- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Toddlers: 12 - 24 Months
Clicky Poll: Marriage Equality
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Clicky Poll: Marriage Equality
The problem isn't that you disagree. The problem is that your logic is flawed and you don't see it. You are not trying to defend your religion; you are trying to advance your religion through law.
Your logic is flawed because divorce is legal and the government in no way can force your church to marry a divorced couple.
ELCA is actually moving very close to allowing gay ministers. I'm not 100% sure, but I'd think they would feel the same about SS marriage.
If you want a PUBLIC SCHOOL to teach your religion, you are nuts. Send them to a religious school.
::head explodes::
I take it you can't read because I explained my stance in a f/u, no animals mentioned
Thank you. Hence my frustration. Its a very very large logic flaw. Logic is being twisted in order to make excuses to not let gay couples marry.
So true. And if a SS couple decides to have a baby, they have to work so much harder than a M/F couple so you know they are going to be dedicated parents. It just makes no sense unless you boil it down to pure bigotry.
Please extract panties from crotch. It was a joke
In the minds of many practicing Catholics when you teach about same sex marriage you ARE teaching religion. Just not one they believe in.
I believe it's a terminology issue. To Catholics, marriage is a sacrament defined by God and the Bible. When a public school teaches something different it's just another challenge for religious families to have to highlight to their children where their beliefs are at odds with what is taught in school.
Um.....gender cannot be discriminated against for hiring. Yet the Catholic church doesn't have to hire female priests. Religions are treated as a completely different thing in the US.
Heck you also can't discriminate against religion, yet non profits run by churches can use religion info to specifically hire someone of their religion.
So again, the logic doesn't work.
I didn't see you cite examples-rather things you think might happen. I didn't learn about marriage of any sort in school and i'm not even sure what to say about the benefits issue other than it disgusts me that someone would deny things to someone else based on characteristics that they have no control over. I'm sure you would not want an employer to deny benefits to your husband or daugther based on the color of their skin? That is exactly what you are doing in this situation with the benefts.
BFP #2: 11/16/11: M/C at 7 weeks
BFP #3: 03/24/12: C/P 03/28/12
BFP #4: 04/26/12: please be our baby
I'm catholic. I currently even attend a Catholic School. I "get" catholic teachings.
That is the parents choice. If they do not agree with something being taught because their religion tells them otherwise, then pull them or teach them differently at home. Its not up to public schools to teach religion. Its just not.
I attended CCD to learn my faith. My parents did not expect my school, which had many different faiths, to teach me about Catholicism. Thats just ridiculous.
People don't choose to be gay just like you can't choose your race.
If they need to become protected to ensure they have the same rights as others, then they should be, IMO
What religion is being taught if you say, "Some women marry women"? This is fact, not religion.
Why would it?
Ok I see your point. I don't believe that just because something is the US law that all religions have to abide by it. The reason I say this is just like another poster said: You can't discriminate by sex yet the church can say no women priests. The reason? It's not really a "job" (though they get paid some) it's a "sacrament." So why can't churches refuse to provide the sacrament of marriage to gay people if they can refuse to provide the sacrament of the priesthood to women?
ITA religion does not have a place in public schools and parents should not expect their religious values to be upheld in public school.
I know many Catholics support same sex marriage and legal rights applied to those marriages but not same sex marriage within their church. Since our government has chosen to use the word 'marriage' to delineate laws for partners, they have either automatically put themselves at odds with Catholicism or left out every non-Catholic.
Ahhhh, that does feel better.
I hate it when people call my stance/slippery slope the "dog stance" like it has no merit really marrying dogs do not have merit but it overlooks the issues related to changing the definition of marriage. I have no problem (whatsoever!) with SS COUPLES marrying & having all the rights related to marriage.
And to this point, schools teach the scientifically based concept of evolution. If you want your child to learn creationism, you do that at home/CCD, like you said.
Everything you just said sounds to me exactly like the arguments that people put up during the civil rights movement to deny african americans their rights. I just don't understand how you can look at oppression and be in favor of it. Chances are if your church makes it very clear they don't support ss marriage that no ss couples will want to get married in their facility. They can not be sued to make them recognize the marriage within their religion either so why does it matter if they used your venue to preform a ceremony if it means nothing to the church? Catholics don't have to recognize divorced couples for instance and that doesn't seem to cause conflict or lawsuits. You can raise your daughter with whatever beliefs you want, but it is not a good excuse to deny an entire population of people their equal rights because you are scared that your daughter might be exposed to a different view point in school.
( I should qualify that I am no longer Catholic - just pulling from my memory here) To Catholics: any mention of the word "Marriage" is a discussion of a religious sacrament.
That is semantics, though.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church has largely stayed out of the SS marriage debate, preferring to direct their energies at abortion rights.
I'm confused as to how the highlighted points would change. In the case of #1, free speech is protected, so your church leader could continue to state that he does not believe that SS couples should be together. Does your church leader marry everyone that comes to him? or does he exercise some discretion? Many religious institutions require counseling or classes before agreeing to perform the ceremony, how would that change? That counseling would invariably include questions about adhering to the church's beliefs which do not include SS marriage so if the couple said "no, we won't adhere to the church's beliefs/raise our children in the church" I think that would be a reasonable, non-legally actionable reason to refuse to marry. I do agree with you that religious officials should not be forced to marry people (including interracial couples for that matter- I think religion and government independence extends both directions as horrific as the results may turn out to be).
In the case of #3, how is stating "in year X, same sex couples were granted the legal power to wed" teaching your daughter that it is ok? You will continue to teach her whatever you choose at home and at church, so why can she not separate the legal from the moral? ETA - how is this any different than abortion? I assume you are pro-life, so the schools teach Roe v Wade and you teach your moral view on the subject.
I agree that #2 is a bit trickier, but more because I don't understand how providing health insurance is saying that the union is ok ... perhaps you can elaborate on that?
You and I are making some prettty long quotes haha I know what you're getting at but the same could be said about gay people trying to get married in a Catholic church. They know they're not wanted so why would they try? I really think there's a way to let SS marry in the eyes of the government without it doing anything more than offending some people religious sensibilities. Which, IMO is what this boils down to. Religious people don't like it, come up with reasons they claim it will directly affect them when it won't, don't want the government all up in their religious business but want to reserve the right to get up in the government's business.
mostly a lurker but wanted to jump in...
In Catholicism during your wedding vows you vow that every time you have sex you will do so free, totally, faithfully and fruitfully meaning that you give of yourself willingly, completely (no contraception), faithfully (only to your spouse) and fruitfully ... fruitfully meaning that every time that you have sex you are open to having children, that you did not use contraception and that each time you arouse one another it ends in the marital act (sex).
And?
lol, yeah I don't get the point of that in this thread.
And also, that was not in my vows, lol. Was it part of what I know is expected in Catholicism? Yes. But it was not said as part of our vows.
Los quotes!!!
LOL
Catholic wedding vows are always the same ...
"(Name) and (name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?" (free and total)
"Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?" (faithful)
"Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?" (fruitful)
I am Catholic. I also support gay rights and SS marriage. To me, my marriage has two parts: the legal part and the religious part. SS couples should have every right to a legal marriage, just like me. If feel that is a right as an American. My religious marriage is highly personal to me and my husband and God. Two people of the same sex getting married in no way threatens my "religious" marriage.
yes, but what you said earlier is not explicited state there. Yes, I have to accept children lovingly, but it does not explicitly state all of the other details you listed earlier. That was my point, is all. I know thats what is in catholic teachings, but it is not part of the vows specifically.
right, but what does that have to do with the government marrying people?!?!
The catholic church doesn't have to marry gay couples.
Marriage is a sacramental covenant between a man woman and God (because of reasons stated in my first post)... the government has nothing to do with it... so to say that SS couples would be married in my mind would mean in the church...
the Catholic church doesn't even recognize marriages outside of the church (Sacramentally)... to fully participate in the Sacraments of the church a couple married outside of the church must first receive a convalidation
The question is talking about government marriage, not Catholic. So the government has everything to do with it for purpose of this post.
Again, I'm catholic so I know the teachings. I'm just saying that the catholic rules have NOTHING to do with a federal marriage.
Marriage is not just a catholic word
You can have secular marriages. Yes, the Church doesn't recognize it, but so what? Its still a marriage in the eyes of the state. People can in fact get married even if they don't do so through the Church. They simply don't have a marriage recognized by the Church. Thats all that means.
So thats why people are lost as to your points. This isn't a thread about Catholic marriage. Its about government ones, which as you pointed out are completely different.