In fairness to HSHP and his beliefs, I don’t think it’s accurate to blame Catholics in general for this. In fact, the folks troubling us queermos generally believe that Catholics are bound for eternal damnation as well.
Frankly, I don’t think the reference to child molestation was all that classy, either.
Aww, thanks . . . I’m sorry I called you a bigot.
Honest, though - I really did not get what you meant when you said, “Maybe I am wrong to use ‘marriage’ to mean ‘religious ceremony’ exclusively. No, scratch that. I am wrong to use ‘marriage’ to mean ‘religious ceremony’ exclusively.” I really did believe you were trying to say civil unions were good enough. I wasn’t trying to pick a fight.
's’all right, Excalibre. I’m so used to using a term one way that it’s easy to forget sometimes that others don’t see things the same way I do.
I was trying my ass off to clarify and making a bit of a mess of it.
Hope my stanceis a bit clearer now.
That is not a “universal truth” at all. As a Catholic and ex altar boy, I can ssure you that this sort of thing is not the “always and everywhere” thing it is being represented as. Furthermore, some of us would be happy as clams to “render unto Caesar” and see the ones who do this handed over to the police.
“Disparity of cult” requires more scrutiny and counseling, but as long as one of the spouses is baptised Catholic, the marriage can take place in a Catholic church and is a Catholic sacrament.
Do you or do you not support gay marriage? Yes or no will suffice.
Okay, that’s interesting. Is there any requirement that the other spouse be Christian? You say “scrutiny and counseling” - are there spiritual objections to such pairings?
Actually, yes or no will not suffice with the crappy way I worded that question. 
I do, or I don’t will suffice.
No, the other spouse need not be Christian. The concern is that there would be a difference between the spouses in how marriage is perceived, as far as its sacred nature and being open to children. Also, there would have to be a commitment from the non-Catholic spouse that they would not stand in the way of the other spouse’s faith or of the children being raised Catholic.
Because we live in a free society. You may not like what someone thinks, but you d*mn well better respect their right to think it and express it. The free interchange of ideas is one of the things that makes our society more successful.
Or would you like to see the West like Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia where if you didn’t agree with Mao or Stalin, you got the chop?
Living in a free society does not mean we must respect every point of view (no matter how hateful and moronic). Living in a free society means we are each free to do the exact opposite, a we each see fit. No law says I have to show any consideration or respect for Falwell or Dobson. No law say I even have to listen to the bastards. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to not listen.
My reply would be pretty much what SteveG1 said, plus the fact that is is essential to at least pretend to respect the other’s point of view in a polite discussion, in which you want to convince the other party. This has nothing to do , however, with freedom of speech. This however, need not apply when, (such as in my case), you care not a whit what the anti-gay marriage side thinks, and no longer feel the need to convince others.
But do you respect their right to express their views, even if the views themselves are worthy of nothing but contempt?
Their right to express their views, no matter how stupid or repugnant, is a cornerstone of the Constitution. The classic example is the loud weird guy on a soapbox in the park. He has the right to say anything. However, he has no right to compel others to listen and believe.
Quite, but we must respect their right to think it and say it.
That’s not what I asked you. I asked you why you don’t believe gay marriage is possible in America right now. Why there is opposition to it? Why are you so willing to paint the situation as if it were a Gay Assault on the Democratic Process, instead of giving a stand on the core issue?
You obviously have an opinion on it, or else you wouldn’t jump into all these threads voicing your opposition to it, and telling homosexuals that there are a lot of people who “don’t appreciate your comparing it to the black civil rights movement.”
You’re opposed to it because there’s opposition to it? By that logic, I’m opposed to world peace. That’s worse than defeatist. “Be patient; your time will come” is annoying and pandering, but at least it’s well-intentioned at some level. “Shut up; you’re making a scene” is offensive.
Heard it all before from you, Mr. Moto, and my response is exactly the same as it’s always been: So fucking what? Your friend’s mother and his aunt could’ve benefitted from a civil union. That has nothing with my situation than it does with yours.
You and your wife – are you all just friends? A relationship of convenience? Or is it just about the sexual relationship? Why can’t you acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, the gay people who are fighting so passionately for marriage rights are really in love with each other? That they’re not just in it for the fucking and the tax breaks?
They’re rooted, IMO, in self-serving obfuscation, and they are not a genuine practical consideration as to why your relationship is called “marriage” by the government, while you insist that my relationship must be called a “civil union.”
Exactly. And I don’t hear you insisting that Jewish couples, or protestants, or atheists, call their marriages “civil unions” because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize them as a holy sacrament.
Then how about you, the Catholic Church, and all its other spokespeople just fucking stop trying to involve me in it? I don’t want to get married in a Catholic church any more than they would want me there. My marriage is going to be a sacrament between my husband and me, my church, and my God, who knows what’s in my heart and knows that that union is not a sinful one. So why not just butt out and stop insisting that the governmental definition of marriage reflect your religious views at the expense of my own?
I’m a non-Catholic Christian, and I’m not gonig to make up a new word for my marriage just because you or your church insist that my sexual behavior is sinful or that the idea that I could be “in love” with another man is absurd.
Sure, when you have a bunch of homos screaming in your ear, you’ll clarify exactly what you meant when you said “I oppose gay marriage,” and that’s fine. But two things: 1) when people are voting on this, they’re under no obligation to clarify what they mean, and they’re prefectly free to just stick with “I oppose gay marriage,” and to do so in overwhelming numbers. And then those like Mr. Moto and Bricker would have us believe that this is in some way an equitable situation.
I’m not asking you to. In fact, the reason why I apologized was because I didn’t want it to seem like I did. Or did you not read and just pick certain sentences to poke away at?
I have never clarified what I meant by “opposing gay marriage,” because I don’t oppose gay marriage. Either you’re not addressing this to me or you haven’t been listening to me, so that’s really all I can do to respond to you.
Oppose Jewish marriage? In case you haven’t been following along, I’m not Jewish. I’m not a Talmudic scholar and I have little background in Jewish law and tradition, certainly not enough to offer an informed opinion on its interpretation, and nowhere near enough to even enter into a debate on the rules of a religion in which I am not a believer.
You don’t want to get married in my Church? Fine. We’re not at loggerheads. You want the state to recognize you and your partner of choice in the exact same manner as it recognizes me and my partner of choice? Fine. We’re still not at loggerheads.
So what, exactly, is your problem with me?
Well, I am not ** SolGrundy**, who is now offline, but I believe his problems with you might be simular to mine. You are an insufferable snot who puts rules above common sense, you may have claimed to have intellectually accepted gay marriage, but it still sounds like you find homosexuals to be repugnate, and I just plain don’t like your face.
Well, you have come to this conclusion because you either cannot or do not read.
As far as not liking my face, I don’t have much defense there.
At the moment, my only problem with you is that you’re interpreting my post as an attack on you, which it wasn’t. Instead, it was using what was said in your posts to point out how fucked up the situation is.
Dude, in post 10 in this thread, you wrote “However, I do oppose gay marriage.” You’ve spent several subsequent posts explaining/clarifying/apologizing/recanting what you meant by that. If you’ll do me the same courtesy of reading what I’ve written, then you’ll see that I acknowledge that.
My point was that the thought process of going from “I do oppose gay marriage” to the stance you describe later, is never presented to people. It’s always left to a poll and a public referendum, where no one is under any obligation to clarify what he means. And then the judges and legislators who are obligated to clarify what they mean and exactly why the opposition is unfair, are accused of being “judicial activists” and “undemocratic.”
And my point there was to say that there are plenty of religious unions that aren’t recognized by the Catholic Church but are not under question from a civil standpoint. The question was whether it’d be necessary to make so many qualifications about marriage [the civil kind] vs. marriage [the Catholic ceremony] when talking about a Jewish couple, for example. Or a Moslem couple, or atheists, or protestant Christians like myself who don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin.
The point I was trying to make was that people frequently paint the situation as religion vs. homosexuality, when that’s not the case.
Exactly.