The government money is not spending money to to support a catholic charity, the government has contracted with the Catholic Charity to provide certain services. Because of the first amendment, the government can not discriminate against the Catholic Charities for being religous.
The first amendment also provides that people can petition the government, and speak out to influence voters. The Catholic Church’s constitutional rights have nothing to do with seperation of church and state.
He sleeps soundly and comfortably on a Kluft Signature Alexander Mattress with 600 thread count sheets . Thanks for asking.
Science? No. From Copernicus to Bohr and Lemaître, really.
Medicine? All those Catholic hospitals must be doing something, maybe they sell knockoff Samsung Galaxy Notes.
Education? The only schools for centuries in Europe and in the Americas
Because we (they and me) do not agree that your concept of “anti-marriage equality” is valid, if it were, then Article II of the US constitution is “anti- 34-year-olds” and “anti foreign-born Americans”.
I’ve never been to a church or Parish with bulging coffers I go to the poshest church in Lima and it took 5 years’ donations to build the temple.
If it were proven that selling off stuff would in the long time be better, then I could see myself going for it. Maybe the US government could sell adevertising in the Washington monument, Mt. Rushmore, and the Great Canyon to help those being evicted or going hungry.
Hypocrisy? Absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it that some members of the Church in positions of power have it to the brim.
I didn’t invent freedom of speech or elections either.
Why should a gay person give even a penny to an organization seeking to deny his or her human rights, no matter what ELSE that organization does? Why should those who sympathize with gays’ desire for human rights do so? There are plenty of other organizations which help the poor which do not seek to deny people there human rights, give to them instead.
You appear to have a sketchy knowledge of history at best.
I’m not from the USA so the constitution is irrelevant to me. Two adults pledge their commitment to each other in a state recognised union= marriage. Not sure why the catholic church (or any church) thinks it has the right to define it. Marriage pre-dates the major religions.
yeah, you don’t exactly help your argument here do you? 5 years of congregation donations and what do you do with it? You build a posh church. I’m sure the little Ethiopian children with malaria will feel their fevers ease slightly when they realise your clergymen have somewhere safe to store their silks and silverware.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
I’m going to do you the favor of interpreting that as meaning that by (a) opposing same-sex marriage the RCC is (b) “preserving marriage as a valuable societal institution.”
Would you do me the favor of seriously answering my question: Precisely how does (a) facilitate (b)?
A step-by-step explanation would be most useful. Feel free to use syllogisms, if you find that they would be helpful.
<nitpick>No, he didn’t.
But it was bad for your continued health to point out that they were running late in Fascist Italy.
I’m ready to be baffled by your quotes.
Nice dodge. Ok, sayin that British road rules are anti-left-hand-drive is not an honest way of presenting it, innit?
Since they were donation on top of the “regular” ones. Also, by posh I mean the people going there. I’m sure selling Stonehenge could help people in the UK get some food.
You said that since the Catholic church didn’t invent marriage it isn’t theirs to preserve. I’m simply following your if-you-didn’t-invent-it-it’s-no-yours-to-defend rule.
If the valuable institution is man-woman marriage it stands to logic to oppose any re-definitions that would alter its very structure and therefore its value to society.
The fact you even need to ask sort of proves my point. Tell me, what was the catholic church response to the works of Copernicus?
A silly analogy. Without a single agreed rule on road behaviour we have chaos and death. If the definition of marriage includes same-sex unions we have…what downside exactly?
Still money that built a building rather than feeding the poor.
Last I looked, the UK was not claiming to be a divine agency nor a beacon of moral teaching. I don’t judge it’s hypocrisy by the same standards. The church has to be either judged by higher standards or…what exactly is the point of it?
The catholic church doesn’t get to define it for everyone though. They can say what it means to them
By all means but that is just an opinion. If the majority don,'t share that opinion then tough.
That is a huge “if” and also, you haven’t said how the value to society would altered (I’m assuming you think that it would be for the worse)
So you think that interracial marriage should be banned and that marriage should be rolled back into being essentially a master/slave relationship between a man and his domestic servant/live-in sex slave? Since the traditional nature of marriage is so very important, that’s what you should be pushing for - unless of course this is what we all know it is, an attempt to persecute homosexuals.
How does extending marriage rights to gay couples alter the ‘very structure’ of man-woman marriage?
You don’t get to tell me what either of those “really” are, either.
A bombardment of SSM particles causes a percentage of straightions to switch state into gaydeons, altering the subatomic structure of marriage.
Well, that makes more sense than most other explanations that I’ve heard of. 
Dammit DT, you shouldn’t make me want a Like button on SDMB!
Guess not, then.
This was brilliant.
Very nice DT, but are you not kicking yourself for not including the word “bond” in there somewhere?
Heads up** Ají de Gallina** old bean;
Canada has recognized same-sex marriage since 2005, after provinces started recognizing it in 2003.
I am very confident in saying that the “structure and value of marriage” has not been changed in any way in Canada. There is no evidence whatsoever that there has been any change at all to man-woman marriage anywhere in Canada. There is no evidence whatsoever that the value of marriage to society has changed in any way at all.
Churches are not forced to marry same-sex partners. Nobody is marrying their dog. God’s wrath has not been levied against a city.
Even the major religious groups have stopped whining about it, since it is apparent that the public is in favor, and** nothing bad whatsoever** has happened. The Catholic Church in Canada is notably silent on the subject now.
I do understand that you are worried that societal acceptance of same-sex marriage might do these things. But the evidence says that** it will not.** So your worries are unfounded. They are only in your head. They are not backed by evidence. They are simply figments of your imagination. It has been tried, and your worries have not come true.
Your worries about same-sex marriage are illusory, fanciful and make believe.
Please provide the mechanism by which the existence of same-sex marriage would cause the institution of man-woman marriage to be redefined.
There have been enough SSM threads here. I’m happy to continue the whole “rationale for (de)funding” debate but not yet another SSM debate. These will be my last answers on that topic.
Make him change nine sentences to allow publishing.
Also, helping Kepler.
Not important. I was commenting on how the way you present something can affect how it is viewed. “England continues its anti-left-had-drive action unders the plausible guise of safety”
Sure, or maybe money that would’ve gone to watching movies or buying a TV. You get to the ultimately silly point of not painting the church’s door or paying the phone bill.
Nobody actually believes that. They always say it, but it one second before demanding a change. If a societal change affects how your action are perceived/valued/understood, it is your duty to oppose it. you’re free to beleive it isn’t relevant to you, it is for us.
That is a huge “if” and also, you haven’t said how the value to society would altered (I’m assuming you think that it would be for the worse)
[/QUOTE]
One word: branding.
If marriage is man-woman and now you say it’s also man-man woman-woman it changes its structure, it is a new thing. It’s like saying I can call pizzas hot dogs. It doesn’t alter “old” hot dogs per se, however the concept of hot dog is now someting else.
Yes, there are laws and everything. Me personally, of course no.
Since marriage as an instituion has been on a losing streak for decades (because we’ve messed it up really good), SSM is yet another blow.
The whole “the nation didn’t end” thing doesn’t work in reality because many horrible things in the history of humanity didn’t end nation, and we wouldn’t say that.