Thread: Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

They have? Really? Which special rights might those be?

The right to marry those of the same sex for starters. Heterosexuals do not have that right.

They have demanded the right to have health benefits extended to their live-in lovers - something which does not apply to heterosexuals.

They have demanded the right to give blood even if they are in an extreme risk group for a communicable blood-borne disease (THANK GOD that one didnt go through)



I'm not against homosexuality. I want THAT made clear. However, I can understand the arguments and even see a fair bit of logic in most of them. Disagreeing with what many homosexuals want is not the same as actively opposing it, or harboring any ill-will towards them.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

The right to marry those of the same sex for starters. Heterosexuals do not have that right.

This has to be a wonder of stupid comments of all time. Of course, heterosexuals don't have the right to marry people of the same sex. If they wanted to marry people of the same sex they wouldn't be heterosexual. The whole level of desperation to keep legal discrimination against homosexuals is getting funnier and funnier.

Originally Posted by daddio

change human to Catholic (and a few other denominations) and this is true.

I have had no doubt since I was born again.

That's a pretty lofty claim you've made for yourself. Only Jesus had no doubts. And he was privy to his father's plan. Something I doubt you can claim.
Thought means doubt. Only people who cannot think for themselves can live without doubts. Such people are the material from which fanatics are made.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

The right to marry those of the same sex for starters. Heterosexuals do not have that right.

Please. Playing games with semantics doesn't change the fact that they wish the right to marry the one they wish to marry, exactly as heterosexuals can.

They have demanded the right to have health benefits extended to their live-in lovers - something which does not apply to heterosexuals.

They have? And heteros haven't?

Where has this occurred?

They have demanded the right to give blood even if they are in an extreme risk group for a communicable blood-borne disease (THANK GOD that one didnt go through)

That isn't a right in the first place.

I'm not against homosexuality. I want THAT made clear. However, I can understand the arguments and even see a fair bit of logic in most of them. Disagreeing with what many homosexuals want is not the same as actively opposing it, or harboring any ill-will towards them.

No, it's not the same, but I fail to see any logic whatsoever to the arguments against homosexual marriage. Perhaps you could point it out.

Originally Posted by timj219

That's a pretty lofty claim you've made for yourself. Only Jesus had no doubts. And he was privy to his father's plan. Something I doubt you can claim.
Thought means doubt. Only people who cannot think for themselves can live without doubts. Such people are the material from which fanatics are made.

He had doubts. "My lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me?" is a pretty clear indication.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Please. Playing games with semantics doesn't change the fact that they wish the right to marry the one they wish to marry, exactly as heterosexuals can.

It isnt semantics. Marriage is between one man and one woman - that is how the marriage contract is defined.

Nothing is stopping an homosexual from marrying someone of the opposite sex. That they do not WISH to is just as irrelevant as the fact that an heterosexual doesn't wish to marry someone of the same sex.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

They have?

Yes, they have.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

And heteros haven't?

Nope - they havent, and in many of the places where benefits ARE extended to non-married partners, the benefits are not granted if the partner is of the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Where has this occurred?

Started in California (I know - BIG shock there), has extended to many states. In fact, a company I used to work for here in Texas specifically allowed homosexual couples to have benefits extend to the non-employee partner, but also just as specifically excluded heterosexual partners.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

That isn't a right in the first place.

Nope - sure isnt, but then again, neither is marriage or adoption, or working anywhere you damn well please.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

No, it's not the same,

Glad to see you understand that - unlike many on this forum.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

but I fail to see any logic whatsoever to the arguments against homosexual marriage. Perhaps you could point it out.

The logic is simple: This society, like virtually all throughout human history, has decided that marriage is a social contract between one adult man and adult one woman - neither of whom is related to each other or married to another. Who you love is not part of the legal equation. Homosexuals wishing to "marry" someone of the same sex are not meeting that standard anymore than an heterosexual wishing to marry two people, or someone underage, or a relative.

Ignoring the fact that the standard exists is no different than ignoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment exists. Claiming it should no longer apply because social mores have changed is no different than saying the 2nd Amendment no longer applies for the same reason.

The law is the law - simple as that. Don't like it? Change it. Don't pretend it doesn't say what it does. If you cannot change it, and getting married to a same sex partner is that important to you, leave the country and go somewhere you CAN marry them. (I think there are 3 countries which recognize it now).

There are a lot of things I would like to be able to do which are illegal in this country. They are not that important to me so I don't choose to leave and go somewhere where they are legal. HOWEVER, I also do not try to change this nation into something it isn't and force my desires upon everyone else - which is ultimately the point of this thread.

People and private entities have rights. Just because their lawful exercise of their rights hurts your feelings does NOT mean your rights have been violated, or that you can legally force them to do as you wish. You have alternatives - use them.

Originally Posted by timj219

That's a pretty lofty claim you've made for yourself. Only Jesus had no doubts. And he was privy to his father's plan. Something I doubt you can claim.
Thought means doubt. Only people who cannot think for themselves can live without doubts. Such people are the material from which fanatics are made.

Christ's faithfulness was not wasted I have no reason to think mine would be. Thats faith Tim, keep the faith.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

It isnt semantics. Marriage is between one man and one woman - that is how the marriage contract is defined.

Yes, it's semantic games. Those who seek the right for homosexuals to marry wish to change that contract. To simply dismiss homosexual marriage because it isn't included with the current definition of marriage is disingenuous, at best.

Nothing is stopping an homosexual from marrying someone of the opposite sex. That they do not WISH to is just as irrelevant as the fact that an heterosexual doesn't wish to marry someone of the same sex.

Sorry, I don't play word games, and don't consider doing so as contributory to a fruitful discussion. The subject isn't the rights of homosexuals to marry those of the opposite gender.

Yes, they have.

Nope - they havent, and in many of the places where benefits ARE extended to non-married partners, the benefits are not granted if the partner is of the opposite sex.

Started in California (I know - BIG shock there), has extended to many states. In fact, a company I used to work for here in Texas specifically allowed homosexual couples to have benefits extend to the non-employee partner, but also just as specifically excluded heterosexual partners.

That sounds legally quite dubious to me, and quite discriminatory. Has it been challenged? It doesn't sound like it would stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Nope - sure isnt, but then again, neither is marriage or adoption, or working anywhere you damn well please.

Glad to see you understand that - unlike many on this forum.

The logic is simple: This society, like virtually all throughout human history, has decided that marriage is a social contract between one adult man and adult one woman - neither of whom is related to each other or married to another. Who you love is not part of the legal equation. Homosexuals wishing to "marry" someone of the same sex are not meeting that standard anymore than an heterosexual wishing to marry two people, or someone underage, or a relative.

That isn't particularly logical at all. Standards change, and this country is supposed to be about rights and equal protection under the law. Because other societies have done it similarly throughout history isn't reason enough, IMO, because of the reason I just cited. We used to allow slavery. We don't know. We once didn't allow those of varying 'races' to marry. We do now. "Because that's how it's always has been done" doesn't cut much constitutional cloth with me.

Ignoring the fact that the standard exists is no different than ignoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment exists. Claiming it should no longer apply because social mores have changed is no different than saying the 2nd Amendment no longer applies for the same reason.

No, it's not even remotely similar to that.

The law is the law - simple as that. Don't like it? Change it.

That's what people are doing.

Don't pretend it doesn't say what it does. If you cannot change it, and getting married to a same sex partner is that important to you, leave the country and go somewhere you CAN marry them. (I think there are 3 countries which recognize it now).

Yes, ultimately, if the law can't be changed. That would be the logical choice.

There are a lot of things I would like to be able to do which are illegal in this country. They are not that important to me so I don't choose to leave and go somewhere where they are legal. HOWEVER, I also do not try to change this nation into something it isn't and force my desires upon everyone else - which is ultimately the point of this thread.

That doesn't make any sense. No one has ever changed this country into something it isn't. And no one in advocating homosexual marriage is trying to force desires on anyone else.

People and private entities have rights. Just because their lawful exercise of their rights hurts your feelings does NOT mean your rights have been violated, or that you can legally force them to do as you wish. You have alternatives - use them.

Ah, but you see, homosexual marriage violates no one's rights, and, ala Jefferson, neither picks your pocket nor breaks your arm. It's basically a take on the old fable from Aesop, 'The Dog In The Manger'.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Yes, it's semantic games. Those who seek the right for homosexuals to marry wish to change that contract. To simply dismiss homosexual marriage because it isn't included with the current definition of marriage is disingenuous, at best.

No - it is fact. Sorry you dont want to accept that.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Sorry, I don't play word games, and don't consider doing so as contributory to a fruitful discussion. The subject isn't the rights of homosexuals to marry those of the opposite gender.

No it isn't - in fact, it isnt even about homosexual "marriage" at all - except as tangential to the reason the RCC wants to tell DC to go take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

That sounds legally quite dubious to me, and quite discriminatory. Has it been challenged? It doesn't sound like it would stand up to judicial scrutiny.

No more dubious than the idea of refusing to hire a white guy at a black owned business, or a straight, evangelical Christian at a company owned by an open and militant homosexual ...

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

That isn't particularly logical at all. Standards change, and this country is supposed to be about rights and equal protection under the law. Because other societies have done it similarly throughout history isn't reason enough, IMO, because of the reason I just cited. We used to allow slavery. We don't know. We once didn't allow those of varying 'races' to marry. We do now. "Because that's how it's always has been done" doesn't cut much constitutional cloth with me.

I can understand where you're coming from - the arguments from the pro-homosexual marriage side are quite convincing to many.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

No, it's not even remotely similar to that.

You're right - after all, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear, but yet, people do their damnedest to ignore it all the time...kinda like..oh wait, never mind, you said it wasn't similar.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

That's what people are doing.

And they're failing, and they don't like it, so they get all butt-hurt and whine some more until people get tired of the whining and give in. God forbid we should simply say "You lost the vote. STFU and get over it already".

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Yes, ultimately, if the law can't be changed. That would be the logical choice.

Ahem - the laws have resisted change in every election which has been held.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

That doesn't make any sense. No one has ever changed this country into something it isn't. And no one in advocating homosexual marriage is trying to force desires on anyone else.

Well actually yes they are. This thread is an example. DC is attempting to force the RCC to do something it does not wish to do. In some states (California comes to mind, but i think it happened in Washington as well) religious organizations have been forced to hire open homosexuals regardless of the religions beliefs.

So yes, some ARE trying to force their desires upon others. You can pretend it doesnt happen or that it is for the greater good, but it does not change the fact that it is happening.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Ah, but you see, homosexual marriage violates no one's rights, and, ala Jefferson, neither picks your pocket nor breaks your arm. It's basically a take on the old fable from Aesop, 'The Dog In The Manger'.

I agree with you - it doesn't harm anyone at all. However, this country has made it clear every time it has come up for a vote, that it does not WANT to extend the marriage contract to include homosexual couples.

Is this wrong? No - i don't believe it is. Not because I'm heterosexual, but because at some point people have to have a set group of standards. Does it mean homosexuals should give it up and stop trying? No - it doesn't.

What it does mean though is all the back door (no pun intended) attempts need to cease and desist. Every time one is tried all it does is strengthen the resolve of those who oppose it. When an election to allow homosexual marriage is lost, you don't lobby the judiciary to ignore the rightful outcome of the election, or pull what happened in CA with Prop 8 (is that the right number? I cant keep track of CA politics). It means you try again - the right way. You KEEP trying, or you simply move.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

The right to marry those of the same sex for starters. Heterosexuals do not have that right.

Semantics. Word games are fun, aren't they?

I really like Mcintosh apples. I don't really care for any other type of apple, to the point that if I can't have a Mcintosh apple, I'd rather not have any apple at all. Using your logic, it doesn't matter which type of apple I prefer... I should just shut up and eat whatever apples everyone else is eating, even if I don't like them.

I suppose now you're gonna tell me that I don't have to eat any apple, and I don't have any right to eat the exact apple I want to eat anyway, blah blah blah... (completely beside the point, but I'm sure that won't stop you from parsing my post, sentence by sentence, to explain my rights to me... *yawn*)

They have demanded the right to have health benefits extended to their live-in lovers - something which does not apply to heterosexuals.

If we allowed gay couples to get married, then we could simpy extend health benefits to their spouses, just like any other married couple. Crazy idea, I know.

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Here I will make it simple for you. Discriminating against people simply on the fact that they are homosexual is stupid. It doesn't matter what justification you use whether it be personal distaste or because the bible says so. Its still stupid.

But they're not really discriminating. The Catholic Church has and most likely will continue to hire homosexuals. They just refuse to view a homosexual's spouse as such.

Its funny, Its always straight white liberals who are crying about this issue.

The truth is this is a liberal issue NOT a gay issue.

I have talked to gay republicans and they understand why some people don't approve of their sexuality, these same people agree that the gay movement is doing no good by trying to FORCE homosexuality down peoples throats the liberal way.

So yeah, this is NOT a gay issue its a liberal issue.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

I have talked to gay republicans and they understand why some people don't approve of their sexuality, these same people agree that the gay movement is doing no good by trying to FORCE homosexuality down peoples throats the liberal way.

I'm reminded of a man I once knew who insisted, "I'm not gay. Gay men put on assless chaps and march in parades. I just have sex with men." He was my hero.