AlexC wrote:
Can you imagine if every one in the world like you, Yvonne, practiced their beliefs and deprived people of services? I'm an atheist, so in theory I can deny any "believer" anything that is contrary to my belief.

Do you think that's okay?

Or do you think you're special because you believe in "god"

"god" is a fiction that has been propagated for 30,000 years. the fact that anyone subscribes to this nonsense shows that we have a long way to go

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.

CdeCoincy wrote:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles ... in_another_country_s_army

Rather than speculate on the citizenship of American Jewry, I spent 30 seconds finding this. Also, let's not forget that we owe our independence to the help of foreign volunteers.
Lafayette, nous voila (Lafayette, back at ya).

Source: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teac ... lic-church/epub/index.cfm

10. Common-Law relationship
A common-law relationship involves two persons, a male and a female, living together outside of a Sacramental Marriage. It may involve adultery, whereas one of the two persons is married, or fornication, where both person are unmarried. Either way, those involved in such a relationship are considered to be living in a ongoing life of mortal sin....


25. Non-Sacramental Marriage
This means to marry outside the Catholic Church, usually in a non-Catholic Church, including in front of a Justice of the Peace.


26. Obesity
He who uses food (or drink) in such a way as to injure his health or impair the mental equipment needed for the discharge of his [marital] duties, is guilty of the sin of gluttony. The neglect of one's marital duties because of gluttony/obesity is a mortal sin.

33. Refusing the marriage duty

To refuse one's spouse a reasonable request to participate in the act of sexual intercourse is to commit a mortal sin.

35. Separating and refusing the marriage debt.

To withhold earned money from one spouse, be it in retaliation for being denied sex, because of limited visitations after separation, as a refusal to pay for the mortgage of the home that houses the children, such actions are mortal sins.

44. Vitro Fertilization
The Catholic Church considers the practice of In-Vitro Fertilization to be a mortal sin.
........................................................................
34. Same sex marriage

Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (C.C.C. # 1602-1605).

Same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

heights wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
What about the religious rights of the taliban ? Why is ok for the American Jewish community to send their sons and daughters to do active service in Israel, yet a muslim is not permitted to fight for their cause in the middle east ? Interesting how every religion and country turned a blind eye to slavery !
What's more important, Country or religion - I'd suggest that many people would put religion well ahead of Country!

As for Christie, he's a self righteous idiot when it comes to gay marriage - I guess the next election will require people to ask more questions about certain topics when voting someone in - Christie doesn't represent my views, but the ass was elected and what HE wants goes!

Perhaps the American Jewish community has duel citizenship and the muslims do not. As far as our governor is concerned he was elected by a majority of the voters and majority wins. No one ever asks the real questions when these elected officials were "just candidates".

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.

The thread was about governments intrusion into changing the definition of marriage. When gay 'marriage' proponents try to make it a 'civil right' issue then it opens the conversation to another level.

And please, don't try to put words in my mouth that I don't espouse. It only cheapens your argument to paint everyone who supports traditional marriage as homophobes-I'm not saying there aren't some who aren't, but I'm not among them.

At some point, someone will need to make an actual argument on why two women or two men cannot get married by a judge if they want to. So far, the only argument on here is that some people?s religion doesn?t like it. In short, bigotry.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.

The thread was about governments intrusion into changing the definition of marriage. When gay 'marriage' proponents try to make it a 'civil right' issue then it opens the conversation to another level.

And please, don't try to put words in my mouth that I don't espouse. It only cheapens your argument to paint everyone who supports traditional marriage as homophobes-I'm not saying there aren't some who aren't, but I'm not among them.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.

The thread was about governments intrusion into changing the definition of marriage. When gay 'marriage' proponents try to make it a 'civil right' issue then it opens the conversation to another level.

And please, don't try to put words in my mouth that I don't espouse. It only cheapens your argument to paint everyone who supports traditional marriage as homophobes-I'm not saying there aren't some who aren't, but I'm not among them.

radryan03 wrote:
Clown - where have I, at any point, discussed politics?

My irritation is at folks that keep making poorly worded arguments while pandering to personal insecurity through religion and politics.

Just say - I don't like gays. They creep me out. I find the way they sexually express themselves to be disgusting. I don't think they should be allowed to get married. I find all of the above to be perfectly acceptable. It's your opinion... express it as you please.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.

Monroe wrote:

Are you as angry at Obama as you may be towards Christie? Obama 'evolved' in time for the election, but has he directed Eric Holder and the Justice Department to file suit to make gay marriage a civil right, like the gay 'marriage' supporters try to imagine it? (Actually, Obama has not supported gay marriage as a civil right, so I'm not surprised-except for the silence of criticism from the gay 'marriage' advocates towards him). Carry on.

radryan03 wrote:
Logical fallacy... again.

My assertion on the basis of the definition is pretty much on - the epic fail is in the quality of your response.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Ah, the old throw the bigot label on someone whose views differs from yours-it's always a nice distraction from the facts. It's exactly the tactic people use to label people who oppose Obama's politics by calling them racist. Epic fail on the intellectual honesty meter though.

Monroe wrote:

Ah, the old throw the bigot label on someone whose views differs from yours-it's always a nice distraction from the facts. It's exactly the tactic people use to label people who oppose Obama's politics by calling them racist. Epic fail on the intellectual honesty meter though.

radryan03 wrote:
You're just being offensive and nasty - gay marriage has no similarity to marrying your pet and frankly using Russia and Civil Rights to defend you position just makes you an ass.

Practicing a religion and leveraging religion to uphold bigoted prejudice are two very different things. Your basis for argument could be used to justify any decision - this makes it a logical fallacy - this makes you a logical fallacy.

The fact here is that you carry some sort of prejudice against gays. It's not your religion, the bible's teachings, or the pope... because there are plenty of people that all aspire to the above and don't agree with your views. Let me repeat - this is 100% your bigoted prejudice.

If you choose to exclude any tax paying citizen (or a paying customer) from services that are offered to every other person you absolutely deserve to be sued. There are thousand of religions with various constructs... how can you believe that yours is so important that it deserves legal protection? Frankly - I hope you get royally sued for using prejudice in the denial of services... like destitute on the side of the road in a cardboard box.

Btw - the Salvation Army example contributes nothing to your argument. Municipal funding is discretionary at best and SF continues to fund many other religious organizations.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
What about the religious rights of the taliban ? Why is ok for the American Jewish community to send their sons and daughters to do active service in Israel, yet a muslim is not permitted to fight for their cause in the middle east ? Interesting how every religion and country turned a blind eye to slavery !
What's more important, Country or religion - I'd suggest that many people would put religion well ahead of Country!

As for Christie, he's a self righteous idiot when it comes to gay marriage - I guess the next election will require people to ask more questions about certain topics when voting someone in - Christie doesn't represent my views, but the ass was elected and what HE wants goes!

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.

Yvonne wrote:
I do not care if a gay couple marries I do care about the right of being sued for following my religion. It is the point I have been making since this I responded to this thread. You can marry your pet, but I do not want to be sued for saying no like the people below. What about my rights? People on this forum refuses to recognized the first amendment that says you have the right to exercise your religion! Reading comprehension is not a strong point here.

a Methodist organization was sued in Ocean Grove, NJ when they denied a lesbian couple the use of their pavilion for a same-sex civil union. The Methodist organization lost and the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption for the pavilion, which will cost them around $20,000 a year;
Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by law. Catholic Charities was accused of discrimination and pulled out of the adoption business in 2006;
San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social services contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex partnership;
A Christian gynecologist in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. The doctor said it violated his religious beliefs and referred his patient to his partner, but the women sued. One justice suggested the doctor take up a different business.

Yvonne wrote:
To others:
I am not a cafeteria Catholic, I do not pick and choose what the Church says, I believe it is guided by the Holy Spirit. For those who believe differently, that is between you and God. I am talking about my right under the First Amendment, which everyone on this forum ignores, to practice my religion without being sued. That is all I care about. I will not throw mud or attack people who believe in gay marriage. That is not my agenda. I feel sorry for those who resort to those things. And when I present my ideas I do not hide behind phony names, I have the courage to use my real name. That is a gift from my faith, to be honest in the things I believe. And I will never, never, attack someone family's member.

Beachguy wrote:
Yvonne wrote:
When voting rights were given to African-Americans in the 1960's it did not diminished the rights of the white majority, they still have the right to vote.

In your example, the correct analogy, Yvonne, would be if gay Americans were given the right to marry, it would not diminish your right to marry. Without realizing it, you have just presented a great argument against yourself.

Yvonne wrote:
To others:
I am not a cafeteria Catholic, I do not pick and choose what the Church says, I believe it is guided by the Holy Spirit. For those who believe differently, that is between you and God. I am talking about my right under the First Amendment, which everyone on this forum ignores, to practice my religion without being sued. That is all I care about. I will not throw mud or attack people who believe in gay marriage. That is not my agenda. I feel sorry for those who resort to those things. And when I present my ideas I do not hide behind phony names, I have the courage to use my real name. That is a gift from my faith, to be honest in the things I believe. And I will never, never, attack someone family's member.