Same Sex Marriage from Conservative buddy thread... (Page 4)

Huh?   Straight marriage is a separate class entitled to strict scrutiny of laws affecting it therefore a law affecting gays (and not straights) is constitutional? 

There's something missing here......

I hope!

Careful there.  You're treading close to the line between fact and opinion.

Don, you still havn't answered to what the solution is.  Gay's are here.  No prayer or arguement is going to make us disappear, and I doubt we are going to be driven back into the deep recesses of the closet again.  your reasoning is, that we are undermining society by not founding a marriage law on natural law...whether we call it marriage or not, gay couples are still here fighting for dignity and equality.  So whether or not gay marriage is once again illegal in california, like it is in other parts of the country, really doesn't prove your point at all...since it will not make us go away...and, as has been stated, the actual act of marriage gives us very little in the eyes of the law.  A few extra rights, and some conveniences when it comes to certain legalities.  My partner and I have been together 12 years, We will still be together if the ammendment passes...the only thing that will have changed in my mind is more animosity toward the churches that donated millions of $$$ to basically rape me of my freedom to say I have a husband. 

So you may ask, if nothing really changes, why fight so hard for this "right".  Because, we have a right to be equal in the eyes of the state...and for that matter the country and our families.  No one means to look down on "commitment ceremonies" and "domestic partner laws"...but when Rickey and I talked about doing a Commitment Ceremony, my mother commented, "but that's not a real marriage".  When Rickey and I went through a rough patch a few years ago, and I was talking of leaving...people told me I should just walk away, since we weren't really married (joint accounts, owned a home together, pets...the whole 9 yards)...Seperate but equal doesn't work...it never has...because in the hearts and minds of those on the other side...we are not equal....You may say you don't look down upon us, but by revoking our "right" it is what your actions tell us.

I am not sure I am making any sense...the time change really messes with me and I have been on some heavy pain meds, so forgive my ramblings, but believe me, they are heart felt and honest.

Really?  If you are going to disparage someone's faith you better have some facts to back that up.  I really don't think that comment was necessary. 

I cannot answer for Mike the Bear, and wonder if the statement was said in jest and/or should have been in the sarc font....I will say, that I do know many priests (or those that wanted to be priests and were denied because of orientation...long story...never mind)  But I will say, that I was heavily into the church...but for me, it was a false shield...I thought if I believed hard enough...if I prayed long enough, my suffering would be over and I wouldn't be gay...and it didn't work...it finally became unbearable, and I finally had to act.  Someone once suggested as to why it seemed like many holy men seemed to be degenerates (sp?)...they try to hide from their true feelings (what ever they may be) truely believing in God and what they preach...otherwise good christians good men...but with one flaw that they cannot resist...then the church puts them alone with the very people that they were hoping to avoid, in a possition of power and the temptation of all the years that they have been repressing it, becomes overwhelming.  This was explained to me by someone a few years back, when the first scandals were really all coming out at once and it seemed no priest could be trusted.  I may not be a christian anymore, and I may despise organized overly self righteous churches...but for the most part, I believe priests and pastors are still people that you can trust. 

look at me babbling again and again...would someone please stop my fingers from typing.

You got a bun in the oven?  WOOOO!!  Attakim.   Congratulations.

I'll line up the therapy....

I'm Catholic also and there are many wondeful priests out there who have done nothing but given their life to serve.  My church has been there for me through some extremely trying times these last 18 months and without my priest I am not sure I would have come through whole.     I also have no trouble with criticizing the church, I do it myself.  I don't find it fair to blame everyone for the sins of some.

BTW, thank you for your apology and I am sorry that you have had some unsavory experiences with priests and the Catholic Church.   

You always make sense. Hope you feel better.

But I'm not fully clear about how to answer your question here.

What will I do? I'll continue to do my best to do what's in accordance with truth.

It seems that the way you put it shows what I've come to believe, that this is not about principle but rather about power. 

You say no argument is "going to make us disappear". But what if the argument against gay marriage was true? Just what if? Would you do what is true, or would you do what you wanted to do regardless of whether it is true or not.

I trust that you'll say that what you're proposing is the truth, and I know you're a man of integrity, so I respect that. So I'll tell you this, if it can be shown that what you say is the truth, than I'll change my mind back to what it use to be and support gay marriage again.

The truth itself does not depend on your opinion or my opinion. 

That's understandable.

There are reasons for what happened, but no excuses. 

My wife and her sisters were sexually abused by a man of authority in her church (non-catholic) when they were children. So I see on a daily basis the scars and wounds that this kind of violence creates. 

On the other hand, I know lots of priests of great integrity. For the most part, they take your opinion seriously and understand why you would feel that way.

I'm greatly concerned about the priesthood, and decided a few years ago to try and commit some of my work toward helping with vocations. So I've been doing photo work at the seminary here in Philly since then.

A project I recently proposed was greenlighted last month by one of the bishops. I'm producing a series of multi-media webisodes that features the men in the Philadelphia Archdiocese who are transitional deacons, ordained deacon last year, and will be ordained priests this spring.  Hopefully, I'll be able to show some of the inspiring nature of these guys and the call they are answering. I start shooting on Friday. Probably won't have anything to show until next summer.

Man I wanted to stay out of this thread....

There is more than one truth, and things are rarely so black and white as for there to be a "yes/no" type answer that fits every situation.

I live in a state that passed a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage (though my wife and I both voted against it for a number of reasons).

I'm here to tell you, people fear what they don't understand, and fear what is different.  That's why the amendment passed in Missouri, and no amount of rationalizing will alter that.

We can talk about "truths" all day long and never prove "proof" of anything...so all we have is opinion.  You can say you know the truth, but you cannot prove it to me...we have been down that road, and I can tell you that I know the truth...because it is what I feel in my spirit and in my heart...it is what my whole body tells me is right...but that doesn't convince you

.. what I am actually after is where do we go from here...What does "living the truth" mean to you.  You are against gay marriage, are you against civil unions, if so, what am I suppose to do...do you instruct me to live a lonely, self loathing life not knowing companionship or joy?  Or am I suppose to go back into the closet?  Maybe all gay men and women should be shipped to some deserted island (of course after a while that island would be the hottest vacation spot frequently visited by all the celebrities, so that one might not work)...am I to be stripped of my citizenship and allowed no rights at all?  or do you just vote accordingly?  actively preach your truth, knowing it will sway few if any, and feel secure that denying rights to a group of people is the right thing per your truth.  (sorry emotions again).

Oh and just so you know, I concidered your truth...for 1/2 my life...I am very well versed on the bible (tho a bit rusty), and what you perseve as "the truth"...I searched that truth, trying to live a pure life...hating myself everyday of my life... I hated myself because I was so conflicted on what I believed in my heart to be the truth, and what the bible told me, and I could not stand my life.  It wasn't until I embraced what I believe to be the truth, that I could like myself.  I went years of people telling me that I could find "joy" with the love of god...and I have yet to know a gay man, living a happy celebate life joyous in god's love.  I know several who are joyous in god's love, yet not celebate. 

So I gues my question is...what is your advice for the next step in the country.  what is your advice to gay men and women what are we suppose to do? 

So is that true? Is it true that there is more than one truth? 

Or is it true that there is only one truth, that truth being that there is more than one truth?

Either way, we're in agreement that there is something called truth. The only difference is in coming to know what that truth is. So you can't simply dismiss what I'm saying by claiming that there is more than one truth. You need to show what those other truths are and then defend that belief, and given how this thread started you need to defend it with a non-religious and non-emotional argument.

Natural law refers to moral principles that we ought to live by. It's the philosophical foundation our country was founded upon.

It does not derive from biological or material phenomenon. So the fact that you can procreate without two people remaining together throughout life does not prove your point. What a person "ought" to do is not dependent and what a person actually has done.

For example, people murder and always have murdered. That's a natural phenomenon. It doesn't follow though to a conclusion that a person ought to murder. The principle instead is that a person ought not to murder. That is true even though there is plenty of evidence that people murder.

You could however change the question to, "ought a man and woman marry for life" and then find the answer in natural law. 

So it seems that we agree that there is truth.

I propose that we come to know this truth through reason. You seem to be saying that we come to know it through our feelings, what I would call our emotions.

Why is that true? Why do our emotions show us the way to truth. What if two people have different emotions around a question, in that case which one of them is correct? 

For myself, living the truth regarding how I participate in a collective society means striving to live according to certain principles that govern how we ought to treat one another. So around the gay marriage question, one that comes quickly to mind is about violence. It's a true principle that I may not commit a violent act in order to advance my political opinions in this matter.

Instead, what we're doing here on this board illustrates how we should go forward, namely engaging in civil discourse and trying to advance our positions through reason as best we can.

That's one example.

As far as what I'd suggest you'd do, one thing is to work toward enacting civil law that would ensure certain rights such as property contracts and health care rights like hospital visitations that is not rooted in the concept that the two or more persons entering into these contracts must have a sexual relationship. These changes in contracts and law must be applied to every type of relationship, such as a two sisters or an aunt and nephew. But they can't be seen as supporting any type of sexual relationship outside of that between one man and one woman.

We can find compromise in that.

A second thing is to stop attacking traditional marriage between one man and one woman. For example, one attack is changes in law that require as a default in birth certificates the terms "Progenitor A and Progenitor B", instead of the terms "Mother and Father". The push for that is rightly seen as an attack on traditional marriage.

And lastly, stop trying to change the definition of what marriage is. It's true that marriage ought to contain within it the committed  love of two people, but it's more than that as well. There are all kinds of relationships that contain committed love, for example between two brothers and two sisters, but we don't call them marriages.

If you insist that gay sex changes the equation and constitutes a marriage in this case, then among other things you need to show why it should be limited to only two persons and not more than two persons. Often people duck this question, but it is an essential one in coming to know what a marriage truly is.

If those things happen, then I think we've found common ground.

That's a straw man.

Next week came early, didn't it.

The point of the OP I think was to explore a non-religious argument in favor of a marriage being between one man and one woman.

But since you brought up Jesus and Christianity, here's the answer to these two quoted points.

It's true that the most important Christian virtue is love. However, that doesn't mean confirming someone in an error. Love means trying to charitably point that person toward the truth. We're called to do that even if it costs us.

And we know what Jesus would say around this issue. Jesus instituted the sacrament of marriage. The early Christians celebrated this sacrament. It was never thought to be only a contract between two persons who love each other. Rather, it was always thought to be a covenant that incorporated, meaning that it brought together bodily, the total free giving mutual self donation of a man and a woman, mindfully, bodily, and spiritually. This type of bodily incorporation can only biologically take place between one man and one woman.

That's what Jesus would say, because that's what He did say as show by how His disciples organized their culture.