And I disagree. It’s a perfectly valid example.
We Catholics are supposed to be the nicest of the Christian demonimations when it comes to homosexuality. All throughout catholic school I was taught to ‘love thy neighbor as thy self.’ Never once did I hear: ‘love thy neighbor as thy self, except the [blank].’
Catholic Catechism 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.
Fine.
No it’s not “cool” with me if a church decides to discriminate against interracial couples, however; the 1st Amendment grants us freedom of association, which I’m sorry to inform you, includes exclusion. We are free to not associate with whomever for whatever reason.
Government has no business telling a private entity like a church who it can or cannot marry.
ETA: I do find it interesting that you apparently stopped reading my response in the first sentence…
Unless it’s discriminatory against a specific group right? Ergo, “no black people” not gonna fly, private or otherwise yes? “No mixed couples” would pass Legal muster or “no jews”? There are double standards that exist, such as womens only gym OK, male only gym, not so much, etc. Do we accept that anyone can exclude anyone they want on grounds of freedom of association, or do we look at it as a case by case issue based on prior rulings and such?
Specific to churches, freedom of religion would allow them to claim (as they generally have) it goes against their religious beliefs to marry same sex couples. I am fine with that, and gay couples can go find a church accepting of it. I would not be in favor of forcing churches to marry gay couples as it comes under freedom of religion.
I don’t know of any valid religious position regarding mixed couples say, unless you just pulled it from your a$$ as is so common with the ilk.
Just didn’t see anything I wanted to comment on. Was not honestly sure where you were coming from with your positions there.
I had a lot of Catholic education and for the life of me I can’t remember a single sermon or class that even mentioned homosexuality. Gays have a hard-on for the Catholic Church, not the other way around. Gays interrupt Masses with their gay kissing silliness and shenanigans. You don’t see Catholics making a rukus at gay parades.
I’m all for love the sinner hate the sin. I just don’t want love the sinner accept the sin forced down my throat. If you don’t think the radical left sees the gay agenda as a way to destroy traditional religion, you probably should think the Chinese are building up their military to protect Tibet. I’m not saying that every or even most GLTBC person feels that way- its just a great tool for radical left to use.
And to be perfectly clear- and maybe something that Lew and I both can agree on- is that straight people have screwed up marriage far more than gays ever could. Britney Spears has done more damage than all her back up dancers ever could.
Lew- dude. For someone who doesn’t give a fuck, you sure do seem to give a fuck? There’s a lot of anger you got locked up there. Hope you figure out a way a deal with it.
If his son was not gay would he be this way ?
Some photographers have been sued for not wanting to shoot a gay marriage cause it was against their religion
instead of most gays saying dont do this to the photographer they rallied around the people doing the suing !
So they have rights but others do not ?
Simple many photographers will do this
This is whats wrong
Any group blacks gays women whatever equal rights mean equal rights ! Meaning no more suing cause of your beliefs or color etc… somehow many of these groups think their rights are more important than others ! And demand compensation
If these groups would accept this then I say sure equal but its not equal thats the issue
So the majority have to stand up against those giving it a bad name doing stuff like this ! But they dont seem to ?
I have friends from all sorts of backgrounds could care less if they are gay straight or liberal or muslim what I care is are they good people at the core !
I have a very real problem with censoring myself when I read bullshit.
I don’t think that the problems of one misguided pop star have a thing to do with marriage in America.
I do see Catholics doing any number of morally reprehensible things. Specifically the Church itself.
Just out of curiousity Lew, has the Catholic Church ever done anything good, besides the monks brewing beer?
+1. He nails it. All men are created people.
Of all our pols out there who I think that can avoid that I can think of three; Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson. Two out of the three are running for the Oval office.
Catholic here. Wife is Church of God. The only hoop we had to jump through is that we had to promised to raise our children in the Christian faith, preferably the Roman Catholic faith.
As for church’s being “forced” to marry someone…they wont. There are still bigoted churches out there that won’t do mixed marriages. So people can breathe easy. Therefore this cannot be used to marginalize any church organization out there.
Wow. Just wow. Oh as for the Roman Catholic church’s stance on homosexuality, the stance is that so long as gays and lesbians aren’t having sex then they are welcome in the church. Gays and lesbians who are sexually active are in the same category as heterosexuals having premarital sex. Check the current catechism.
Sounds like a Barry Goldwater fan. Good stock there. Pitty that the Republican party left its roots.
Yes. Doesn’t mean I won’t call a spade a spade nor will I endorse such a bigoted, backwards, theocracy.
Precisely. Libertarians are the real conservatives now.
Fair enough. I’m a little fried from studying for finals and working on a research project so I’m probably not stating things very clearly.
I don’t think government can discriminate against homosexuals (or anyone else) with regard to the issuance or recognition of marriage licenses. I do think churches can refuse service to anyone for any reason because they are private entities. I’m concerned that the pursuit of court recognition of a “right” to marriage will be capriciously used as grounds to sue, or possibly even prosecute, churches for violating civil rights. I think this entire problem was generated by government regulation of social interaction. I see the solution of this entire issue as the abolition of government recognition (i.e. legal status) of marriage; one should not need to beg the govnah’s permission to wed.
My position on most matters of governance are basically minarchist.
Does that clear it up?
I can give you one example from personal experience, a place called St Vincent’s Medical Center. “Which one?” you might ask and well you should. There are dozens of them, all over the country and the world. One eighth of the hospitals in the country are Catholic.. I am a Protestant but I have enormous respect for the Catholic Church and the good it does throughout the world. Ever hear of Catholic Charities? There is one near you. Google “Catholic good works” and you will get 11 million hits. If you don’t know about the good works done by the Church, here is your opportunity to learn.
The so-called delusional book of fables is showing us more fulfillment in these days… Since it has turned into religion bashing, I’ll add my thoughts…
Therefore Elohim gave them up to uncleanness in the lust of their hearts, to disrespect their bodies among themselves, who changed the truth of Elohim into the falsehood, and worshipped and served what was created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Because of this Elohim gave them over to degrading passions. For even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature, and likewise, the men also, having left natural relations with woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing indecency, and receiving back the reward which was due for their straying. And even as they did not think it worth- while to possess the knowledge of Elohim, Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind, to do what is improper, having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoring, wickedness, greed, evil; filled with envy, murder, fighting, deceit, evil habits; whisperers, slanderers, haters of Elohim, insolent, proud, boasters, devisers of evils, disobedient to parents, without discernment, covenant breakers, unloving, unforgiving, ruthless; who, though they know the righteousness of Elohim, that those who practise such deserve death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practise them (many here fit that bill).
(Romans 1:24-32 The Scriptures 1998+)
I think Libertarian values are probably closer to original Republicans, which is to say socially “liberal” and fiscally “conservative” but I don’t really like the terms as they come with too much baggage now.
It’s not so much baggage as no one actually listens anymore to what people actually say. We have all these different ways to communicate and everyone is on send and no one on listen.
Isn’t Tweeting a one way com? World, listen to my ramblings. As if blogs weren’t bad enough.
I suppose, but what is the answer then? The state no longer recognizes marriage? It’s not a legal status? I’m not against what you are saying, just not getting my mind around what the results are of the position.
I’m all for government keeping their nose out of social issues but there’s still a Const. litmus test there.
My view, nothing fu*&s up a perfectly good relationship like getting married, but we won’t go there. 
But that don’t stop them from labeling you. Tell people you are ‘conservative’ and = you’re a religious right wing Bible thumping nut; tell people you’re ‘liberal’ and = you hug trees, voted for Obama, and want socialism.
Polarization and no two way communication.
There isn’t a Constitutional litmus test involved in my version. The Constitution in its original wording does not restrict the actions of individuals beyond actual denial of others rights (like stealing your stuff or inflicting physical harm). A church saying, “We don’t marry gays, go away” doesn’t infringe on the rights of those denied marriage. In a free market they are at liberty to pursue marriage in another church that will cater to their request.
The government cannot deny marriage licenses because that is an active infringement of liberty, as there exists no other certifying body to provide licensure. Sure, the homosexuals or mixed couples can have a ritual ceremony at a “church” willing to provide the service, but the marriage itself will not be recognized legally. Governmental recognition and reward (through things like tax breaks) for marriage is nothing more than statist social engineering meant to promote marriage.
So I say, solve the whole thing and get the government out of the social institution of marriage. Everyone receives equal recognition, which is to say, none.
And frankly, I think the socially valuable institution of heterosexual marriage would be strengthened by a removal of government influence, contrary to what many in the anti-gay marriage movement believe. Societal norms have a startling and amazing way of self-correcting social problems without petty statist control freaks using the government as a puppeteer.
I have no issues with that line of reasoning. My comment on “litmus” test was referring to issues of say race, or religion. In that model, does a bar with a “no blacks” policy ok? Said blacks can simply find another bar where they are welcomed I suppose.
On that I can agree. It’s a business agreement between you and the state. Outdated, not pro male at all, and a bad “business deal” for many.
I like it. Sign me up.