qfnol31 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337642685' post='2433378'] *Sniffles* I'm sorry, I'm just so proud of myself. I'm in a debate with people that actually agree with me! I never thought I would see it... Sorry, go ahead. [/quote]I'll have you know, even though you haven't referenced me, I'm also a "raving neo-con" like Socrates. He and I have almost always agreed on any debate we've encountered about society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337643407' post='2433386'] I made a comment above about how gay marriage is (among other things) a matter of childrens' rights. You said it's a rather weak argument and gave examples of children who live with their aunts, single mothers, etc. Gay couples who have a state-recognized marriage will have the opportunity to adopt, which is an argument against allowing the practice.[/quote] As I've said, that's another matter. I'm not talking about gay adoption. I'm talking about two people entering into a contract. Nothing about children at all. As for the rest, it still seems to me like you're not getting what I'm trying to say. I'm in favor of a ground-up reworking of the system. If everything else remained completely the same with the exception that gays were allowed to "marry" tomorrow, then yes, I would be opposed. This is not what I'm arguing for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337643504' post='2433389'] If you won't respond to what I've written because you regard it as "rubbish," then I'm afraid your drivel must be likewise disregarded, as it is a steaming, filthy pile of raw sewage. Regarding the office of the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is the highest office in the Church next to the Papacy itself regarding doctrinal matters, and this document was published under the full knowledge and approval of HIs Holiness John Paul II. And there is certainly no evidence that Benedict XVI has switched his views on this matter since assuming the office of the Papacy, but in fact has continued to speak out firmly against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions." The document clearly shows that Cardinal Ratzinger was speaking on behalf of the Church and Her teachings, rather than simply spouting his personal opinions on the matter. Also, how can the state "promote and defend marriage," if it does not even recognize marriage, or equates it with homosexual and other "unions" having nothing to do with marriage. Certainly, the official writings of the Prefect of the CDF carry far more weight and authority than the opinions of the likes of "USAirwaysIHS" on an internet message board. But, oh, well, in the "Newchurch" I suppose, official Church teaching from the Vatican doesn't account for much. "Primacy of Conscience" and all that jazz . . . [/quote] You are a silly man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1337636464' post='2433334'] It's touching to see that Winnie is my successor to the pro-anarchism debate......even though I'm no longer an anarchist. [/quote] Woah. You've been gone for a while. What are you now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643757' post='2433391'] As I've said, that's another matter. I'm not talking about gay adoption. I'm talking about two people entering into a contract. Nothing about children at all. As for the rest, it still seems to me like you're not getting what I'm trying to say. I'm in favor of a ground-up reworking of the system. If everything else remained completely the same with the exception that gays were allowed to "marry" tomorrow, then yes, I would be opposed. This is not what I'm arguing for. [/quote]Okay, then I don't disagree with you. At first it sounded like you were saying that anyone who speaks out against gay marriage is just asking for government trouble. As far as I understand it, most grassroots movements to define marriage only say that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" or something along those lines. Almost all of my other arguments were just to confirm what I said first, that the push for gay marriage is a push for a new evil in our society, but I think you agree there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337643474' post='2433388'] I'll just add this in to make sure I'm clear. I don't think you're redefining marriage, but (to ask my question more clearly): what do you think gives the government such a right and why should the government not defend the traditional understanding of marriage? [/quote] Because the government ought not be involved with the business of marriage in the first place. I don't know exactly how the two got so entangled, although I would hazard that it would be because the Church and the state were all but indistinguishable from one another for a number of centuries. Seeing that the status of things now is so much different than in the middle ages, I don't think that the roles of government in religion should be the same either, since the two have diverged to such a great degree. The Church should fulfill the roles of the Church and the government should fulfill the roles of the government. To me, it is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337644111' post='2433396'] As far as I understand it, most grassroots movements to define marriage only say that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" or something along those lines. [/quote] But what irks me about that is that it's making it seem as though we need, for whatever reason, the government to give its stamp of approval on what we already know. Maybe it's just a reflection of my personality, but I really don't care what the government has to say about what kind of people are actually married and aren't, because although they have a monopoly on many things, religious definitions are not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643271' post='2433384'] That's great. Again, I am not a proponent of gay "marriage". I have not argued for that once in this whole debate. Two homosexual individuals could not, of course, ever be married. [/quote] What exactly is it that you are arguing for? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, it appears you oppose states excluding homosexual couples from being legally recognized as "marriage." You're not for them "marrying," but you're against states not recognizing them as married - have I got that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 i like Soc's blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1337643858' post='2433392'] You are a silly man. [/quote] You're a funny woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337642565' post='2433376'] You apparently only want government to have a say in marriage if it is by federal courts "legislating from the bench" to enforce legal "gay marriage" on the states. And have you even read the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH's CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url], written by our current Holy Father as Prefect of the CDF? He agrees with me that fully that the state has a [b]duty[/b] to [b]"promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good"[/b] and that[b] "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.[/b] So do you "rep the Pope" regarding marriage, or is Benedict XVI merely another right-wing Republican wackjob, whose teachings on marriage and such can safely be tossed aside by faithful Catholics? Curiouser and curiouser indeed. [/quote][quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337642565' post='2433376'] You apparently only want government to have a say in marriage if it is by federal courts "legislating from the bench" to enforce legal "gay marriage" on the states. And have you even read the [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH's CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url], written by our current Holy Father as Prefect of the CDF? He agrees with me that fully that the state has a [b]duty[/b] to [b]"promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good"[/b] and that[b] "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.[/b] So do you "rep the Pope" regarding marriage, or is Benedict XVI merely another right-wing Republican wackjob, whose teachings on marriage and such can safely be tossed aside by faithful Catholics? Curiouser and curiouser indeed. [/quote] Benedict is actually not a republican. And I'm pretty sure that you don't apply this standard of adherence regarding the plethora of issues that your Pope has spoken out on (things like climate change, income inequality, unfettered capitalism et cetera) that don't fit in your imitation-Hanity talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337644533' post='2433405'] You're a funny woman. [/quote] I'm a fabulous lady, you beesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337644533' post='2433405'] You're a funny woman. [/quote] This homoerotic subtext is making me slightly uncomfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337645233' post='2433412'] This homoerotic subtext is making me slightly uncomfortable. [/quote] razzle dazzle story, babe. Now make me a sandwich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 [quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1337646237' post='2433420'] razzle dazzle story, babe. Now make me a sandwich. [/quote] Don't give me lip, boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now