Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Ben Kenobi]

I had formal Catholic catechism for 8 year and took extra classes as part of being an alter boy. How many years have you formally studied it?

Everyone is called to be chaste, but only a few are called to be celibate. Chastity applies to marriage whereas celibacy does not.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

2337:

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman

Doesn't matter how long you've studied it, it's either right or wrong.

[rah]

No it is continually interpreted and revised.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, "I can't admit I was wrong".

[Sava]

converts are always the worst

[Ming]

Repeatedly... telling him that he's going to hell is not okay.

And why is that? It is his opinion that those that practice gay sex are sinners. And sinners go to hell. He has also stated that he doesn't want his taxes to fund gay marriages, because it would make him feel like an accomplice... a sinner. And I've pointed out that his taxes already fund things that are against his religion... making him a sinner that is going to burn in hell.

Why can he claim that being gay is morally wrong... and we can't do the same to him?

[Sava]

Growing up, Orthodox teaching was that no sin can outweigh God's love (because it's infinite duh). So basically, no one can ever go to hell even if you are Hitler. Since BK apparently believes in hell, I must pose this question:

Do the sins of man outweigh God's love?

[Ming]

And can god make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it

[Lorizael]

I've made two different arguments.

1. The government is entitled to define marriage, that it is not unconstitutional for them to defend marriage as one man and one woman.

2. My personal preference is that the government should not interfere whatsoever. These positions are both logical and consistant, as is the argument by gay marriage proponents, that gay marriage can be legalised without also being unconstitutional.

My criticism of gay marriage proponents is not because their position is illogical, but because it doesn't work.



Again, you are missing one, very, very important word. Unconstitutional. Go read my argument again and see why I am including this one word.

You have actually argued in the past that (1) the government does not have the right to define marriage, and (2) that the government should support marriage. These two positions are irreconcilable.

Marriage is 'recognised' by the state, not defined as such. Therefore the state only legally recognises that which already exists, it cannot redefine marriage, because it is not the creation of the state.

Then why didn't we see the argument for marriage in the Constitution arguing that marriage was subject to freedom of association? From what I can tell, they recognised that marriage existed prior and outside of the constitution, and that while a government might acknowledge marriage, it could not determine the content of marriage.

Yes I believe some forms of discrimination are good. I feel that the government should help married folks out where they do not help folks in other relationships.

[Sava]

And can god make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it

If he did, the universe would crash like Windows.

[Lorizael]

And why is that? It is his opinion that those that practice gay sex are sinners. And sinners go to hell. He has also stated that he doesn't want his taxes to fund gay marriages, because it would make him feel like an accomplice... a sinner. And I've pointed out that his taxes already fund things that are against his religion... making him a sinner that is going to burn in hell.

Why can he claim that being gay is morally wrong... and we can't do the same to him?

I tacitly allow Ben Kenobi's posts because he does not attack other posters directly. He has a general belief that may encompass people that post on this website, but he does not personally attack those posters.

You are allowed to have the opinion that hypocritical Christians are going to hell, and you're allowed to express that opinion; but you're not allowed to attack another poster in a malicious attempt to hurt them or drive them from the site.

[rah]

Yes, idiocy is protected at poly, as long as you don't call them idiots.

[rah]

Wow, "I can't admit I was wrong".

Correct, to my knowledge you never have.

[Lorizael]

If you think that's idiotic, just call me an idiot instead.

[Sava]

I would if I could but I can't so I won't.

[Q Classic]

You are allowed to have the opinion that hypocritical Christians are going to hell, and you're allowed to express that opinion;

Yes. If there were such a thing as hell, hypocritical Christians would belong there. Except they wouldn't really be "Christian", would they? Only Christianist, in the same fashion that Islamists use the trappings of religion to protect their hate speech and bigotry.

but you're not allowed to attack another poster in a malicious attempt to hurt them or drive them from the site.

My previous statements wouldn't hurt him, nor were they intended to. After all, his belief in the fundamental rightness of his notions is the iron shield upon which logic and sense are deflected.

Besides, there's the whole mentality that fundamentalist ****wits have, in which they're besieged, when they really have no understanding of what discrimination is, being the priviledge asscaps they are. (Yes, there are some exceptions. I'm well aware of them. And you'd think those who actually know what discrimination feels like would be more open to not being openly bigoted to other groups, but you know, the whole "hard hearts" and "he who will not listen" crap.)

So my previous snide comments aren't really meant to hurt, nor are they meant to drive them from the site. I'm well aware how ineffective they'd be for that purpose. For them to have an effect, the target would have to have displayed a fundamental ability to listen and comprehend the other side's posts.