equality blooms with spring

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You said marriage is a fundamental human right, but you also agreed (I think) that states can determine the age when to grant this right (16,18...whatever). It seems to follow that you or okay with allowing states to determine when, who, and how human rights are granted.

Usually, fundamental human rights, from my understanding, are something government can neither grant nor deny (only protect). So you are either claiming that marriage is not necessary a human right, or that human rights CAN be granted or denied by the government.

This is quite a bit of stretch from "I haven't given it much thought" and "it's arbitrary but needed". And even if I did say that the state can determine the "when" I said nothing about the who and how.

The reason I support it is NOT because I fear the church's influence on the state - no, I fear the state's influence on the church.
I find this fear to be irrational. I do not support the state or federal government forcing churches to hold gay marriages if they don't believe in them. The church has the right to deny any couple not to get married in their church.

Neither is a right to healthcare but whaddya gonna do.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

For many in order to have life, they need healthcare, they pretty much go hand in hand.
 
:sigh:

Some chiropractor somewhere is making wheelbarrows full of money on the folks who still do all the backflips and tumbles just to disallow two guys who love each other more than anything to marry. I don't know why it's so damn hard to do. We always ending talking up about children getting married instead of consenting adults. What the hell?
 
The evolution of the argument against gay marriage is a funny one.

The majority of posters in here and conservatives alike start out with the Bible argument, once you "convince" them the Bible doesn't have any place in making secular law they turn to the slippery slope argument.

The slippery slope argument is that if you allow two women to marry then my neighbor is going to want to marry a goat. As soon as that argument is shattered, which takes all of one sentence then they move on to the dictionary argument.

The dictionary argument is, well this is the definition, this is what the dictionary says, I'm just trying to uphold the traditional definition. Then when you prove that definitions have changed and evolved over the years they call you "weeslely".

At this point they get frustrated and they return to one of the previous arguments hoping they find something they missed before. So I guess we're now back to men who want to marry goats...:shrug:
 
1217605.jpg
 
Honestly the arguments against legalizing gay marriage are unproductive wastes of time because the people putting them forward must realize at this point (short of being really stupid) that the enemy they are up against is time, that time waits for no man, and that thanks to the progressivism of the younger generation, this "fight" has already been lost.

Someday their grandchildren will wonder who they were.
 
Honestly the arguments against legalizing gay marriage are unproductive wastes of time because the people putting them forward must realize at this point (short of being really stupid) that the enemy they are up against is time, that time waits for no man, and that thanks to the progressivism of the younger generation, this "fight" has already been lost.

Someday their grandchildren will wonder who they were.
:yes:
 
Are you casting stones at those casting stones?

I don't get what you mean here.

What I meant was here is the Church being judgmental towards homosexuals, and one of Jesus' most famous sayings was "he who is without sin..."
 
I think he's just trying to create a circular argument. They're judging, but you called them out on their judgement so now you're judging, therefore no one can ever really use that scripture... that's my guess.
 
Honestly the arguments against legalizing gay marriage are unproductive wastes of time because the people putting them forward must realize at this point (short of being really stupid) that the enemy they are up against is time, that time waits for no man, and that thanks to the progressivism of the younger generation, this "fight" has already been lost.

Someday their grandchildren will wonder who they were.




this is why there's the rush to put these things up for mob rule a vote while a clear but small majority are against same-sex marriage (but for DP rights) haven't yet died off, and before rural America loses even more population.

i wonder how the state of VA would have voted in 1967 if they were able to vote on the Loving's marriage. or on the desegregation of the U of Alabama in 1956.
 
I hope so.

The delicious irony is that here in California, the people who think like you were trying desperately to keep their names secret. When it turns out that campaign donors' names are public record, thousands of bigots marriage-preservers panicked and suddenly weren't quite so proud of their votes and donations. :rolleyes:

And yes, I know. They were afeared of the gayz and their friends boycotting their businesses and worse. Apparently no lessons were learned from the 60s: when you remove people from Constitutional protection, they get a little pissed off. Who could have predicted that? :shrug:
 
Sure it will. Just look at all those people back in the day who tried to keep the races pure. We all think they were the heroes. They were just trying to keep things the way the Bible intended. What was the harm?

I have a wonderful great-grandfather that risked his life to save black people from being hanged on lamposts in East Louis by hiding them in his truck, yet dropped the N-bomb like nobody's business and a grandfather that fought to keep Jews from being gassed yet didn't believe in mixed marriages.

While some of their views may seem old fashioned by today's standards, that doesn't mean they weren't honorable men, cherishing husbands, and loving parents. Abraham Lincoln, as much as we love him, loved to tell "darkie" jokes. Does that totally negate his place in history? Do we speak ill of him?

Many of us realize that our views today may be considered archaic tomorrow. But we also realize that this is not a reason to either accept or reject an idea - as history is more cyclical than linear (with the exception of technology). As immoral as our society may be appear - there have been worse periods in history - there is always a correction when things get too bad. As corrupt as our government seems today - there have been worse and there is always a correction when things get too bad.

Many of us think we are "holding the line" - waiting for the correction or preventing the need for one. I hope that my grandkids see me as a loving, honorable man that followed his conscience, no matter which way the prevailing wind was blowing. And who knows, maybe your grandchildren will think you were crazy to try and redefine the obvious...
 
i do think it's interesting that there seems to be a "Bradley Effect" when it comes to gay marriage, which is why the polls in CA and ME were wrong compared to the votes.

while it is discouraging, and it is clear that small but clear majorities of people in each respective state did vote to remove the civil rights of their fellow citizens, what it does show is that overt homophobia -- now defined as opposition to marriage equality -- has become increasingly uncouth, and it's one more indication that homophobia will go the way of racism.
 
I have a wonderful great-grandfather that risked his life to save black people from being hanged on lamposts in East Louis by hiding them in his truck, yet dropped the N-bomb like nobody's business and a grandfather that fought to keep Jews from being gassed yet didn't believe in mixed marriages.

While some of their views may seem old fashioned by today's standards, that doesn't mean they weren't honorable men, cherishing husbands, and loving parents. Abraham Lincoln, as much as we love him, loved to tell "darkie" jokes. Does that totally negate his place in history? Do we speak ill of him?

Many of us realize that our views today may be considered archaic tomorrow. But we also realize that this is not a reason to either accept or reject an idea - as history is more cyclical than linear (with the exception of technology). As immoral as our society may be appear - there have been worse periods in history - there is always a correction when things get too bad. As corrupt as our government seems today - there have been worse and there is always a correction when things get too bad.

Many of us think we are "holding the line" - waiting for the correction or preventing the need for one. I hope that my grandkids see me as a loving, honorable man that followed his conscience, no matter which way the prevailing wind was blowing. And who knows, maybe your grandchildren will think you were crazy to try and redefine the obvious...



all of my grandparents are dead, and i miss them all every day and i get emotional when i think about them. i loved them all dearly, and they were all good people who worked hard. none of them were ever overtly racist -- no N-words. they were all too polite and too northeastern "mind your own business" to ever be so offensive.

however, they were all more than a little bit racist. and i know that they were, indeed, totally wrong. i also know that i had a much older cousin (my parent's age) who was a lesbian and brought her partner to functions. no one ever made a bit deal out of it, and i remember my grandmother once saying, "i do question whether or not so-and-so is a lesbian." it was very cute in an old-lady kind of way. and i said something like, "well, so-and-so is a great person and that's just how it is." and she sort of nodded in agreement.
 
I know where you're going with this.

I am of Italian heritage, was raised in a Catholic family, have done all the sacraments - baptism, communion, confirmation, etc. - and still attend church, albeit very infrequently.

I guess I am a non-practicing Catholic, because a lot of the Church's stances, like on homosexuality and contraception, for example, have turned me off considerably.
 
I am registered with the Catholic Church. Outside of family functions, I find it embarrassing. I used to be proud of my religion, back when I was getting my first pennance and first confirmation.

Then I got old enough to learn about it.
 
I was just curious because you identified yourself as such. This makes more sense to me.



do you think someone could disagree with several major points of Catholicism and yet still be a committed Catholic? or do you think that religious identity requires that you accept it all, you are either in or out? i.e., Cafeteria Catholicism isn't really Catholicism.

(and this would apply to any other religion)

also, do you think that some religions place undo emphasis on certain aspects of scripture or doctrine due to whatever social circumstances of the present? i.e., do you think that the importance of various sexual obsessions of whatever church are exaggerated in comparison to what scripture/doctrine actually says?
 
Many of us realize that our views today may be considered archaic tomorrow. But we also realize that this is not a reason to either accept or reject an idea -

But as honorable and loving as your grandfathers were, you know that those aspects of them were wrong. And I think that's the point you are missing.

Our grandchildren will look back and lovingly scratch their heads and admit their social conservative grandparents were on the wrong side of history, just like we do if we had grandparents with racist views.

I can say that with almost absolution.
 
do you think someone could disagree with several major points of Catholicism and yet still be a committed Catholic?
(and this would apply to any other religion)

I don't think Catholicism permits such disagreements and considers you a Catholic in good standing. Other denominations do - but I am fairly certain the Catholic Church requires you faccept/follow the cathechism to consider yourself Catholic.

I could be wrong.
 
I honestly think it depends on the, I can't think of the right word "sect" maybe, within the Catholic church, some are much more strict than others.

The reason why some Catholic churches deny communion to politicians who support abortion and others that offer it thinking "they probably need it more than anybody" :wink:
 
Here is what the Catholic cathecism teaches about homosexuality:

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"

ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

II

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (bold is mine)

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I would have to say that the Catholic Church is definitely opposed to homosexuality, and the city requiring them to use their own funds (given by other professing Catholics) in a way that opposes their core beliefs is upsetting. I am not a Catholic, but I do agree that the city should not force anyone to go against core beliefs in order to do charity work.

In my opinion, the Catholic Church (or any other charity), should just stop partnering with the city.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom