I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

Now ask yourself, are gays a minority group?

In this sense, they are no different from the MAFFIA, who also form a group defined by their "activity'.

If gays are a "minority" then the maffia are a "minority" too. They are both indistinguishable from normal people until we see them in action or they reveal who they are to us.

We should give the MAFFIA the same equal rights we grant to GAYS.

edit on 10-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)

No, The mafia is organized. (also, check your spelling lolz)
Gays are not organized, and you contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that gays "Dress and act a special way and go to special bars and clubs" Or somthing of the sort, but now your saying that they are indistinguishable?
I sense a dollap or confusion here.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Yes the State took it over long before the USA was a country, and was regulating it long before we came on to discuss and debate this issue. As it is now in the hands of the state, it should not be do discriminate against anyone, as the state and religion are 2 separate issues.

So you understand, then, that since marriage is a state matter, that anyone performing a marriage, even a Priest, must accept all couples straight of gay to be married, and cannot discriminate against gay couples?

How about this: Gays can get married, but not in a church, or the churches have the right to deny couples to get married. Done. Problem solved. We can get married by a judge, or a police officer, or a politican, or lady gaga, or a flying rainbow dinosaur for all I care.

Originally posted by spw184

Gays are not organized, and you contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that gays "Dress and act a special way and go to special bars and clubs" Or somthing of the sort, but now your saying that they are indistinguishable?
I sense a dollap or confusion here.

Nothing stopping the gay guy from taking off his clothes and putting on normal clothes. A black man can't take off his skin and put on White skin to walk about unnoticed like the gay man.

Trying to "equate" gays to a minority is truly ridiculous.

The gay man is indistinguishable when he wants to be, and when he wants to be "flamboyant" he puts on his identifying robes.

HE HAS CHOICE !

Whoever has choice cannot be minority and cannot claim equal rights like minority group.

Originally posted by spw184

How about this: Gays can get married, but not in a church, or the churches have the right to deny couples to get married. Done. Problem solved. We can get married by a judge, or a police officer, or a politican, or lady gaga, or a flying rainbow dinosaur for all I care.

Too complicated.

A better plan. Gays can get "Civil Union" and Straight remain "Married".

Then Gays can fight for whatever "rights" they think the Civil Union should have.
1) want tax breaks -- lobby congress and explain why you should get tax breaks i.e. what is your contribution to society?

2) want visitation rights? -- lobby congress and explain why you need this

3) want protection against being forced to testify against your partner? -- explain why you deserve this right.

Straights have fought for all these things separately for themselves over the ages. Gays just want a fast track to the treasure.

Fight your own battles.

Gays are typically lazy, they want all the benefits with none of the work or obligations that make it possible.

reply to post by DRAZIW

The position of the Church is that the Fathers of the church know more than the average lay person about spiritual matters. Therefore these Fathers give advice and guide those who will listen.

Exactly. They are supposed to understand more about spirituality, where in fact they are only likely to know more about theology- very different things!

But if you close your eyes you no longer see. So, you can understand partly the difficulty a person born blind would have understanding what a painting in an art gallery is, or how a movie like the Terminator might be experienced. Because you can conceive of such things, you can, by analogy, get a partial understanding of how there could be other experiences for which you are currently blind. So, if you are told that a particular "behavior" is responsible for "closing your eyes", and rendering you blind, but if you change that behavior your eyes will be opened, and you'll be able to see these new vistas, then it's up to you to try out the changes required to enable the sight, and go exploring those new domains of experience. Lust closes the eyes.

Many things are internally conceivable. There is of course huge possibilities that there are levels of awareness/ consciousness/ sense which are vastly different/ higher/ lower than our own. But as such we cannot understand or properly sense these things. Anything else is far more likely to be assumed/ invented or simply a placebo effect.

Then if our belief cannot be chosen, then our actions cannot be chosen either. For we act in accordance with our beliefs.

No. Whether we believe something exists is not something we can negotiate and choose. Rationalising about what causes suffering and ascribing your actions to those thoughts is obviously something we internally process.

Each person should therefore just carry on, doing his own will, whatever he feels impelled to do today. There's no hate crime.

I presume this is sarcastic. If so, then what would be the point of eternal reward/ punishment? Is it not blasphemy and equating yourself with god to believe you can "take care of" god's role and decide upon people's punishments?

We need to decide whether people are born bound and can't choose, or born free and can choose their way of life. Once we fix that, we can approach this problem with a definite solution.

This sounds absolutely farcical to me. I suppose it is your idea of absolute objectivity. According to many of your statements we are already trapped in bondage and simply told that if we wiggle then the guillotine will fall. Eternally.

The gay man is indistinguishable when he wants to be, and when he wants to be "flamboyant" he puts on his identifying robes. ....
...Gays are typically lazy, they want all the benefits with none of the work or obligations that make it possible.

This really shows how closed off you actually are. You think that all gay people are queens who desperately show themselves (and their lifestyle) to all who's around? You think all gay people go to gay bars and wear pink? That all lesbians are butch and masculine?

I say this with absolute seriousness. Your last few posts have sounded very similiar and used much of the same rhetoric as Goebbels' films about 'Der Jude'.

Homosexuality is just another "invention" of the mind.

...It's almost too ridiculous...Anyway, But what if a person tells you they are 'certain' of it being a genuine, unchangeable type of person. Which if you try you will see the truth. If you have faith in homosexuality then you will find peace.

How dare you hold other people and ideas to a different standard than yourself.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

How about this: Gays can get married, but not in a church, or the churches have the right to deny couples to get married. Done. Problem solved. We can get married by a judge, or a police officer, or a politican, or lady gaga, or a flying rainbow dinosaur for all I care.

Too complicated.

A better plan. Gays can get "Civil Union" and Straight remain "Married".

Then Gays can fight for whatever "rights" they think the Civil Union should have.
1) want tax breaks -- lobby congress and explain why you should get tax breaks i.e. what is your contribution to society?

2) want visitation rights? -- lobby congress and explain why you need this

3) want protection against being forced to testify against your partner? -- explain why you deserve this right.

Straights have fought for all these things separately for themselves over the ages. Gays just want a fast track to the treasure.

Fight your own battles.

Gays are typically lazy, they want all the benefits with none of the work or obligations that make it possible.

Did you just imply that your plan was less complicated than mine? I think you need to learn how to count. Also, you make the word "gay" sound as if it is a different race. You say that straights fought for these rights? Than explain how some of the leading people in civics where gay (Roman politics)

America is the new rome, and almost all of our laws are based of theirs.

But now your going to say: "But gays arent fighting in the military!!! *Insert bigot comment about them being too girly here*

And than I say: Than please explain the thousands of people who get dishonorabley discharged each year because they are gay!! The're fighting too, but we have to keep it a secret.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Yes the State took it over long before the USA was a country, and was regulating it long before we came on to discuss and debate this issue. As it is now in the hands of the state, it should not be do discriminate against anyone, as the state and religion are 2 separate issues.

So you understand, then, that since marriage is a state matter, that anyone performing a marriage, even a Priest, must accept all couples straight of gay to be married, and cannot discriminate against gay couples?

What of the following is so hard to understand: Separation of Church and State, and the first Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof…

With those to precedents, it states simply that there can be no law that would force any minister or priest to invalidate his religions duties, or force him to perform a duty that would be in conflict with his faith or religion that is well documented.
The point case for this is all of the documented cases where a Catholic Priest is not forced to testify in a court of law what he heard in a confession. And more specifically in Trammel V. United States, 1980.
And here again the court confirmed that the state could not interfere with a church, nor could it compel a priest to disclose or divulge what wall was stated in a confession, even though the priest is a citizen of the USA, and is a witness to something that would convict a person.

So the argument on how priests and ministers would be forced to perform the ceremony for gay people, even though they do not want to, ultimately fails, as they would be protected from lawsuit on that aspect.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

So the argument on how priests and ministers would be forced to perform the ceremony for gay people, even though they do not want to, ultimately fails, as they would be protected from lawsuit on that aspect.

They would not be "forced" to perform the ceremony, they simply would not "qualify" for the civil function of joining the couple in marriage.

When a Christian couple wanted to get married, there would be two ceremonies, one civil, where they sign the papers in front of a civil agent of the state, then they walk across the street to the Church for a religious blessing, where the Priest joins them in the eyes of God. Since the Priest would no longer qualify for the civil document signing ceremony, marriage would have to be split into two parts, one to satisfy the state, and the other to satisfy God, and these two parts would have to be in "separate locations", because one is "Public" and the other is "Private".

Originally posted by yes4141

How dare you hold other people and ideas to a different standard than yourself.

What standard?

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

So the argument on how priests and ministers would be forced to perform the ceremony for gay people, even though they do not want to, ultimately fails, as they would be protected from lawsuit on that aspect.

They would not be "forced" to perform the ceremony, they simply would not "qualify" for the civil function of joining the couple in marriage.

When a Christian couple wanted to get married, there would be two ceremonies, one civil, where they sign the papers in front of a civil agent of the state, then they walk across the street to the Church for a religious blessing, where the Priest joins them in the eyes of God. Since the Priest would no longer qualify for the civil document signing ceremony, marriage would have to be split into two parts, one to satisfy the state, and the other to satisfy God, and these two parts would have to be in "separate locations", because one is "Public" and the other is "Private".

Ok, that sounds good.... Does anyone object?

reply to post by DRAZIW

No, that would not happen, there is no evidence to support that argument. If that was true, then the Catholic church and every other church that has broken the law, would have been shut down by now and they have not. So the argument is not really valid, when you consider every thing that many of the different church’s in the USA have gone through, to include the different law suits where the courts did have to intervene and decide what was and was not legal in different aspects, from the Mormon’s, the group that handles snakes, the peyote ritual of the Native American’s, and the different scandals that has affected the different church’s and yet nothing has stopped them or the ministers from fulfilling their duties, even when they clearly violated the separation of Church and State.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

No, that would not happen, there is no evidence to support that argument. If that was true, then the Catholic church and every other church that has broken the law, would have been shut down by now and they have not. So the argument is not really valid, when you consider every thing that many of the different church’s in the USA have gone through, to include the different law suits where the courts did have to intervene and decide what was and was not legal in different aspects, from the Mormon’s, the group that handles snakes, the peyote ritual of the Native American’s, and the different scandals that has affected the different church’s and yet nothing has stopped them or the ministers from fulfilling their duties, even when they clearly violated the separation of Church and State.

Three words: Westburo Baptist Church

reply to post by spw184

I was looking at the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, Focus on the Family, and other baptist churches around the country where they have been proven in a court of law of violating federal and state laws, either through criminal activities or by getting involved in politics and were able to get off with just a slap on the wrist, instead of being shut down. The USA really does not get that too far involved with churchs tending to shy away from all legal issues surrounding them, as much as possible.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by spw184

 

I was looking at the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, Focus on the Family, and other baptist churches around the country where they have been proven in a court of law of violating federal and state laws, either through criminal activities or by getting involved in politics and were able to get off with just a slap on the wrist, instead of being shut down. The USA really does not get that too far involved with churchs tending to shy away from all legal issues surrounding them, as much as possible.

When has the catholic church done a illegal activity? o.o

reply to post by DRAZIW

What standard?

That what you claim to be certain of is objectively correct yet the exact same situation for others and they are objectively wrong!

The only answer to this can possibly be that your only reference point is your own subjectivity, therefore if you believe something to be certain then you only have that one approach to it which simply emphasises my point.

A little conservative of you to only reply to that small part.

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

What standard?

That what you claim to be certain of is objectively correct yet the exact same situation for others and they are objectively wrong!

The only answer to this can possibly be that your only reference point is your own subjectivity, therefore if you believe something to be certain then you only have that one approach to it which simply emphasises my point.

A little conservative of you to only reply to that small part.

Im lost x-X ;lol:

reply to post by spw184


Basically this: he claimed that he knew 'the truth' and believed in it yet another person who believes homosexuality is real/ not a choice/ not evil etc. is deluded and in denial.

He is implying that whatever he believes is obviously 'more true' than what anyone else believes.

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by spw184

 

Basically this: he claimed that he knew 'the truth' and believed in it yet another person who believes homosexuality is real/ not a choice/ not evil etc. is deluded and in denial.

He is implying that whatever he believes is obviously 'more true' than what anyone else believes.

Oh, ok than

reply to post by spw184

Well there are all of those scandles of the choir boys being molested.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by spw184

 

Well there are all of those scandles of the choir boys being molested.

Lol but thats not the church as a whole, only an individual