouse the same attitude.

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1309275467' post='2259684']
It seems that the people here at phatmass with the martyrdom complex are actually pro-gay agenda members who are totally blowing the Catholic position out of proportion. [/quote]

I have always found the Church's teaching on homosexuality far more progressive than that of the Protestants. I make a point, whenever talking to anyone about this issue, to draw a distinction between the hell-fire and brimstone of the evangelicals and the more pastoral position of the Church.

That being said, charity seems to be lacking, at times. On both sides, to be sure.

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1309275467' post='2259684']
And I am sorry you have lost your faith. Your heart will never be at peace until you surrender yourself to Jesus and His Church. We can either be slaves of sin or live in the freedom of God.
[/quote]

Rest assured that I have NOT lost my faith. A random designation given by some guy who operates some website definitely doesn't represent my belief. I am truly, wholly Catholic. I disagree with the lack of charity and love shown to homosexuals by some Catholics, but that does not mean I am no longer Catholic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1309180027' post='2259051']
I go for options 3 and 4... maybe we should put this in the debate table
[/quote]
Yeah. Option 4's hardly some far-fetched slippery-slope scenario, but is already reality where "gay" "marriage" has been passed into law. After Massachusetts starting recognizing homosexual "marriages," it made programs teaching about homosexuality [i]mandatory[/i] for all public school students as young as first grade. Once the law recognizes homosexual "unions" as equal to marriage between man and woman, it then becomes a requisite to treat it as such and give it equal time in all school courses regarding family life.