havok579257 Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Anyone who argues that the State isn't meddling with the beliefs of religion should open their eyes a little bit. To stay on the topic of same-sex marriage, if it becomes legal, it will only be a matter of time before the Church is being sued and scolded for not marrying same-sex couples. How do I know this? Because it's already happening in States where it is legal. So, does same-sex marriage affect the Church? Yes, it does. The Church is going to be sued out of its mind, Priests will cave and perform same-sex ceremonies (Like some are already doing), and we'll have yet another legal and spiritual battle to fight. Please site these sources where the church is being sued for not performing gay marriage? I am against gay marriage like no other but by making stuff up to try and make your point makes the church look bad and already makes people stop listening to ourside of the arguement. Unless you have sources that show the church has been sued in states where is refuses to perform gay marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Please site these sources where the church is being sued for not performing gay marriage? I am against gay marriage like no other but by making stuff up to try and make your point makes the church look bad and already makes people stop listening to ourside of the arguement. Unless you have sources that show the church has been sued in states where is refuses to perform gay marriages. Sorry, I got the information wrong. Catholic churches (Or at least one near me in Hutchinson, Kansas), was being sued (Or at least got into legal trouble) for not allowing a gay couple to use its parish for their wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 (edited) Sorry, I got the information wrong. Catholic churches (Or at least one near me in Hutchinson, Kansas), was being sued (Or at least got into legal trouble) for not allowing a gay couple to use its parish for their wedding. It's weird that both sides seem to be in the wrong on this issue. The couple will lose. It's totally unconstitutional. I've heard there are cases of some public schools forcing children to read books about gay couples and not letting parents withdraw the students from those sections of the class. The school doesn't have the right to force children to attend parts of a class if their parents don't want them to. Edited May 5, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 It's weird that both sides seem to be in the wrong on this issue. The couple will lose. It's totally unconstitutional. I've heard there are cases of some public schools forcing children to read books about gay couples and not letting parents withdraw the students from those sections of the class. The school doesn't have the right to force children to attend parts of a class if their parents don't want them to. How is the parish in the wrong on this issue? Letting a gay couple celebrate their marriage in a Catholic parish is not something we can allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 (edited) How is the parish in the wrong on this issue? Letting a gay couple celebrate their marriage in a Catholic parish is not something we can allow. I meant about the legality of gay marriage in general. I believe the state shouldn't have any say in a contract between two people. The idea of giving the government this sort of power is the reason why we're having issues in the first place. The fact that the state sanctions any marriage is beyond me. Edited May 5, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 can't A word that's not in the federal government's vocabulary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 A word that's not in the federal government's vocabulary. It's very much in the Supreme Court's. In case it isn't clear I'm totally biased in the Court's favor because I am a giant John Roberts fangirl. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-fish Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 You have a point... Was only thinking..... but does that mean you'd rather have your limbs sheared off, your neck severed and brain sucked out with a vacuum? You might as well bring back hanging, drawing and quartering. Sorry for the graphics, but it's true. You dont' have to tell me about that. I'm scarred for life after a Franciscan monk showed us a slide show of fetus that was vacuumed out and it's parts were in the palm of someone's hand. The Church should have been punished for showing such pictures. In the End, Vengeance is The Lord's. Would you rather die a quick death or life a life in this world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-fish Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 I live with lesbians who have had a civil union. One told me that 'marriage' just means more money. She doesn't approve or thinks the word "marriage" is necessary. But she would like to have the same benefits as a "married" couple. But she doesn't really care. Her partner on the other hand does. The CHurch should be doing something about this. But then again, saints are far and few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscerningCatholic Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 You dont' have to tell me about that. I'm scarred for life after a Franciscan monk showed us a slide show of fetus that was vacuumed out and it's parts were in the palm of someone's hand. The Church should have been punished for showing such pictures. In the End, Vengeance is The Lord's. Would you rather die a quick death or life a life in this world? I can guarantee that he didn't do it with the intent of taking revenge on pro-aborts. That's what the reality of abortion is. If you or anyone else who has seen these pictures and has "been scarred for life", you need to be doing everything in your power to end it instead of complaining about how the Church should be sued for showing the ugly truth. Because that IS the truth. And saying, "Would you rather die a quick death or live a life in this world?" could be countered with, "From the beginning, the only One who should be deciding who lives and who dies is God." It's not our job to decide who lives and who dies based on how we feel. Life is more important than feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLordsSouljah Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 You dont' have to tell me about that. I'm scarred for life after a Franciscan monk showed us a slide show of fetus that was vacuumed out and it's parts were in the palm of someone's hand. The Church should have been punished for showing such pictures. In the End, Vengeance is The Lord's. Would you rather die a quick death or life a life in this world? One should try to grow where the Lord plants them, wherever that is, because He will never give us storms that we can't handle, and we shouldn't be too eager to grow higher than the shelter. If He decides that place is heaven, then so be it. If however it is in this world for however long, one should joyfully accept and be a prism for His light. There are those who may be ready for heaven but are required to stay to help other souls. That is an honour! He gives us the grace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Don't feed the troll guise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) I am for "civil unions" of homosexuals, btw—not that I'd promote them, but I do think it only fair that homosexuals have access to the health care and tax benefits of heterosexual couples. Better yet: How about we just remove the government from our relationships entirely and leave "unions" of every sort to the Church, like it ought to be? The Church, however, is strongly against any legal recognition or benefits for homosexual "civil unions." Read the CDF document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. I'll quote the conclusion, though I'd strongly recommend reading the entire thing. 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. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself. Basically, it is wrong to award special legal recognition and benefits as something good to something that is intrinsically wrong and immoral, which is why the Church cannot accept homosexual "civil unions." - unpopular as the Church's position may be among phatmassers. There is absolutely no reason why people in a homosexual "relationship" should be entitled to any special benefits not awarded any other single (unmarried) person. Somehow unmarried persons (be they "straight," "gay," or whatever) have managed to do okay without being treated legally the same as married persons. There's nothing about being in a homosexual that entitles a person to special legal, medical, or tax benefits he/she would not have if living a single life. With regards to the op, legal recognition of "gay marriage" may not actually effect any actual marriage, but it does further corrode society's understanding of the meaning and purpose of marriage - which is why the Church opposes it so strongly. As has been pointed out, our society has already lost sight of this a long time ago, but Catholics must not support further perversions of marriage. Edited May 9, 2013 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I live with lesbians who have had a civil union. One told me that 'marriage' just means more money. She doesn't approve or thinks the word "marriage" is necessary. But she would like to have the same benefits as a "married" couple. But she doesn't really care. Her partner on the other hand does. The CHurch should be doing something about this. But then again, saints are far and few. Oh to have the rare saintly courage to be politically correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 It's very much in the Supreme Court's. In case it isn't clear I'm totally biased in the Court's favor because I am a giant John Roberts fangirl. :) I've had absolutely zero respect for Roberts since he favored "clever" political maneuvering and compromise over the Constitution in his disastrous and absurd ruling on the HHS mandate. I suppose you can call me a fanboy of religious liberty and limited constitutional government. 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