All animals are equal, but some animals (non-gay)are more equal than others.

[pach]

The Six Prolegomena to any anti-Christian prejudice

1. People might have whatever reasons for saying No, but this apology is entirely from a Christian viewpoint

2. Christianity and LGBT are not contradictory

3. It is not a sin to be LGBT

4. LGBT deserve the same respect as that of any human being

5. Christianity does not work to marginalize LGBT

6. The aim of this conversation is not to belittle/look down/degrade LGBT but to affirm the dignity of all human beings and to defend the truth about the institution of Marriage as expressed by Roman Catholic Social Doctrine


----

And who, pray tell, gets to decide this "truth of their being" and how they are "designed"

You might have remembered my signature some few weeks back. It says "truth is not created, it is discovered"

We'd like to touch upon some common ground otherwise this conversation would end in vain. As for everything in this issue, the great bone of contention would always be, and you're correct in this: What is truth, who says it's the truth and who gets to interpret it.

LOOOOL! LOLOLOL! Oh my, thank you for making my week. That is by far, the funniest thing I've heard/read in a long time.

TRUTH and JUSTICE?? If you think that it's JUST that people who care deeply for each other cannot celebrate their love by getting married, then WOW. Wrong principles? It's only coming off as wrong because of, what, yes... you guessed it right: RELIGION.

First, what does it mean when we say "Justice" and what do we mean when we say "Truth"?

We have to clarify how we understand these words before we can use them, otherwise, their meaning would be at the mercy of opinion.

I do hope you can follow what I'm saying.

So what is Justice? Justice is to give to a person what is dueto her, either by another person or by God.

Therefore, justice is never a personal selfish thing - it always has a social dimension, but more on that later.

And what is Truth? Truth is the conformity of the knower with the object known. That is why it can never be created, and it also cannot be based entirely on popular opinion. Truth always has an objective value, otherwise, science and knowledge will be impossible.

Needless to say, the value/worth of Truth and Justice remain the same, regardless of popular acclaim or condemnation, it is not subject to time or space - they stay the same because what is unchangeable cannot bow down that which is fleeting and transitory. Common sense dictates to us that we should agree to the aforementioned, otherwise, we imply that Truth can change with the passing of time. (This is of course, illogical)

We can say that truth and justice is not always about leniency, toleration and comfort. If these values would be based on human satisfaction, multiple contradictions will arise - drugs feel good but are they Good? Stealing and lying can get me out of my problems but are they Good?

These actions go against the nature of a human being because they give offense to what is inherently valuable, worthy, and dignified in a person even if apparently, they give you pleasure comfort or happiness.

Now in the case of marriage, Catholic Social Doctrine states that this human dignity is only respected and realized in heterosexual marriage since a same-sex one goes against human nature. And whatever that does offence to human nature falls short of rendering to it what is due, hence, an offence to nature is an offence to justice, and what is an offence to justice would always be an offence to the truth of our being.

Truth and Justice are only completely satisfied/fulfilled if their values are respected. And when they are respected, then and only then can we expect to live in a just world.

Sin, Virtue, Good, Evil, Truth, Justice - no one can remove the social dimension away from these ideas.

Popular misconceptions about religion have arisen from time to time, and the people aren't to blame for it. We can always talk about it but I don't think this is the proper thread to talk about religion per se

Really, what's so sacred about marriage anymore? Again, it's only SACRED to the eyes of religious nuts, but then again, what isn't? Lol.

Again, we see here a misappropriation of words. What do we mean by the words "Sacred", "Holy", and "Sanctity"?

To a certain extent, it's true if we think of these as being untouchable, of belonging to an inner chamber, of only being able to reach them at a very high level. But only to a certain extent.

In other words, we can say that being-sacred is intimately connected with the fact that what-is-sacred cannot simply be tampered with, played with, or be taken lightly.

In the case of Marriage, Catholic Doctrine states that it is an institution established by God. That is why marriage  is sacred: this is one of the things which we cannot meddle; one which we simply cannot subject to our conveniences and caprice just because it has become 'inconvenient' with the passing of time, or with the rise of new trends and fads.

And because marriage has a sacred character, it entails respect and responsibility towards one another. When responsibility enters the picture,  we ultimately go back to the idea of justice, of social accountability.

We can make another connection. Since humans are social and intellectual beings by nature, we simply cannot live like animals do, and we simply cannot content ourselves with having the same level as that of animals, even though biologically speaking, we are one. (Then again, is Human Life limited to biological impulses? Of course not.)

Not only is this an offence to the dignity of the human person but this is also an insult to our intelligence.

With this inescapable fact on hand, it is inevitable that human beings form intelligent groups we call 'society'. And because of society, we form our own 'culture'.

Part of culture is the enactment of laws and legal processes. In these legal processes, it is the duty of an established government to uphold the well-being of the members of society.

It is no wonder then that marriage (being an institution) must eventually be given a legal form.  Legal forms ensure that they are binding and that they cannot escape a certain degree of public responsibility. When you batter your husband, you are subject to prosecution since your husband belongs to society. Same with you.

And so there are what we marriage contracts, agreements or bonds. These are various ways  to ensure the safety and stability of the couple and the way they will raise their children. This is another focal issue Christianity would like to defend - the institution of the Family since the family is the most basic unit of society.

Marriage is a piece of paper only for those who do not wish to recognize its spiritual character. And rightly so, it is devalued along with the person if it is indeed seen only as a piece of paper/commercial contract.

If marriage stands for true love, then it demands not just agreement between two persons, it demands the total giving of self, it demands responsibility and commitment. Respect here has an intimate connection with sanctity.The bridge between the two is the word 'reverence'. When we revere something, we try our best to preserve it, take care of it, and not to abuse it.

A purely material non-spiritual view of reality does not permit this kind of belief on marriage.

It is indeed most unfortunate that marriage is now only sacred to the eyes of religious nuts. IF it's sacred to everybody, perhaps we shall see a decrease in divorces, spousal assaults and infidelities. 

Again, there is nothing JUST or TRUE about discriminating against the gay community.

Of course there is nothing Just and True about discrimination. It's clear that we should treat each other equally, with charity and compassion because we are all the same in the eyes of God.

It is true that our modern society may respect people based on economic status, gender, race or belief. But the basis of Christianity for respecting people is not based on these earthly things.

Christians ought to respect others because they are persons that are made after the image and likeness of God. Since God is Truth, God is Justice, God is the Ultimate Good, then He is the sole criterion, the ultimate measuring rod of how much a person is valuable, worthy and dignified.

It is perhaps reasonable to say that without God in the picture, the status of the human person as person becomes precarious, and will ultimately be subjected to the whims of those who are in power, no matter how much they put a veneer of intellectuality in legalizing abortion or euthanasia or in this case, same-sex marriage.

Without God, might is right. Without God, Truth would only be as important as results, statistics, surveys, and votes. Without God, justice would only be as important as court orders and legal verdicts.

Everybody will benefit in this, even LGBT. Okay, what if a dictator suddenly enacts a legal decree that puts all LGBT to death? Or what if Maine and California voters vote on a congressional proposition that orders all homosexuals to stitch pink triangles on their clothes?

If truth is based on subjectivity (whether by a single person or by the public, or even by an established government) then what is true is only good as far as we decide it to be. 

Thankfully, the Holy Roman Catholic Church is not Canadian Idol. We do not bow down to popularity. Our criterion is not the State, neither is it the public. And rightly so, this is the basis of the separation of Church and State. (It should remain that way)

It is only God, who Is Truth, Who is Love, Who is Justice, who cannot deceive and be deceived.

Quia parvus error in principio magnus est in fine!

Indeed, Error in principle generates greater error in the end. - Saint Thomas Aquinas

To me, this whole thing sounds like GOD HATES GAY PEOPLE AND DOESN'T THINK THAT THEY DESERVE HAPPINESS IF HAPPINESS COMES FROM GETTING MARRIED. or GOD LOVES YOU, unless you're gay.

Yup, that sounds pretty much right.

That is a very medieval and puritanical way of looking at homosexuals. In a perfect sense, someone who has this view on homosexuals could rightly and fittingly be called "holier-than-thou Jesus freak"

Unfortunately, some anti-Catholics still havea a medieval perception of the Church while the Church has moved forward to keep abreast of modern times.

In this sense, the ones who have been left out by time is not the Roman Catholic Church but Her critics.

That's how other people see it. And that is why they are given the opportunity to see things to a whole new point of view.

The bargain of the Church is to give these people a deal to 'see the other side of things' and try it out.

30-day Satisfaction Guaranteed.

It is not a sin to be homosexual, and one does not become unChristian purely on the basis of personal moral failure.

LOL. A just world = discriminating against your "brothers and sisters" simply because they want to marry a person of the same gender? Yup... sounds like religious bull to me

This has been answered in the previous replies

It makes them ignorant because after all that the human race has accomplished, they still cannot get past their stupid prejudices. It's the year 2009 and we're still dealing with this kind of bs?

An advance in technology does not always mean an advance in morality. As a matter of fact, it is even with the advance in technology that we see a degradation of value.

Since everything seems to be cheaper, faster, more efficient, more convenient, this has given us the suggestion that we can also do this to humans.

Allow me to explain this a bit more: The march of history goes on. Technology can't be stopped. But this development in technology should also be accompanied by the development of the human spirit.

What-we-can is not the same as what-we-ought

And what band wagon do you speak of? Oh you mean the people who voted YES FOR EQUALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS? That one? Kay...

The point is that not a lot of people have made a decision based on a reflective, responsible manner. And in fact, we might as well accuse those who said No same-sex marriage the same thing as the ones who voted Yes.

We can stretch that to its logical limits - how do we define 'equality'? How do we define 'human rights'. A closer look would throw us back into the discussion on Truth and Justice.

No, the plain fact is that a basic human right shouldn't even be put up for discussion. ESPECIALLY in a country like America.

The plain fact is that it should.

Have you remembered our discussion on the rise of human society and legal processes this society entails?

Who's to say what is a human right from what is not?
IF there were no discussion, we could just think of a lot of gruesome things that would've been passed as law, and a lot of beneficial things that wouldn't have.

Needless to say, what comes to mind is the 1935 Nuremberg Laws of the German 3rd Reich under the Nazis, to which systematic civil persecution of Jews were applied.

OR we could go further back in history to the time of Draco, that ancient Greek legislator to whom we ascribe the term 'Draconian Law'. Google it.

Precisely that it IS America, the 'land of the free', where laws are discussed before being enacted and not arbitrarily handed down by a single person.

Permit me even to go as far as saying that without democracy, you couldn't even speak out. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Gratitude and Humility are 'ancient' values that 'modern' human beings should re-learn 

I'd rather live in those places than be in a place full of ignorant, intolerant, and delusional people.

I see.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2458/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/155656

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-463299/Polish-homosexuals-flee-persecution-exodus-UK.html

Those examples should be enough.

So in the final analysis, who are the people whom you brand to join the ignorant douchebags club celebrating bigotry, segregation, discrimination and hatred?

Are they those who protect the dignity of marriage (and the truth about Man, or those who, out of blind hatred, stir violent pogroms in the name of God and and social conformity?   

And in the final analysis, who appears to be arrogant, dogmatic and close-minded among various advocacy groups? Is it the Church who defends Her stand through logic, reason and philosophy or those who profess to loathe Roman Catholicism and lash at the Church through hatred, emotional outburst and blind retaliation?

Alright, here's the thing:

I have a lot of respect for you Pach, not for your beliefs, but for your unrelenting faith in what you believe.

Respect me not for my beliefs, not even for my faith. Respect me because I'm a person, because that's as much as I respect you and our LGBT Brothers and Sisters.

The basis is not on status, whether you are rich, or on race whether you are white, or on intelligence whether you are smart, or on gender preference whether you are gay.

The basis is is that we're human beings 

I know that you're a hardcore Catholic, and you know that I despise religion and everything it stands for. We will never see eye to eye for as long as you and I live (even in the after life... if I turn out to be wrong about heaven ahahha) That's cool though, you do your thing, and Imma do mine and we'll happily co-exist.

We come from two radically opposing lines of thought obviously, but I'm confident our lines aren't absolutely parallel. We will intersect at some point.

I choose to be Roman Catholic because it is where I believe the Truth is found.

Personally, to agree or disagree on something solely on the basis of religion is narrow-minded, arrogant and a firebrand of religious extremism.

I dont base my beliefs just because my Church says so, again, that smacks of haughtiness and could rightly be called the 'epitome of ignorance'

But it is because of my belief that I have rightly understood. By God's grace help my humility.

We will never see eye to eye for as long as you and I live

Oh. I'm quite surprised that an atheist who has been supposedly 'liberated' by free-thinking would suddenly become as dogmatic and close-minded as the religion which she now professes to loathe.

Isn't that the most brazen of all logical contradictions.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a God. 

I'm retaining a very, very open mind about it. Are you? 

[psycho_peanut]

I'd vote no. Not that i'm banning them from their happiness, its just that if they do so,i think the purpose of humanity would be pointless (gay union= new life ender).I dont think it should always be based on the emotions all the time, sometimes reason should be.

[chankymanky]

I usually stay away from this topic because I know whatever side you choose, someone will still try to make you believe otherwise, and it will just turn into a long, never ending debate about religion and human rights.

Personally, I think I lean on voting YES because we all have rights, and we should all be allowed to choose what we want in life. I don't see how it destroy's the natural order of things, it's not like everyone is becoming gay, and these people, they have something most heterosexuals don't even have, and that's love. And isn't that the whole point of our existence? To share love unto the world and whatnot. Sure, you can shoot the "but God wants us to go forth and multiply" and yes, I believe we should respect that, but as a just and all forgiving God, can he not accept the alternative these people choose? Most of them are willing to adopt children, to take care of them like their own. And I don't see how this is any different from bearing your own child. These people may not be the ones who created the children, but they are there, willing to take care of them with all that they have.

 I know what I'm saying has dozens of loopholes. But I would just like to point out what I believe in.

It's interesting how our entire world seems to be controlled by Catholicism.