What's with all the new red and pink avatars / profile pictures?

[Mom-ninja.]

So gay people have to love through sacrifice? Again, your religious beliefs have *nothing* to do with secular law.

[elegantlion]

 

There are many people who live with unmet dreams and desires in this world. Even to use a priest as an example, who takes a vow of chastity, to reduce him to only his sexual desires is saying he is only the SUM of his sexual desires, and we know that sexual desires do to make the whole of a person. To say that he never has the want and desire for a wife and children of his own is further diminishing the vow he's taken and the sacrifice he made willingly.

 

Love is not only sex. Love is also sacrifice.

 

 

But a priest makes a choice out of his own free will. Not allowing gays to marry or create intimacy because of YOUR beliefs being imposed upon them is not their choice. Not all gays are catholic, yet you want them to follow the catholic practice of abstinence? To me, that would be like telling catholics they have to practice Buddhist beliefs just because.

[I.Dup.]

 

I haven't seen anyone calling justamouse names. I have seen (and used) descriptors for the arguments she has tried to present in this thread, but to me that is fair game.

 

 

I would qualify many posts as name calling and personal attacks. I also seem to remember a post where people were defending calling someone else ugly names as a way to...shame them out of their beliefs? Not sure. There is also a lot of posts explaining why calling someone stupid and pointing out how irrational and ridiculous they are is good for them, or for society in some way. That it changes laws and can reverse bigotry. Or something. I disagree. I think using our big girl tactics of rational, calm, and kind discussion is better for a community than to emotionally vomit all over someone when they don't agree.

[HollyinNNV]

 

 

So how would you feel if you vacationed somewhere in which your marriage was not valid? Really.

 

I was not married in the US. Does that mean my marriage is not valid here? It is just plain discrimination to pick and choose which marriages are valid and which are not.

 

 

I guess I am trying to keep my discussion related to laws and not my feelings. This is not because I don't clearly see this is a strongly felt issue. It is because I hope I can see the logical merits of each argument and I know that my feelings aren't helpful in that regard. That is just my POV.

[JuanitaL]

I don't have a case being addressed here. I'm letting someone know that I don't care if they put me on ignore or not. Same goes for you. Feel free to put me on ignore. I am being civil and thoughtful. I guess the word "shit" could be unclean? I don't know. I wasn't talking about "poop". Calling me out for wordy-dirties is ridiculous and does nothing for the conversation being held.

 

"wordy-dirties" made me laugh. One more phrase I'm co-opting from WTM.

 

(ETA - YES! I made it to 100! fistpump! little chair dance!)

[Catwoman]

 

I could totally be a hobbit.

 

 

Not me. I don't like their fashion sense. ;)

[Rivka]

I think we need some definition clarification.

 

Just because things are different, does not mean the people are owed less dignity. We see 'different' these days as less than, and that is not true when it comes to people. Which is why the churches stands for the unborn and fights against euthanasia.

 

It's is not the desire to enshrine a religious law, though, I can see why you might see it that way. It is to uphold a standing law that enables our societies to thrive and has sustained and grown them throughout the centuries.

 

 

But we are not talking about the philosophical construct of human dignity here; we are talking about specific legal and societal privileges. You are attempting to dodge the discriminatory realities that your position supports by emphasizing your personal friendships with gays, your respect for their dignity, and your compassion for their struggles. I fully acknowledge and concede that you have all of those lovely emotions. They do not take the place of equality under the law.

 

Also, I really wish you would respond to the rest of my post, instead of just snipping out all of the parts you preferred not to confront.

[Jennifer3141]

Justamouse, I was Catholic for 5 years. There were and are things about that religion that I understand well. But the, "Priests are celibate!" argument that I see Catholics use quite a lot is not one of them.

 

Sometimes Catholics act like that celibacy was some sort of nasty surprise the Church sprang on the men going through the process. Like the Church found some really good men, told them about the priesthood but left that one little detail out until it was too late.

 

I feel like you want us to pity the poor celibate priests. I don't get that.

 

And some people really do feel like their sexuality is a huge part of their identity. My dear, I become a RAGING BEAR if certain acts do not take place under my roof in at least semi-regular intervals. It is also part of my self-identification. My DH loves it. My friends laugh about it. Their DHs' envy it. It is a part of me as surely as my sarcasm. :lol:

 

I'd make it about 8 minutes as a nun or priest. But I have a mother would who delight in it falling off the face of the planet. Go figure.

 

So telling 10% of the population, "Well, priests are celibate too!" just seems odd. If I were in that 10%, someone would be dead at some point in time because I'd be INSANE.

[Mom-ninja.]

Let's all repeat this phrase over and over, "separation of church and state."

 

I know some of you don't like it and you wish your religious beliefs were law or could stay law. On the note of "just move somewhere else if you don't like the law where you live" there are countries in which religion does dictate the law. One could always move.

[justamouse]

But we are not talking about the philosophical construct of human dignity here; we are talking about specific legal and societal privileges. You are attempting to dodge the discriminatory realities that your position supports by emphasizing your personal friendships with gays, your respect for their dignity, and your compassion for their struggles. I fully acknowledge and concede that you have all of those lovely emotions. They do not take the place of equality under the law. Also, I really wish you would respond to the rest of my post, instead of just snipping out all of the parts you preferred not to confront.

 

 

And I would say that many on this thread are using emotional appeal to justify their position. Lovely emotions. Also which don't make for a valid argument that marriage should be equal under the law.

 

I have never said that they do not deserve contractual rights, I have said that I do not support the changing of the definition of marriage. I didn't answer the rest because I would be quoting myself.

[Mom-ninja.]

I guess I am trying to keep my discussion related to laws and not my feelings. This is not because I don't clearly see this is a strongly felt issue. It is because I hope I can see the logical merits of each argument and I know that my feelings aren't helpful in that regard. That is just my POV.

 

 

I'm asking you logically....feeling aside....how does it logistically work to not have all marriages considered valid in one country? How would it even work between countries? Right now the US recognizes marriages from other countries (at least most countries that I know of). Again, I was not married in the US. However, I'm an American citizen as is my dh. Should our marriage not be considered valid in any of the states because we got married in Europe?

 

Really. How would this work?

[Mom-ninja.]

 

I have never said that they do not deserve contractual rights, I have said that I do not support the changing of the definition of marriage. I didn't answer the rest because I would be quoting myself.

 

 

And others have pointed out that the definition of marriage *has* changed. In the bible marriage is seen in a whole different way than it is now.

[I.Dup.]

Okay, I agree that this is potentially about religious beliefs being forced on society. That may be the crux of the issue here.

 

I also hear justamouse saying that she is NOT against equal rights, she just doesn't want the DEFINITION of marriage changed. I think that is where Christians are coming from on a religious standpoint. I know for myself, as I have already mentioned, have absolutely nothing against gay people having the same rights as everyone else.

[justamouse]

 

But a priest makes a choice out of his own free will. Not allowing gays to marry or create intimacy because of YOUR beliefs being imposed upon them is not their choice. Not all gays are catholic, yet you want them to follow the catholic practice of abstinence? To me, that would be like telling catholics they have to practice Buddhist beliefs just because.

 

 

No, they obviously don't have to practice abstinence. They aren't now, are they? They have free will. The Church teaches lots that people ignore. That doesn't mean that the exercise of free will is right. I can murder, doesn't mean I should be afforded the right.

 

Again, the definition should not be changed to accommodate the minority. Accommodate them some other way.

[RoughCollie]

I think using our big girl tactics of rational, calm, and kind discussion is better for a community than to emotionally vomit all over someone when they don't agree.

 

 

I agree. My DH and I don't agree on many major current issues. Yet we have managed to be married for 24 years without yelling or name calling or taking it personally when we don't agree on this stuff. It's a matter of courtesy and of allowing others to have their own opinions, as we have ours.

 

I also like to leave room for folks to change their minds. Many years ago, I used to be against gay marriage for religious reasons, and I changed my mind. As late as 3 days ago, I thought the whole mess could be mostly resolved by calling gay marriage a civil union. I gave it some thought, and just yesterday, I changed my mind.

 

I don't think minds are changed by derisive comments and name-callling. Sometimes they aren't changed at all. I accept that my DH is not going to change his mind about certain issues, so I don't discuss them with him. My kids do, and they are wasting their time and are banging their heads against a brick wall. Sometimes, acceptance is the key to harmony. Acceptance doesn't mean agreement or silence, but IMO it does mean giving the other person the space to have his or her own opinion, even if it radically differs from yours and even if it seems not to be based on anything reasonable.

 

My goodness, I bet I have lots of opinions that many people would adamantly disagree with. It is still my right to have them, and I don't want to be villified for it.

[Guest inoubliable]

"wordy-dirties" made me laugh. One more phrase I'm co-opting from WTM.

 

(ETA - YES! I made it to 100! fistpump! little chair dance!)

 

 

Virtual fist-bump for the 100!

[JuanitaL]

But we are not talking about the philosophical construct of human dignity here; we are talking about specific legal and societal privileges. You are attempting to dodge the discriminatory realities that your position supports by emphasizing your personal friendships with gays, your respect for their dignity, and your compassion for their struggles. I fully acknowledge and concede that you have all of those lovely emotions. They do not take the place of equality under the law.

 

Also, I really wish you would respond to the rest of my post, instead of just snipping out all of the parts you preferred not to confront.

 

I appreciated your (Rivka) previous post from the former soldier (it was way back, it would take me too long to find it again). I do see a great irony in all the people who "support the troops!", yet don't stop to think of what they may really mean, or what the troops may actually need for support. My great uncle (WWII AF retiree) is buried in a local National Cemetery, his life partner is not; that galls me.

[mommymilkies]

 

 

Not me. I don't like their fashion sense. ;)

 

 

They have more fashion sense than I. But hairy feet...might push me more toward the elven direction.

[justamouse]

 

Murder isn't up there with gay relationships though.

 

 

I wasn't equating them. I CAN do many things, doesn't mean I should.

[JuanitaL]

 

Virtual fist-bump for the 100!

 

Only took me about 2 months! And I made it on a hot thread!

[Catwoman]

 

There's a way to do that without being hurtful and ugly though. I do not see how justamouse, in simply sharing her opinion (as controversial as it may be) was being hurtful or ugly. But to point out a person and call them stupid, bigoted, irrational, foolish, and on and on (I can't even keep track of all of the names and labels used against justamouse and any other religious person in this thread) just for sharing their opinion is not only immature but it discounts the person doing the name calling because it makes them out to seem like they have so little control over their emotions that they cannot participate in a rational, civil conversation without completely losing it on people that don't agree. Conversations like these have power, they can help people think through things in new and different ways, but name calling and venting hatred and anger on someone doesn't help in that regard.

 

 

I would qualify many posts as name calling and personal attacks. I also seem to remember a post where people were defending calling someone else ugly names as a way to...shame them out of their beliefs? Not sure. There is also a lot of posts explaining why calling someone stupid and pointing out how irrational and ridiculous they are is good for them, or for society in some way. That it changes laws and can reverse bigotry. Or something. I disagree. I think using our big girl tactics of rational, calm, and kind discussion is better for a community than to emotionally vomit all over someone when they don't agree.

 

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

You said it better than I could have, so I'm just going to quote you and agree with you. :)

 

I don't happen to agree with justamouse (or others) on this issue, but I do agree with her most of the time, on most issues, and I don't think it's fair that she is being told that her beliefs are Catholic beliefs, so they are somehow not valid to the discussion.

 

Here's the thing -- they're not just Catholic beliefs. They are her beliefs. She's not just a parrot of Church doctrine. She's an intelligent, thoughtful woman with deeply-held beliefs, and if one of those beliefs is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt it goes beyond being a religious thing, and I will give her full credit that that it is every bit as valid as my opinion that supports gay marriage.

 

I think it's kind of insulting when people act as though others only believe what they believe because some church rulebook tells them to believe it. I think it belittles their intelligence and their ability to think and reason independently. It truly is possible that a non-religious person would also be anti-gay marriage.

[elegantlion]

 

No, they obviously don't have to practice abstinence. They aren't now, are they? They have free will. The Church teaches lots that people ignore. That doesn't mean that the exercise of free will is right. I can murder, doesn't mean I should be afforded the right.

 

Again, the definition should not be changed to accommodate the minority. Accommodate them some other way.

 

 

But murder doesn't fall under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Again not everyone follows the church or The Church for their moral and legal teachings. Catholic is not a country.

[Violet Crown]

 

 

I would argue that marriage is not just about people caring for their children, but also about people caring for *each other*. Marriage incurs social and legal obligations to care for one's spouse "in sickness and in health", which particularly applies when one spouse becomes disabled. I think this is an important aspect of marriage.

 

Maybe, but it's not like people currently, under the unilateral no-fault divorce regime, really incur such obligations, do they? People abandon their disabled spouses all the time. If it's the moral obligation you mean, I completely agree, but that isn't affected by state recognition.

[Guest inoubliable]

Only took me about 2 months! And I made it on a hot thread!

 

 

And in before the lock, too! You're on fire today! LOL!

[Jennifer3141]

And I would say that many on this thread are using emotional appeal to justify their position. Lovely emotions. Also which don't make for a valid argument that marriage should be equal under the law.

 

I have never said that they do not deserve contractual rights, I have said that I do not support the changing of the definition of marriage. I didn't answer the rest because I would be quoting myself.

 

 

 

Unless you have sister wives, the definition of marriage HAS changed. Unless your DH PAID for you, the definition of marriage has changed.

 

It's a different world that it was for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

[justamouse]

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

You said it better than I could have, so I'm just going to quote you and agree with you. :)

 

I don't happen to agree with justamouse (or others) on this issue, but I do agree with her most of the time, on most issues, and I don't think it's fair that she is being told that her beliefs are Catholic beliefs, so they are somehow not valid to the discussion.

 

Here's the thing -- they're not just Catholic beliefs. They are her beliefs. She's not just a parrot of Church doctrine. She's an intelligent, thoughtful woman with deeply-held beliefs, and if one of those beliefs is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt it goes beyond being a religious thing, and I will give her full credit that that it is every bit as valid as my opinion that supports gay marriage.

 

I think it's kind of insulting when people act as though others only believe what they believe because some church rulebook tells them to believe it. I think it belittles their intelligence and their ability to think and reason independently. It truly is possible that a non-religious person would also be anti-gay marriage.

 

 

I've always thought you should be a diplomat.

[Catwoman]

They have more fashion sense than I. But hairy feet...might push me more toward the elven direction.

 

 

Wow, yeah. I hadn't even thought about the hairy feet thing. :ack2:

[justamouse]

 

But murder doesn't fall under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Again not everyone follows the church or The Church for their moral and legal teachings. Catholic is not a country.

 

 

Catholic may not be a country, but though shall not murder is a natural law that is upheld in the 10 commandments, no? Or is that just one of the good ones?

[I.Dup.]

 

Here's the thing -- they're not just Catholic beliefs. They are her beliefs. She's not just a parrot of Church doctrine. She's an intelligent, thoughtful woman with deeply-held beliefs, and if one of those beliefs is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt it goes beyond being a religious thing, and I will give her full credit that that it is every bit as valid as my opinion that supports gay marriage.

 

I think it's kind of insulting when people act as though others only believe what they believe because some church rulebook tells them to believe it. I think it belittles their intelligence and their ability to think and reason independently. It truly is possible that a non-religious person would also be anti-gay marriage.

 

 

Good point. I hadn't even thought of that. I guess because this is something that I do personally struggle to align myself with the Church on, I don't think of this particular issue as my deeply held, personal belief. But you are absolutely right. And I certainly feel that way on other issues. I think it's about respecting human dignity and the right for each person to hold their own, unique perspective and beliefs on something without being vilified for it.

 

None of us here is God, none of us wrote the Bible or enacted the current marriage laws. So I'm not sure how the anger and hatred is justified in this context.

[justamouse]

Pax, all, you're making my hands cold and I'm trying to hand sew lace on dresses. Hard to work a needle with cold hands.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

I don't happen to agree with justamouse (or others) on this issue, but I do agree with her most of the time, on most issues, and I don't think it's fair that she is being told that her beliefs are Catholic beliefs, so they are somehow not valid to the discussion.

 

Trying to justify discrimination under secular law by using religious arguments is not a compelling argument. She has made a case for what she believes, but has failed to make a case for why that should apply under our Constitution.

 

Here's the thing -- they're not just Catholic beliefs. They are her beliefs. She's not just a parrot of Church doctrine. She's an intelligent, thoughtful woman with deeply-held beliefs, and if one of those beliefs is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt it goes beyond being a religious thing, and I will give her full credit that that it is every bit as valid as my opinion that supports gay marriage.

 

Again, I disagree with your assessment of the validity of her argument. She has been asked repeatedly to provide a justification as to why her beliefs, religious or not, should apply under a law that affects everyone. She generally has dodged the question or provided a poor/incomplete explanation.

[elegantlion]

 

Catholic may not be a country, but though shall not murder is a natural law that is upheld in the 10 commandments, no? Or is that just one of the good ones?

 

 

Sure but you're the one that brought up murder with gay marriage. Just because one thing (not murdering people) happens to be good in a ten commandment way doesn't mean it can't be good from a non-religious viewpoint. Murder violates the rights of other human beings, gay marriage does not.

[Orthodox6]

If all parties involved feel passionately about a topic, then I think it is a useful discussion to have. If one cannot stomach discussions on hot and controversial topics, then it would be best to stay away from those threads, rather than banning conversation altogether.

 

 

 

My stomach is fine. We have a board policy which I referenced.

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Catholic may not be a country, but though shall not murder is a natural law that is upheld in the 10 commandments, no? Or is that just one of the good ones?

 

 

It's really only one of two that make any sense, actually.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Catholic may not be a country, but though shall not murder is a natural law that is upheld in the 10 commandments, no? Or is that just one of the good ones?

 

 

Based on the premise of not infringing upon the rights of another, "thou shall not murder" falls under the Constitution as not depriving another of the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

[Rivka]

No, they obviously don't have to practice abstinence. They aren't now, are they? They have free will. The Church teaches lots that people ignore. That doesn't mean that the exercise of free will is right. I can murder, doesn't mean I should be afforded the right.

Did you seriously just draw an analogy between committed same-sex relationships and murder?

 

Yes, you did. Unbelievable.

 

Hey, everyone, let's talk some more about how intolerant the people who get angry at justamouse are being, and how harmful their negative tone is. I don't think we've focused enough on how people who get angry about committed, loving, mutually supportive same-gender relationships being compared to murder are the REAL BIGOTS.

[elegantlion]

 

It's really only one of two that make any sense, actually.

 

 

Now I'm curious which other one you think makes sense.

[Mom-ninja.]

I can murder, doesn't mean I should be afforded the right.

 

 

 

 

Oh good grief. Murder HARMS others. How in the world does marriage between any two people harm others?

 

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

You said it better than I could have, so I'm just going to quote you and agree with you. :)

 

I don't happen to agree with justamouse (or others) on this issue, but I do agree with her most of the time, on most issues, and I don't think it's fair that she is being told that her beliefs are Catholic beliefs, so they are somehow not valid to the discussion.

 

Here's the thing -- they're not just Catholic beliefs. They are her beliefs. She's not just a parrot of Church doctrine. She's an intelligent, thoughtful woman with deeply-held beliefs, and if one of those beliefs is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt it goes beyond being a religious thing, and I will give her full credit that that it is every bit as valid as my opinion that supports gay marriage.

 

I think it's kind of insulting when people act as though others only believe what they believe because some church rulebook tells them to believe it. I think it belittles their intelligence and their ability to think and reason independently. It truly is possible that a non-religious person would also be anti-gay marriage.

 

 

I disagree. Yes, they are *her* beliefs......her RELIGIOUS beliefs. They have no part in deciding constitution law.

 

 

 

 

Unless you have sister wives, the definition of marriage HAS changed. Unless your DH PAID for you, the definition of marriage has changed.

 

It's a different world that it was for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

 

 

I think my dh would say he has and is paying for me. :lol:

 

 

 

Catholic may not be a country, but though shall not murder is a natural law that is upheld in the 10 commandments, no? Or is that just one of the good ones?

 

 

So you think that just because "Thou shall not kill" is in the 10 commandments is the only reason it's a law of this country? It's a law because it causes harm to others. It has nothing to do with the 10 commandments. Shall we point put all of the 10 commandments that are NOT law of this country? "Thou shall not any other God" would be the first I'd list as not being a law.

[Jennifer3141]

 

Sure but you're the one that brought up murder with gay marriage. Just because one thing (not murdering people) happens to be good in a ten commandment way doesn't mean it can't be good from a non-religious viewpoint. Murder violates the rights of other human beings, gay marriage does not.

 

 

 

I don't undertsand that argument either. Unless you DIED when gay marriage became legal in the 9ish states it's now legal in, that argument doesn't make any sense.

 

Although if you are dead, please message me. I have a couple of questions...

[HRAAB]

And I would say that many on this thread are using emotional appeal to justify their position. Lovely emotions. Also which don't make for a valid argument that marriage should be equal under the law.

 

I have never said that they do not deserve contractual rights, I have said that I do not support the changing of the definition of marriage. I didn't answer the rest because I would be quoting myself.

 

 

I don't think this discussion can happen because there is no shared understanding to the purpose of marriage. You're coming from a Catholic understanding of marriage which isn't even the same as what a Protestant might believe about marriage. In the Catholic Church marriage is a privilege, not a right, and both people must meet the requirements,. I know Protestants that married with no intention of ever having children (my bil had a vasectomy before his marriage in fact) yet that had no bearing on the marriage. A priest told me my marriage was invalid because I was on the pill at the time and when asked if we would accept the children God sent us, we had lied when we answered yes. I'm not sure if he was correct about my marriage being invalid since it didn't matter to me at the time. Yet that question would never have come up in a Protestant ceremony. I have a friend who was denied marriage by her priest because her fiance was a parapalegic (spinal injury from a car accident), and he was unable to settle the 'marriage debt'. I know of no Protestant church that would deny marriage because one of the couple was physically incapable of sex (there could be but I'm not aware of it). Perhaps they could have gone to the bishop, but they were married by another minister and are now the parents of two adopted children. I'm just pointing out that your understanding of marriage isn't even shared by all Christians let alone people of no religious background. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to come to any understanding. The Church has the right to deny or grant marriage in whatever way they see fit based on their belief, but using those requirements as arguments against same sex marriage don't work in a secular context. That would presume people share the same understanding of God, the purpose of creation, and the authority of the church to interpret natural law from that standpoint.

 

Every time I read these discussions, it seems to me that the opposing sides are speaking a different language. Even though religious beliefs form your understanding, they don't work in a discussion with people that don't share them.

[justamouse]

Sure but you're the one that brought up murder with gay marriage. Just because one thing (not murdering people) happens to be good in a ten commandment way doesn't mean it can't be good from a non-religious viewpoint. Murder violates the rights of other human beings, gay marriage does not.

 

 

Redefining marriage to include gay union actually DOES infringe on my rights as I've posted way back.

 

The states infringes on my rights every day, with many laws. One I particularly loathe is the law that prohibits me from obtaining raw milk. Cousins not marrying, underaged drinking..so many nanny state laws, bicycle helmets, seat belts. The laws that allow chemical companies to tweak our food. How many states regulate homeschooling?

 

The thing is we all don't get to be our own moral authority as my analogy on murder shows. Morality is not won by popular vote no matter how many people like it.

[Jennifer3141]

 

Now I'm curious which other one you think makes sense.

 

 

I know! I know! :laugh:

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Now I'm curious which other one you think makes sense.

 

 

George Carlin said it best. LOL.

"First:

 

•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY

 

TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.

 

And second:

 

•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS,

 

OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE AVENGER

 

THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.

 

Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominently in his courthouse lobby. As long he in­cluded one additional commandment:

 

•THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!!!"

[justamouse]

Did you seriously just draw an analogy between committed same-sex relationships and murder?

 

Yes, you did. Unbelievable.

 

Hey, everyone, let's talk some more about how intolerant the people who get angry at justamouse are being, and how harmful their negative tone is. I don't think we've focused enough on how people who get angry about committed, loving, mutually supportive same-gender relationships being compared to murder are the REAL BIGOTS.

 

 

You know, reaching far past my meaning, spinning it and turning it into something it isn't doesn't make you win.

 

My murder analogy is about who makes moral authority. Not about murder = gay.

 

And with that, I'm out.

[nmoira]

Catholic may not be a country, but though shall not murder is a natural law that is upheld in the 10 commandments, no? Or is that just one of the good ones?

 

 

It's a bit more universal in nature than:

 

Thou shalt have no other gods

No graven images or likenesses

Not take the LORD's name in vain

Remember the sabbath day

 

No?

 

Take away the ten commandments and you still have a widespread and cross-cultural prohibitions against killing, at least within certain groups. Same for theft and lying.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Redefining marriage to include gay union actually DOES infringe on my rights as I've posted way back.

 

No, it does not. Your ability to marry will be 100% unchanged. Really.

 

The states infringes on my rights every day, with many laws. One I particularly loathe is the law that prohibits me from obtaining raw milk. Cousins not marrying, underaged drinking..so many nanny state laws, bicycle helmets, seat belts. The laws that allow chemical companies to tweak our food. How many states regulate homeschooling?

 

This is a perfect example of how basic logic escapes you. Notice what each law you cited has in common? The state not allowing you to do something. (Except for the "laws that allow chemical companies to tweak our food" example which frankly makes no sense.)

A law that allows homosexuals to marry? Guess what? It doesn't disallow you from doing ANYTHING! No nanny state at all! But guess what? A law that prevents gays from marrying? Guess what that does? Go ahead...it's okay...go ahead and guess. Yep. It INFRINGES upon their rights as fellow citizens.

See, that wasn't so hard.

 

The thing is we all don't get to be our own moral authority as my analogy on murder shows. Morality is not won by popular vote no matter how many people like it.

 

 

 

Um....what?

[elegantlion]

Redefining marriage to include gay union actually DOES infringe on my rights as I've posted way back.

 

The states infringes on my rights every day, with many laws. One I particularly loathe is the law that prohibits me from obtaining raw milk. Cousins not marrying, underaged drinking..so many nanny state laws, bicycle helmets, seat belts. The laws that allow chemical companies to tweak our food. How many states regulate homeschooling?

 

The thing is we all don't get to be our own moral authority as my analogy on murder shows. Morality is not won by popular vote no matter how many people like it.

 

If you die, you're no longer able to have rights. The union or marriage of two other individuals does nothing to personally impact the day-to-day interaction you have with your spouse. Dying, however, might change that a bit.

 

The thing is the catholic church doesn't get to be the moral authority for everyone either. Catholic law/beliefs are not the law of this land.

 

Morality can exist without religion, one does not need belief in a deity to have morals.

[Rivka]

I appreciated your (Rivka) previous post from the former soldier (it was way back, it would take me too long to find it again). I do see a great irony in all the people who "support the troops!", yet don't stop to think of what they may really mean, or what the troops may actually need for support. My great uncle (WWII AF retiree) is buried in a local National Cemetery, his life partner is not; that galls me.

They were featured on our local news last night!

[Jennifer3141]

When my kids reach a certain age, I'm going to keep condoms with the ice cream and I'll do multiple vegetable demonstrations on how to use them correctly. The Catholic Church would consider that a sin. But again, how does my doing that affect any Catholics?

 

If my kid is using those condoms with YOUR Catholic kid, you didn't do YOUR job right as a Catholic parent. In my eyes, I did mine just fine. :)

[Lady Florida.]

Did you seriously just draw an analogy between committed same-sex relationships and murder?

 

Yes, you did. Unbelievable.

 

Hey, everyone, let's talk some more about how intolerant the people who get angry at justamouse are being, and how harmful their negative tone is. I don't think we've focused enough on how people who get angry about committed, loving, mutually supportive same-gender relationships being compared to murder are the REAL BIGOTS.

 

:001_wub: