Pope Says Gay Marriage Poses A Threat To 'Justice And Peace' In World Day Of Peace 2013 Address

[TheJPRD]

Getting married should not be restricted by the gov no matter who wants to get married unless there is a darn good reason - so yes the right to stand before the official of your choice and get hitched is a right. Not a gov given right but one that exist before gov gets involved. For all the straight people in this country their right is infringed when they must get a license to get married. The gays presently do not have that right infringed but they want to lose their rights in exchange for some perks - same way with all liberal causes. There is nothing liberating about liberalism at all.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. On one hand you say that "the right to stand before the official of your choice and get hitched is right", and then say that the rights of hetero are "infringed when they must get a license". I'm confused, please explain?

I'd be hesitant to be the guy who has to tell the Muslim official at the mosque that he HAS to marry a gay couple! Whoever ends up with that duty may not be with us very long.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. On one hand you say that "the right to stand before the official of your choice and get hitched is right", and then say that the rights of hetero are "infringed when they must get a license". I'm confused, please explain?

I'd be hesitant to be the guy who has to tell the Muslim official at the mosque that he HAS to marry a gay couple! Whoever ends up with that duty may not be with us very long.

According to the declaration of independence rights come from God and not from government. The gov only recognizes rights that already exist. You have the right to darn well anything at all that you want to do and gov is supposed to protect your rights and those of others. When your right to swing your fist interferes with the rights of someone else not to get hit in the face then the gov steps in and restricts your right.

You have a right to do whatever you want with any other consenting person. If you want to do somthing with that person and call it marriage that is your right. The gov does not give you the right to marry it only restricts your rights. With straight marriage the requirement to get a license is a restriction of a right. You can do anything you want but if you want to get married then you MUST get a license first - that is a restriction of rights. before you got married you could screw around with anyone you wanted and you could do anything at all with your money, after you got married you could be taken to court if you committed adultery and your were compelled to take care of any children you had either while you were alive and even after you die. The purpose of restricting the rights of people who get married is to make sure that spouses and children are taken care of financially.

So yes you have a right to stand before any person you want to think of as an official, clergy...and get hitched but after gov gets involved then you are not allowed to do this unless you first got permission in the form of a license.

Did that clear it up.

 

[steveox]

If they allow it then power is given to the gov who decides who is allowed and who is not allowed to do yet another basic human activity. In liberalism there is a never ending debate about who is special. Yes defining people who would marry pets would be next on the list. But they will only win the ability to be called special if they work the system right.

I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that the so called tax benefits are in actually what is called the marriage penalty - the increased taxes that married people pay compared to those who file singly.

Other benefits associated with raising children should by all means be extended to anyone raising children.

Can i get tax benefits if i adopt children with a pet rabbit as my wife?

 

[GenSeneca]

not a popular view but that doesnt make it wrong.

What makes it right... specifically, what makes same sex marriage a "threat" to peace and justice? I don't see it.

Two gays want to get married, how does that affect me and my life? Not at all. Ergo, it's none of my business. So long as the individuals involved are not initiating the use of force against others, then it's none of anyone's business. I certainly disagree with many choices people make in life but I respect the fact that every individual has the right to pursue their own happiness - they don't violate my rights and I don't violate theirs - that's a civilized society, with peace and justice for every individual.

We do not have a "right" to not be offended. A government with the arbitrary power to control the lives of others is the the biggest possible threat to our rights. Whether it's Dawkins or the Pope arguing for government to initiate the use force against certain individuals, with specious claims of a looming threat, both are wrong. Neither would like the other to have that kind of power over him and yet neither one realizes it's not their difference in opinion that poses a threat... Granting government the legal power to do something about it, now that's a very real threat to both of them.

I mentioned in another thread that I knew of no evidence of where Jesus taught his followers to impose Christianity on others by force. If I'm wrong please enlighten me, I'd rather know the truth than believe a lie.

 

[Aus22]

The Pope speaks for his Church. Some Catholic would say he speaks for God. But regardless of that he is saying a marriage approved by the church must be between a man and a women. It should also have the possibility of having children. It does not necessary have to result in having children but must have this possibility. This makes marriage between people of the same sex impossible in the church eyes.

As to what the State does this is up to the government and the voters. Like abortion while it is condemned by the Catholic Church most governments allowing in certain circumstances. So a Civil union can be approved by a Government even if against church teaching. Inequality is certainly not tolerated by most left wing governments.So gay couples can have the same civil rights as married couples.

However in the eyes of the Church it will never by a marriage. Unions between people who can fulfill the criterion for church marriage is recongnize by the Catholic Church as marriage no matter where it is occurs registry office or other churches.

 

[dogtowner]

I agree completely that a view being unpopular does not make it wrong.

I still think he did not express a very complete view of human nature and seemed to imply that human nature makes people want to be straight only when it is pretty obvious that human nature makes people do all sorts of things and according to pretty good science at least part of homosexuality is due to the part of human nature called biology.

well I do not think he intended to get ito all facets of human nature, just as it applies to marriage.

I've seen zero proof of biology. Some theories, some misguided interpretation, nothing that stands up.

 

[TheJPRD]

According to the declaration of independence rights come from God and not from government. The gov only recognizes rights that already exist. You have the right to darn well anything at all that you want to do and gov is supposed to protect your rights and those of others. When your right to swing your fist interferes with the rights of someone else not to get hit in the face then the gov steps in and restricts your right.

You have a right to do whatever you want with any other consenting person. If you want to do somthing with that person and call it marriage that is your right. The gov does not give you the right to marry it only restricts your rights. With straight marriage the requirement to get a license is a restriction of a right. You can do anything you want but if you want to get married then you MUST get a license first - that is a restriction of rights. before you got married you could screw around with anyone you wanted and you could do anything at all with your money, after you got married you could be taken to court if you committed adultery and your were compelled to take care of any children you had either while you were alive and even after you die. The purpose of restricting the rights of people who get married is to make sure that spouses and children are taken care of financially.

So yes you have a right to stand before any person you want to think of as an official, clergy...and get hitched but after gov gets involved then you are not allowed to do this unless you first got permission in the form of a license.

Did that clear it up.

I think understand now. I believe you're addressing one of the key disconnects that Conservatives and Libertarians typically have, with your position leaning in the Libertarian direction. Your's is the position that would have likely been taken by many if not most of the founders. We do agree I believe when it comes to whether you or I or anyone else HAS to perform the ceremony and morally condone and praise the action?

 

[Dr.Who]

Can i get tax benefits if i adopt children with a pet rabbit as my wife?

If you are a parent of a living human child I think you should get the same benefits the parent of any other child would get. Who your spouse is is irrelevant. Of course your spouse the rabbit would not get any benefits for her role in raising the child.

 

[Dr.Who]

What makes it right... specifically, what makes same sex marriage a "threat" to peace and justice? I don't see it.

Two gays want to get married, how does that affect me and my life? Not at all. Ergo, it's none of my business. So long as the individuals involved are not initiating the use of force against others, then it's none of anyone's business..

The problem is exactly as you have writtin in there: "not initiating the use of force against others"

The way marriage laws are written and treated when those gay people get married it does effect many other people and force will be used to enforce the laws.

The pope was right that this effects other people but got it wrong that gay marriage should be legislated away, that straight marriage should be legislated in, or that either deserve the force of law to give them credibility or perks.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Pope speaks for his Church. Some Catholic would say he speaks for God. But regardless of that he is saying a marriage approved by the church must be between a man and a women. It should also have the possibility of having children. It does not necessary have to result in having children but must have this possibility. This makes marriage between people of the same sex impossible in the church eyes.

As to what the State does this is up to the government and the voters. Like abortion while it is condemned by the Catholic Church most governments allowing in certain circumstances. So a Civil union can be approved by a Government even if against church teaching. Inequality is certainly not tolerated by most left wing governments.So gay couples can have the same civil rights as married couples.

However in the eyes of the Church it will never by a marriage. Unions between people who can fulfill the criterion for church marriage is recongnize by the Catholic Church as marriage no matter where it is occurs registry office or other churches.

You understand that the inevitable end of what you have written is that the state will claim the church is discriminating and force it to concede or go away?

 

[Dr.Who]

I think understand now. I believe you're addressing one of the key disconnects that Conservatives and Libertarians typically have, with your position leaning in the Libertarian direction. Your's is the position that would have likely been taken by many if not most of the founders. We do agree I believe when it comes to whether you or I or anyone else HAS to perform the ceremony and morally condone and praise the action?

I agree that many of the founders would have held views more like this than that of the pubs. Does it not make sense that the founders would have written a constitution that is in line with what they believe? Does it not follow that the dems and the pubs make laws in blatant contradiction to the constitution all the time and that the courts go along? As it stand there is so much precedent in law that we could lose our limited gov at any time.

 

[Dr.Who]

well I do not think he intended to get ito all facets of human nature, just as it applies to marriage.

I've seen zero proof of biology. Some theories, some misguided interpretation, nothing that stands up.

With twins reared apart when one is gay the other is gay 50% of the time. There is either some force increasing the number of gay twins above what would be expected by chance or the studies have been incredibly unlucky in that more of their twins were gay than would be expected by chance. I reject the latter and am left to conclude that some force that impacts twins before birth or shortly afterward effects being gay to some degree.

What the gay activists fail to see is that when on twin is gay the other is NOT gay 50% of the time. There is clearly a force that is not a part of congenital experience or neotnatal experience. What is left is post-neonatal environment and choice. IMO if a person has a force effecting his behavior and also can make choices about his behavior then unless he is subject to his instincts alone he makes the final decision. He could be 99% gay and choose to marry a woman for the sake of parenthood or faith. Many gay people get very angry when you suggest that they might go against "who they are" for the sake of anything. Which also ignores that many people who have strong gay inclinations do get married and raise families or remain celibate or whatever.

 

[Cruella]

So if gay marriage becomes "accepted", then what can stop two hetero single mothers from getting married for convenience and for the bennies? One can work and get the tax deductions and medical insurance, while the other one stays home and takes care of the kids and household. Or two old hetero guys who are buddies and one is in poor health. The other one can inherit his wealth when his friend kicks the bucket and collect widows benefits.

 

[PLC1]

You would think that gender confused people make up half the population for all the attention it gets, when in fact it's only a small portion of society. Why aren't other human oddities exploited to this extent?

Good question.
Once, being left handed was seen as "sinister", which is the root of the word. Now, no one pays much attention to handedness.
Once, having African physical characteristics was seen as proof of not being fully human. Now, no one believes that nonsense.
Once, being female was proof that the person was only good for child bearing and rearing. Now, we are close to having equal rights, at least in the civilized countries.

One day, being born gay will cause no more stir than being born black, female, or sinister does now.

 

[steveox]

Gee i wonder why liberal city mayors or liberal state governors wont condem the pope? Wanna know why? Cause they need the catholic vote. Just like liberal city mayors or liberal state governors wont condem the president of chic fil a on his stance on gay marrage cause they need the black vote.