Same sex marriage (living in, legally, bill)

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Uh huh. And was the Catholic Church allowed to refuse to place adopted children with same sex couples in Massachussets? No, they were not. They were forced to stop all adoption placements to avoid charges of discrimination. This is exactly the same legal mechanism that will lead to churches being forced to stop performing all marriages. Even this DU commentary-- clearly a source that is not biased in favor of Catholics-- shows that the church had no choice but to stop placing children for adoption, though I would entirely disagree with their conjecture as to whether the Church's had ulterior motives. Still, I thought it would be good for you to hear this from the donkey's mouth, so to speak.

Why did Catholic Charities get out of the child adoption services in MA? - Democratic Underground


We are entering a time when the state decides what rights you do and don't have. So far, you have been successful in imposing your morality on others. Enjoy it while the pendulum swings your way. At some point, the government could just as easily decide to curtail your rights.

Ah yes, the argument that the government forced Catholic charities to end adoption because they wouldn't adopt to gays. This would be a more convincing point if the government wasn't doling out money to Catholic Charities. You take public money, you abide by the rules of the public. It would be as if someone on, say, the SNAP program (food stamps) decided they were going to sell their food stamps for cash/booze/other banned products. When the government finds out about the issue and takes their SNAP privileges away, can we really say that the government forced them to stop getting SNAP money? No...the person didn't follow the rules and lost their opportunity. Catholic Charities simply couldn't afford to go without public money.

As for your assertion that I'm imposing my morality upon others (I'm not, but it's cute that you think so), I hardly see the pendulum swinging the other way. And exactly which rights have you had curtailed? Or is this just your hysterical wailings of a future where gub'mint is out to "take away your religion"?

I don't think people who disagree with state-sponsored same-sex marriage are bigots. But I do think they have a hard time making their case.

Originally Posted by golfgal

Why should your beliefs trump other's?

I'm not quite sure which "side" (for lack of a better word) you're on. You seemed to be reassured earlier on that gay marriage wouldn't affect the church (unless I read it wrong?), but now you appear to be challenging a pro-SSM person that somehow their belief trumps others' beliefs (presumably those opposed and the church).

Nobody's belief is being "trumped". That's like saying a married white couple who didn't believe in miscegenation had their beliefs "trumped" when the Supreme Court decided on Loving v. Virginia. It didn't affect their marriage, though I suppose their eyes had to be offended by seeing a mixed-raced couple on the street. THE HORROR!

[arabianhorselover]

Marriage was instituted by God. He set it up as a union between a man and a woman. I don't have a problem with "civil unions", but why do we need to call it marriage?

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by arabianhorselover

Marriage was instituted by God. He set it up as a union between a man and a woman. I don't have a problem with "civil unions", but why do we need to call it marriage?

Because the straight majority didn't think government needed another name for the civil counterpart to the religious marriage. They called it marriage. Therefore, it's marriage.

What's amazing is that we've seen a transformation...religious conservatives now cling to the idea that we can have civil unions. Only a few years before, that would have been completely unacceptable to them.

[OptimusPrime69]

Originally Posted by xandrex

Because the straight majority didn't think government needed another name for the civil counterpart to the religious marriage. They called it marriage. Therefore, it's marriage.

What's amazing is that we've seen a transformation...religious conservatives now cling to the idea that we can have civil unions. Only a few years before, that would have been completely unacceptable to them.

LOL@ religious conservatives. . they're losing

and

We're winning! lolz

[dravogadro]

They inserted 'civil' before every occurrence of marriage - never fear.

Civil unions are not recognized by the US Federal government.

[Beenhere4ever]

Just a guess. The gay couples aren't going to want to live in the 38 states that haven't legalized it. You donn't want to feel surrounded by people who consider you a pervert.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by xandrex

Ah yes, the argument that the government forced Catholic charities to end adoption because they wouldn't adopt to gays. This would be a more convincing point if the government wasn't doling out money to Catholic Charities. You take public money, you abide by the rules of the public. It would be as if someone on, say, the SNAP program (food stamps) decided they were going to sell their food stamps for cash/booze/other banned products. When the government finds out about the issue and takes their SNAP privileges away, can we really say that the government forced them to stop getting SNAP money? No...the person didn't follow the rules and lost their opportunity. Catholic Charities simply couldn't afford to go without public money.

As for your assertion that I'm imposing my morality upon others (I'm not, but it's cute that you think so), I hardly see the pendulum swinging the other way. And exactly which rights have you had curtailed? Or is this just your hysterical wailings of a future where gub'mint is out to "take away your religion"?

I don't think people who disagree with state-sponsored same-sex marriage are bigots. But I do think they have a hard time making their case.



I'm not quite sure which "side" (for lack of a better word) you're on. You seemed to be reassured earlier on that gay marriage wouldn't affect the church (unless I read it wrong?), but now you appear to be challenging a pro-SSM person that somehow their belief trumps others' beliefs (presumably those opposed and the church).

Nobody's belief is being "trumped". That's like saying a married white couple who didn't believe in miscegenation had their beliefs "trumped" when the Supreme Court decided on Loving v. Virginia. It didn't affect their marriage, though I suppose their eyes had to be offended by seeing a mixed-raced couple on the street. THE HORROR!

I covered the money angle in an earlier post, but it's just an excuse. It may be valid or invalid, but it did enable the state to impose its rules on the church. Of course beliefs are being trumped. How could you think not? That always happens when there are two opposing and irreconcilable views and a matter is decided one way, or the other. It's definitional. One view becomes the rule and the other does not.

One more thing. Drop the snotty tone. It's beneath your usual standards of dialogue, xandrex.

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Why should your beliefs trump other's?

They don't - if I marry another man if doesn't have any impact, whatsoever, on anyone else.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by arabianhorselover

Marriage was instituted by God. He set it up as a union between a man and a woman. I don't have a problem with "civil unions", but why do we need to call it marriage?

Marriage was "instituted by God?" Which god? Last count there were over 3,800 of them.

Oh, and there's this annoying little thing in the Bill of Rights for which people like you have willful amnesia.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

And yes, that DOES apply to Christians, even though they think it doesn't.

[Astron1000]

Originally Posted by arabianhorselover

Marriage was instituted by God. He set it up as a union between a man and a woman. I don't have a problem with "civil unions", but why do we need to call it marriage?

Tell that to King Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines