Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1002733' date='Jun 10 2006, 07:29 PM']
That marriage is only between a man and a woman is natural law. That is all the DOMA states. "Same-sex marriage" is contrary to natural law. The DOMA opposes same-sex "marriage." That is all it does.[/quote]

Go and read it (its not long) and you'll see you're wrong. It defines what marriage is. I'll give you a hint as to where it is. [b]"Section Three: Definition of Marriage"[/b]

Your argument is that two people of the same sex getting married is against natural law, therefore it shouldn't be allowed. However DOMA and civil marriage directly contradicts natural law

Yet you support it?


[quote]Whatever Bush's motives, people should be asking whether the policy is right or wrong. Opposing the bill on the grounds that "there are more important issues" is itself a smokescreen. And the fact that virtually all the Democrats were opposed to the bill once again shows where the Democrats' "values" truly lie.

It seems the Democrats can always be reliably counted on to support abortion and perversion, which now seem the cornerstones of their agenda.[/quote]


The vote lost 49 to 48. Now if it had received a simple majority, it would have been a significant step in the process of it being ratified as an amendment. Any constitutional amendment will go through several votes (gaining votes as it goes) until finally it receives a 2/3 majority. But it didn't receive a simple majority because of those perverted democrats!


But wait a minute... The senate has a republican majority.... The longtime supporters of a marriage amendment must be furious, right?

Sen Specter and Sen Gregg (both of whom have supported the exact same amendment in 04 and have been longtime supporters) BOTH VOTED AGAINST IT.

And Senator Chuck Hagel, who also has been a strong voice (and would have been a key vote) didn't vote at all. He was travelling with Bush.

The republicans had no intention of passing this bill. They wanted it to fail. They want the argument and do not care anything about resolution




[quote]

And before you start dragging out your "Catholicity," I suggest you re-read my quotes from the Pope on this topic.
[/quote]

you don't want me to drag out my Catholicity? stop attacking it

[Semperviva]

I believe it was Pope St. Genesius III who wrote the church's first real social teachings. He wrote that the state government and the church need to function as 2 lungs. each must be seperate in order for proper function of the whole body. In this analogy he explained that the Church must not try to enter into the government's role, but neither can the state cross into the Church's role. It seems to me that marraige and its definition have nothing to do with government and, in general, it seems ridiculous for a president/goevernment to attempt to go about defining something they are not in the position to define. It would be similar as to Pope benedict XVI coming up with a new system for earning parking tickets.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1002799' date='Jun 10 2006, 08:34 PM']
From what I've been able to glean of your views, the term "liberal" is really "anyone who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with the way conservatives do business."

Given that definition, I suppose I'm "liberal."

I really don't see why figuring out my politics is so important to you. For some reason you can't get past trying to stick a label on me. But, I suppose it requires less energy to just call someone "liberal" and be done with it.
So you're saying that if I don't support gay marriage, the ONLY option I have available as a faithful Catholic is to support the DOMA? If I don't support the DOMA I just haven't meditated and reflected enough on Catholic teaching? I don't buy it.

But if you're comfortable being manipulated by the political machinations of others ... more power to you.
[/quote]
Whether you call yourself "liberal" or "conservative" or whatever is ultimately unimportant.
However, what is troubling is the way you seem to consistantly attack any public opposition to immorality, whether it be opposing "gay marriage," immoral filth being presented by Catholic schools, or boycotts of corporations supporting immoral agendas, etc., etc., etc.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, Pope Benedict XVI has called on Catholics to defend marriage from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to homosexual "unions" and the like. The DOMA would be such a defense.

While you claim not to support the liberal social agenda, you seem to attack any opposition to it. You "don't like the way conservatives do business," yet how would you do business politically? If you have better ideas of how to fight the promotion of immorality and the culture of death in the public sphere, I'd be happy to hear them.
(Personally, my complaint would be that many "conservatives" are not doing enough to fight the Culture of Death.)
But simply offering a constant barrage of negativity towards conservatives is unproductive.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1003154' date='Jun 11 2006, 09:01 AM']
Go and read it (its not long) and you'll see you're wrong. It defines what marriage is. I'll give you a hint as to where it is. [b]"Section Three: Definition of Marriage"[/b]

Your argument is that two people of the same sex getting married is against natural law, therefore it shouldn't be allowed. However DOMA and civil marriage directly contradicts natural law

Yet you support it?[/quote]
I fail to see how only recognizing marriages between one man and one woman is contrary to natural law.
Would giving legal recognition to homosexual or polygamous marriages somehow be more in accord with natural law according to you?

[quote]The vote lost 49 to 48. Now if it had received a simple majority, it would have been a significant step in the process of it being ratified as an amendment. Any constitutional amendment will go through several votes (gaining votes as it goes) until finally it receives a 2/3 majority. But it didn't receive a simple majority because of those perverted democrats!
But wait a minute... The senate has a republican majority.... The longtime supporters of a marriage amendment must be furious, right?

Sen Specter and Sen Gregg (both of whom have supported the exact same amendment in 04 and have been longtime supporters) BOTH VOTED AGAINST IT.

And Senator Chuck Hagel, who also has been a strong voice (and would have been a key vote) didn't vote at all. He was travelling with Bush.

The republicans had no intention of passing this bill. They wanted it to fail. They want the argument and do not care anything about resolution[/quote]
I'd be the first to agree that there are worthless Republicans in the Senate. Yet what of all the Republican Congressmen who [b]did[/b] vote for it? Did they also "want it to fail"? (Are you now in on DesertWalker's conspiracies?) The GOP is not a monolithic entity. There are good and bad Republicans. Shame on the Republicans who opposed it. And kudos to any Democrats (if there were any) that supported it.
The issue here should not be about Republicans and Democrats. It is about right and wrong. Another red herring.

[quote]
you don't want me to drag out my Catholicity? stop attacking it
[/quote]
Read the words of the Pope which you have repeatedly ignored here.

[quote name='Semperviva' post='1003158' date='Jun 11 2006, 09:15 AM']
I believe it was Pope St. Genesius III who wrote the church's first real social teachings. He wrote that the state government and the church need to function as 2 lungs. each must be seperate in order for proper function of the whole body. In this analogy he explained that the Church must not try to enter into the government's role, but neither can the state cross into the Church's role. It seems to me that marraige and its definition have nothing to do with government and, in general, it seems ridiculous for a president/goevernment to attempt to go about defining something they are not in the position to define. It would be similar as to Pope benedict XVI coming up with a new system for earning parking tickets.
[/quote]
The state already recognizes marriages. And already liberal activist judges are making demands that states recognize "gay marriage," even against the will of the people of those states. The DOMA would offer protection against such liberal judicial tyranny.
It is foolish to act as though the DOMA were suddenly "defining marriage" out of the blue, and giving the state new powers it did not already have.

As for the Church, read the words of the Pope which I have repeatedly quoted.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Socrates

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1003199' date='Jun 11 2006, 02:56 PM']
As for the Church, read the words of the Pope which I have repeatedly quoted.
[/quote]

Just sticking my nose in, because I can, but Socrates, I have not seen you quote the Pope. I have seen you refer to articles which reflect the Pope's view (which I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of, but this isn't my thread).....but it is a fallacy to say what you have said. It is called an Appeal to Authority. You actually need to quote the Pope directly in order to make the statement that you have.

You didn't quote the Pope in the post at Today, 02:56 PM; Today, 02:38 PM; Yesterday, 08:41 PM; Yesterday, 08:29 PM; you give a critique of a papal view at Jun 9 2006, 08:09 PM, but no citation; no quote at Jun 8 2006, 09:14 PM; you cite a CNA article about the basic papal view with a bolding of your analysis, yet no direct papal citation at Jun 8 2006, 06:29 PM; and no citation at Jun 7 2006, 09:28 PM.

Please be intellectually honest in your ramblings......when you actually and directly quote the Pope, then you say that you can, until then, you can't make that statement. Sheesh....sometimes I think that you argue with hot stuff, simply to argue.

BTW, his view is not necessarily wrong, but I leave that to him to defend. He's doing just fine with his position. You, though, not so much.

[Jaime]

[quote]I fail to see how only recognizing marriages between one man and one woman is contrary to natural law.
Would giving legal recognition to homosexual or polygamous marriages somehow be more in accord with natural law according to you?
[/quote]

Because a legal union between a man and a woman is not a correct definition of marriage. Leaving it solely at that goes against natural law.

[quote]I'd be the first to agree that there are worthless Republicans in the Senate. Yet what of all the Republican Congressmen who did vote for it? Did they also "want it to fail"? (Are you now in on DesertWalker's conspiracies?) The GOP is not a monolithic entity. There are good and bad Republicans. Shame on the Republicans who opposed it. And kudos to any Democrats (if there were any) that supported it.
The issue here should not be about Republicans and Democrats. It is about right and wrong. Another red herring.[/quote]

Really...

And why do you suppose, that two key votes, who voted for the exact same amendment two years ago, decided to vote against it? All agree that a majority vote would go a long way to passing the amendment later. And if this was being pushed by the president, why would a third key vote, not be there?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1003225' date='Jun 11 2006, 02:03 PM']
Just sticking my nose in, because I can, but Socrates, I have not seen you quote the Pope. I have seen you refer to articles which reflect the Pope's view (which I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of, but this isn't my thread).....but it is a fallacy to say what you have said. It is called an Appeal to Authority. You actually need to quote the Pope directly in order to make the statement that you have.

You didn't quote the Pope in the post at Today, 02:56 PM; Today, 02:38 PM; Yesterday, 08:41 PM; Yesterday, 08:29 PM; you give a critique of a papal view at Jun 9 2006, 08:09 PM, but no citation; no quote at Jun 8 2006, 09:14 PM; you cite a CNA article about the basic papal view with a bolding of your analysis, yet no direct papal citation at Jun 8 2006, 06:29 PM; and no citation at Jun 7 2006, 09:28 PM.

Please be intellectually honest in your ramblings......when you actually and directly quote the Pope, then you say that you can, until then, you can't make that statement. Sheesh....sometimes I think that you argue with hot stuff, simply to argue.

BTW, his view is not necessarily wrong, but I leave that to him to defend. He's doing just fine with his position. You, though, not so much.
[/quote]
Ok, again.
The part of the article I have repeatedly quoted does directly quote the Pope:
[quote]Here, he listed a number of principles for which Catholics must continue to fight. Namely, these are: "Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role; and the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.”[/quote]
[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6368"](link to CNA article here)[/url]

[b]Note that these words are in quotation marks in the orginal source; the reporter is directly quoting Pope Benedict XVI.[/b] Yes, I am quoting an article which quotes the Pope; I was not there with the tape recorder when he said these words. However, I don't think anyone else on these boards quotes the Pope from first-hand experience. I think CNA is a trustworthy news-source; if you have evidence that the Pope was being misquoted in the article, please bring it forth. Otherwise, don't question my integrity; and I'd suggest carefully reviewing what I've quoted before sticking your nose in a debate and making accusations of dishonesty. If hot stuff's doing so well in the debate, then your cheerleading is a pointless distraction, and merely makes you look bad.

And appealing to the authority of the Pope should indeed have weight with a loyal Catholic. If you want to call that fallacious, then one must consider it a fallacy every time you refer to the Pope, the CCC or the USCCB.
And I consider the Pope's words on this topic to have considerably more weight than your own opinions, Mr. Lord and Master of Arrogance.

And I posted my own thoughts on this thread before hot stuff decided to jump in and try to trash my position, so maybe you are the ones arguing simply to argue.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1003227' date='Jun 11 2006, 02:06 PM']
Because a legal union between a man and a woman is not a correct definition of marriage. Leaving it solely at that goes against natural law.[/quote]
The bill is not intended to be a complete spiritual definition of the sacrament of matrimony. It is a limiting legal statement which would limit the law to only recognizing marriage between a man and a woman. That's all it is essentially; a ban on legally recognizing "gay marriage." And only recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman, rather than between two people of the same sex, etc., is in accord with natural law, not contrary to it.
Recognizing sodomy as "marriage," which liberal judges wish to enforce as the law of the land, is contrary to natural law.

[quote]Really...

And why do you suppose, that two key votes, who voted for the exact same amendment two years ago, decided to vote against it? All agree that a majority vote would go a long way to passing the amendment later. And if this was being pushed by the president, why would a third key vote, not be there?
[/quote]
They should have voted for the amendment. Those who didn't acted wrongly. Those who did vote for the amendment did the right thing.
The point is that the amendment is something that should be supported, not that every Republican politician is pure of heart.
As I've said before, red herring.

[Jaime]

Soc

Do you or don't you agree with this statement?

Civil marriage directly contradicts natural law.

[phatcatholic]

Sojourner and hot stuff..................just to clarify, do you support a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage? yes or no?

also, what do you two think of what era might wrote?

[quote name='Era Might' post='1001094' date='Jun 9 2006, 08:15 AM']
Although the American legal definition of marriage would not be perfect, I think it would be a step in the right direction. Then maybe we can work on getting concepts like permanence enshrined in law (although there is more flexibility there, because civil divorce is not always wrong).

John Paul talked about voting for imperfect laws if they will advance the common good. I think a constitutional amendment which would limit marriage to a man and a woman would obviously ensure the common good. I would support it and encourage all Christians to do so as well. From the Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae":
[quote]A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.[/quote][/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1003325' date='Jun 11 2006, 09:27 PM']
[b]Note that these words are in quotation marks in the orginal source; the reporter is directly quoting Pope Benedict XVI.[/b] Yes, I am quoting an article which quotes the Pope; I was not there with the tape recorder when he said these words. However, I don't think anyone else on these boards quotes the Pope from first-hand experience. I think CNA is a trustworthy news-source; if you have evidence that the Pope was being misquoted in the article, please bring it forth. Otherwise, don't question my integrity; and I'd suggest carefully reviewing what I've quoted before sticking your nose in a debate and making accusations of dishonesty. If hot stuff's doing so well in the debate, then your cheerleading is a pointless distraction, and merely makes you look bad.

And appealing to the authority of the Pope should indeed have weight with a loyal Catholic. If you want to call that fallacious, then one must consider it a fallacy every time you refer to the Pope, the CCC or the USCCB.
And I consider the Pope's words on this topic to have considerably more weight than your own opinions, Mr. Lord and Master of Arrogance.

[/quote]

Nice ad hominem.....that was classy...NOT.

Secondly....You misspoke. You didn't quote the Pope. You admit as much. Quoting the Pope is saying "Pope Benedict said....." You have not said that. You have relied on another source, namely the CNA. You have to be intellectually honest, which you have not been.

When I quote the Pope, that is what I do, quote the Pope. I don't rely on another source to quote him and then pass it off as my own direct quotation.

The appeal to authority was not the Papacy, but rather the lack of citation. Your misunderstanding and "armchair" theologizing and philosophizing has proven itself yet again. You don't understand your own position.

Thanks for shattering your own position, your ad hominem has not only weakened your own position, but proven your own point for yourself.

My cheerleading for hot stuff is simply that, cheerleading. He is my (real life) friend and I will support him. If I choose to support him through one sentence or through a whole dissertation, I will do so, I you WILL NOT question who I support or who I do not. That is bad form and that is unacceptable. I will not tolerate that any further. You continue to lose credibility with me the more you type. You and I don't have much of a history, but I can guarantee you that if you continue to out and out disrespect me by projections of your dislike of others, you will alienate yourself. It is simply bad form.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems like someone can quote a trustworthy source. cam's getting distracted from the point by bashing soc. that is, unless the citation of the source was wrong or untrustworthy. *I think CNA is a trustworthy news-source; if you have evidence that the Pope was being misquoted in the article, please bring it forth.*

also, good point by era and reiterated by phat. a response would be fruitful by sojo and hot stuff.

i kinda wonder if hot stuff is only saying how the amendment falls short, and in a sense against natural law in its shortcomings, and soc is thinking hot stuff is comepletely against the amendment passing. from what i read, hot stuff may not be against that. or is he?

Edited June 12, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Cam42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1003460' date='Jun 11 2006, 10:56 PM']
it seems like someone can quote a trustworthy source. cam's getting distracted from the point by bashing soc. that is, unless the citation of the source was wrong or untrustworthy. *I think CNA is a trustworthy news-source; if you have evidence that the Pope was being misquoted in the article, please bring it forth.*

also, good point by era and reiterated by phat. a response would be fruitful by sojo and hot stuff.

i kinda wonder if hot stuff is only saying how the amendment falls short, and in a sense against natural law in its shortcomings, and soc is thinking hot stuff is comepletely against the amendment passing. from what i read, hot stuff may not be against that. or is he?
[/quote]

I agree that someone can quote a trustworthy source, but when that source is misdirected or passed off as one's own, as Socrates did, it is one of two things, at worst plagerism or at best intellectual dishonesty.

Had he said that, rather than saying that HE quoted the Pope continually, I would have not said a word. But he didn't. He quoted the CNA. That is where the dishonesty is at, not in the words of the Pope.

I am not distracted from the point. I made it a conscious point to simply weigh in on that particular statement that he made, because too often people misuse the citation and/or lack thereof when debating on internet boards. I just am sick and tired of the intellectual dishonesty and out of charity, I pointed it out.

Have a nice day.

[Aloysius]

o please, cam. o please. God forbid one quotes CNA quoting the Pope and act as if he's provided papal quotations in a debate on an online phorum... I did not realize we were checked for citations on phatmass... should we do it MLA style or APA?

a law need not fully and perfectly cover every aspect of natural law, it merely must be in line with natural law, to be supported. a law requiring the state to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman is in line with the natural law. if flaws in that law allow something unnatural to occur within that system, that does not mean that the law should not be supported. it in itself is in line with natural law.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1003572' date='Jun 12 2006, 12:19 AM']
o please, cam. o please. God forbid one quotes CNA quoting the Pope and act as if he's provided papal quotations in a debate on an online phorum... I did not realize we were checked for citations on phatmass... should we do it MLA style or APA?
[/quote]

I am not questioning the quote of the CNA. I never have. What I am questioning is the fact that Socrates passed off the quote of the CNA as his own. Why do we even bother having a quote button? And internet plagerism is a huge issue.

Notice that I didn't say anything when he first used the citation, because he cited it. However, when he made the quotation as his own and passed them off as his own quoting, then that is the move that is dishonest and that is the move that requires correction. Or is Socrates above being corrected? He is not.

I am all for cutting slack when one forgets to use the quotes as a mistake, I am sure taht somewhere along the way I have done it; however, when one says, I have quoted the Pope as saying "such and such" rather than saying, the CNA quotes the Pope as saying "such and such" then it is a matter of several issues; plagerism, copyright infringment, intellectual dishonesty and in a very real way it is lying.

Actually, it seems that [url="http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.html"]The Chicago Manual of Style[/url] is probably the most complete form of citation. I think that Kate L. Turabian was ahead of her time in developing this form.