PDA

View Full Version : First George, Now The Pope.....(on gay marriage)


Mr. Anderson
Jul 31, 2003, 10:04 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31/vatican.gay.marriages/index.html

Sort of in tune with the other thread about divorce over cell phone text messaging, I think a re-evaluation of modern society needs to be taken into account here....:(

D

idea_hamster
Jul 31, 2003, 10:09 AM
This is one of those issues where lots of people think that the "answer" is simple, obvious and needs no explanation -- a position that always gives me the creeps.

(Hmmm...I may have to go back to my old sig. line: "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and wiser men so full of doubts" -- B. Russell.)

Ambrose Chapel
Jul 31, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by idea_hamster
(Hmmm...I may have to go back to my old sig. line: "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and wiser men so full of doubts" -- B. Russell.)

I loved that sig - I even copied the quote into my quotes file. :)

Back on-topic, I don't understand what is so threatening to these people about same-sex marriage. Do they think that if it is legally sanctioned, then everyone will abandon traditional marriage?

As for the argument that it is unfair to children, I'd much rather see a child raised by a loving, same-sex family, then a traditional one where the child is neglected or worse...

jxyama
Jul 31, 2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
As for the argument that it is unfair to children, I'd much rather see a child raised by a loving, same-sex family, then a traditional one where the child is neglected or worse...

i agree in principle, but in reality, if the child could help it, he/she probably wouldn't want to be the front-runner, breaking down the stigma attached to having two "moms" or "dads."

it's a tough call - traditional family not taking care of the kid properly or a non-traditional family that will take care of the kid but the kid being a target of ridicule and traumatized by friends and others.

i hope in the future, both will be taken care of and the child (who really don't have much choice at birth or adoption) will be fine in either case - that all families (traditional or otherwise) take care of the kids and society at large would be blind to the family composition...

(words "traditional" and "non-traditional" were not used to pass judgement.)

iGav
Jul 31, 2003, 10:55 AM
god the Vatican don't half get on my t*ts... what a bunch of homophobic, sad old men!!

I think they should spend alittle more time sorting out the actions of members of their organisation to children, before they even begin to pontificate about immoral, unnatural and harmful behaviour.

jadariv
Jul 31, 2003, 11:02 AM
It's almost as if people in the U.S. do not want to live in a free society.

wdlove
Jul 31, 2003, 11:02 AM
I think that the Church should be allowed to hold it's members to high moral standards. If a person doen't like the teachings of the Church, they are free to leave. We have a new Archbishop here in Boston, Sean Patrick O'Malley the 6th to hold that positon. From what I've heard about him. he's sincere in his convictions. This is his 3rd assignment to cleanup the clergy sexual abuse crisis.

Moral beliefs is what hold a society together.

agreenster
Jul 31, 2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
As for the argument that it is unfair to children, I'd much rather see a child raised by a loving, same-sex family, then a traditional one where the child is neglected or worse...

This implies that same-sex parents will abuse their children less than hetero-sexual parents will. I think that is a false assumption.

I doubt allowing same-sex marriages/parents will eliminate child abuse in this country.

I think we would ALL like to see healthy family units without abuse (child or spousal), but that solution starts in the individual, not in a law. The crap we feed ourselves as humans (first) and as Americans (second) through media and social morals doesn't seem to help the problem either.

QCassidy352
Jul 31, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
I think that the Church should be allowed to hold it's members to high moral standards. If a person doen't like the teachings of the Church, they are free to leave. We have a new Archbishop here in Boston, Sean Patrick O'Malley the 6th to hold that positon. From what I've heard about him. he's sincere in his convictions. This is his 3rd assignment to cleanup the clergy sexual abuse crisis.

Moral beliefs is what hold a society together.

ah, herein lies the problem. How is gay marraige a "moral" issue? There is an assumption in this society that matters of sexuality, and especially homosexuality, are necessarily issues of morality, and I just don't accept that.

Further, the church certainly can hold members to any standard they like. but holding people to those teachings within the church and trying to use the influence of the church as an institution to alter the political landscape are quite different.

"It's almost as if people in the U.S. do not want to live in a free society."

Seems that the majority of americans like to *talk* about freedom, not actually have it.

Moxiemike
Jul 31, 2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by iGAV
god the Vatican don't half get on my t*ts... what a bunch of homophobic, sad old men!!

I think they should spend alittle more time sorting out the actions of members of their organisation to children, before they even begin to pontificate about immoral, unnatural and harmful behaviour.

No same sex marriage... but how many years did they tolerate the pedophillic, child ****ing priests? I guess that's ok since only a pedophile would want a job like that....it's tailor made to child abusers (though some good priests exist, and are stigmatized by this scandal)

What a sick sick religion. Catholicism is big business these days though....

I think the pope should be stoned by all the men who had a priest's c*** in their mouth at age 12 or whatever.

Sick religion.

(a bad word subverted the system. i edited it out)

Ambrose Chapel
Jul 31, 2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by agreenster
This implies that same-sex parents will abuse their children less than hetero-sexual parents will. I think that is a false assumption.


Oh of course, I didn't mean to imply that such abuse would never happen under same-sex marriage, but it's also a false assumption that a healthy child can only be reared by male-female parents. That was my original objection.

jadariv
Jul 31, 2003, 11:57 AM
Probably does not do gay men any justice that all the child molestations were done by male priests on boys. Just adds in the gay factor on this deviancy in the eyes of the upper rung of power.

idea_hamster
Jul 31, 2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
We have a new Archbishop here in Boston, Sean Patrick O'Malley the 6th to hold that positon. From what I've heard about him. he's sincere in his convictions.
NPR had an excerpt from one of his addresses that I found very touching: He said (and I paraphrase) that the homeless schizophrenic who can't get medication and claims that he is Jesus Christ is, in fact, Jesus Christ but in a disturbing disguise -- his point being that it is up to us to accept, aid, and care for even the most disturbing among us.

I'm not sure what his position is on same-sex marriage -- which is part of the problem that religions face: they tend to be all-or-nothing propositions.

phillymjs
Jul 31, 2003, 12:25 PM
The Catholic church looks really stupid trying to dictate morality to people after the deluge of reports about the pedophilic-priest shell games. I'm a straight male, and I feel that two people of legal age who love each other should be allowed to join in a legal, publicly-recognized union-- whether both are of the same sex or not.

<rant>
I was raised Catholic and suffered through twelve years of having all that nonsense shoved down my throat in Catholic school. As soon as my mother died and there was nobody to drag me to mass every Sunday, I stopped going. And if I hadn't then, this business with the altar boy-screwing would have disgusted me enough to stop now.

These days, I guess you could say that I waver between agnostic and atheist, though I don't really think about it much anymore except to regard the entire concept of organized religion with fresh scorn when people killing over religious differences makes the news. Religion gave us the Holocaust. Religion is why the middle east is a shambles. And religion is what brought down the WTC.

Oftentimes the most sanctimonious of the bible-thumper set are the biggest scoundrels and hypocrites you'll ever come across.

Mankind would be much better served if people listened to their common sense instead of whatever particular big, invisible man in the sky they happen to prefer.
</rant>

Go ahead and flame me if you must, but that's my opinion.

~Philly

Moxiemike
Jul 31, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by phillymjs
The Catholic church looks really stupid trying to dictate morality to people after the deluge of reports about the pedophilic-priest shell games. I'm a straight male, and I feel that two people of legal age who love each other should be allowed to join in a legal, publicly-recognized union-- whether both are of the same sex or not.

<rant>
I was raised Catholic and suffered through twelve years of having all that nonsense shoved down my throat in Catholic school. As soon as my mother died and there was nobody to drag me to mass every Sunday, I stopped going. And if I hadn't then, this business with the altar boy-screwing would have disgusted me enough to stop now.

These days, I guess you could say that I waver between agnostic and atheist, though I don't really think about it much anymore except to regard the entire concept of organized religion with fresh scorn when people killing over religious differences makes the news. Religion gave us the Holocaust. Religion is why the middle east is a shambles. And religion is what brought down the WTC.

Oftentimes the most sanctimonious of the bible-thumper set are the biggest scoundrels and hypocrites you'll ever come across.

Mankind would be much better served if people listened to their common sense instead of whatever particular big, invisible man in the sky they happen to prefer.
</rant>

Go ahead and flame me if you must, but that's my opinion.

~Philly

Anyone who flames you has they're head firmly planted up their arse. You're right on my friend. Right on.

Just go talk to any anti-abortion radical.

FriarTuck
Jul 31, 2003, 12:39 PM
Why just any two people? Why two? Why not three? Why not twenty?

Don't harsh my mellow with your oppressive legalisms, man.

iGav
Jul 31, 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by phillymjs
The Catholic church looks really stupid trying to dictate morality to people after the deluge of reports about the pedophilic-priest shell games. I'm a straight male, and I feel that two people of legal age who love each other should be allowed to join in a legal, publicly-recognized union-- whether both are of the same sex or not.

<rant>
I was raised Catholic and suffered through twelve years of having all that nonsense shoved down my throat in Catholic school. As soon as my mother died and there was nobody to drag me to mass every Sunday, I stopped going. And if I hadn't then, this business with the altar boy-screwing would have disgusted me enough to stop now.

These days, I guess you could say that I waver between agnostic and atheist, though I don't really think about it much anymore except to regard the entire concept of organized religion with fresh scorn when people killing over religious differences makes the news. Religion gave us the Holocaust. Religion is why the middle east is a shambles. And religion is what brought down the WTC.

Oftentimes the most sanctimonious of the bible-thumper set are the biggest scoundrels and hypocrites you'll ever come across.

Mankind would be much better served if people listened to their common sense instead of whatever particular big, invisible man in the sky they happen to prefer.
</rant>

Go ahead and flame me if you must, but that's my opinion.

~Philly

Phewy... damn I wish I was a little more vocal in my original post, I had visions of being sliced and diced for my sins!!! heh-heh!!

I find the church, but in particular the vatican and their total blind faith and ignorance truly astounding!!

I have no intention of flaming you, because I'm stood next to you nodding in agreement... ;)

Moxiemike
Jul 31, 2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by iGAV
Phewy... damn I wish I was a little more vocal in my original post, I had visions of being sliced and diced for my sins!!! heh-heh!!

I find the church, but in particular the vatican and their total blind faith and ignorance truly astounding!!

I have no intention of flaming you, because I'm stood next to you nodding in agreement... ;)

man iGav, you always have interesting stuff to say (plus good taste) so you SHOULD rant away! :)

I wanna hear it! go!

jxyama
Jul 31, 2003, 01:24 PM
i think organized religion has its place in the society provided:

1) it leads to more people living a generally better life

2) it doesn't practically brainwash people to the point they can't make their own decisions

3) the source of belief (Bible, Quran, etc.) won't be twisted to justify obviously immoral behavior (murders and wars, mostly)

4) kept strictly personal and made public to others when inquired

5) the congregation doesn't use it's collective power to push a public agenda for their sole benefit.

one of my worst peeves is when a christian fanatic rants away in public how "non-believers" will go to "hell," in clear violation of #4 above, as far as i'm concerned.

another fanatic behavior i hate is conservative mid-western christians pushing for creationism to be taught in public schools. believe whatever you like, but creationism is not a scientific theory. it should not be taught in a science class like biology.

i think it basically comes to respect. people with one type of beliefs should respect the fact others may not share the same beliefs or don't believe in much of anything.

Moxiemike
Jul 31, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
i think organized religion has its place in the society provided:

1) it leads to more people living a generally better life

2) it doesn't practically brainwash people to the point they can't make their own decisions

3) the source of belief (Bible, Quran, etc.) won't be twisted to justify obviously immoral behavior (murders and wars, mostly)

4) kept strictly personal and made public to others when inquired

one of my worst peeves is when a christian fanatic rants away in public how "non-believers" will go to "hell," in clear violation of #4 above, as far as i'm concerned.

i think it basically comes to respect. people with one type of beliefs should respect the fact others may not share the same beliefs or don't believe in much of anything.

Unfortunately, if going by this, catholicism is COMPLETELY in the wrong on many accounts. Let's look at the USA today. I'll answer each of your 1-4 statements in regards to the US.

1) Let's see....hmmm. Many Americans are catholic. By far the pre-dominant "religion"in the States. We have a horrid literacy rate, a VERY poor unemployment, corporations raping their employees, priests raping children, men raping women, kids shooting teachers, etc. etc. etc. In a country that's "one nation under god" we're pretty devilish. :)

2) The anti-abortionalists who believe that they'll go to hell for kiliing and child and don't believe that their daughters are getting drunk, smoking weed and having crazy unprotected sex. They're brainwashed by one of the beliefs catholicism has pounded into their heads.

3) Well, we invaded Iraq. And bush keeps referring to god in speeches. Does that count? We're killing people and having our people killed, in honor of this "one nation under god" bull.

4) How about sporting events with bible quotes on posterboard? How about the ten commandments being immortalized in bronze on my city's county courthouse? How about all the little religious pamphlets that get passed out to me at random café's. And how abotu the people who tell me i'll go to hell if I don't take them. How about the Quecreek Miners telling me all about how god's grace saved them while they're suing their employers? That's not very christlike... what about turning the other cheek? Eh? How about the catholic church telling my gay friends they can't be married. etc etc etc

America... is ruled almost as much by religion as we are by fast food and reality TV.

zim
Jul 31, 2003, 01:31 PM
I am not Catholic but, surprisingly I find my life to be governed by the very thing that I am not. If I wish to engage in a relationship with another, regardless as to what sex they may be, I will do so. If that relationship evolves into a bonding or commitment then it will. If I wish to make a pledge to that person, just as one does in a marriage, then I will. No law, be it state, constitutional, or even some religion that I am not even a part of, is going to prevent me from doing what I feel is right. I strongly feel that this is the way others will act, regardless if a law tells them not to. No, their "marriage" will not be "legal" but what defines a marriage? A marriage is a commitment between two people. I have been with my soon to be wife for 10 years, neither of us need a wedding to justify our love and commitment. We are however, having a wedding, October in fact, but it is for the pure pleasure of being together and celebrating our commitment and love. I feel sad that there are people that would stop at nothing from allowing others, regardless of the arrangement, from having the same happiness.

I strongly disagree with the manner in which the president voiced his opinion on the subject. The Catholic church should not be an influenced as to how the president acts publicly and address us as a country.

As the bill of rights reads, All are created equal. That is all I need to know.

I think that with all the recent happenings around the Catholic church, they feel as if they need to make some noise. I also feel that yet again Bush is leading us off in the other direction while he sets up some other tactic in another.

Ambrose Chapel
Jul 31, 2003, 01:32 PM
this echoes my earlier post:

''There is a real movement for same-sex marriage, and if the president doesn't intervene, and if he doesn't take leadership in this area, we could lose marriage in this country the way we know it,'' said the Rev. Franklin Graham.

Again, why are they so scared that legally recognizing same-sex marriages will destroy heterosexual marriages?

Also, philly, I agree with your rant

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/212/wash/Bush_says_he_is_exploring_lega:.shtml

Ambrose Chapel
Jul 31, 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
Let's see....hmmm. Many Americans are catholic. By far the pre-dominant "religion"in the States.

Actually Protestantism is the dominant religion...I believe that every president but JFK has been Protestant of some variety...

3) Well, we invaded Iraq. And bush keeps referring to god in speeches. Does that count? We're killing people and having our people killed, in honor of this "one nation under god" bull.

Like this quote from that article I linked to:

''I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own,'' the president said, invoking a biblical passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew.

brogers
Jul 31, 2003, 01:42 PM
Funny how we blame the entire Catholic faith for the evils of certain preists. Funny how we trash God or whatever deity is out there whenever we think He/She might restrict our lives. Funny how we preach free speech and living free, but when someone from the church has an opinion, we kick and scream and wonder why they even have a say-so.

I'm not Catholic, but I am Baptist which might make me pretty scarry to some of the people on these boards. To say that the Catholic Church should have no say so in this or any matter is a joke. They have an agenda just like every oraganization in the world including the Gay community. Don't talk about living free and then trash the Church for having an opinion and pushing their agenda.

Don't want to live by any moral code? Then don't. I personally am glad we have them. Thy shall not kill. Does that bother you? Maybe we should do away with that as well.

And finally, someone said Religion caused the Holocaust and other terrible events. WRONG. Hitler gave us the Holocaust. Are we are blaming religion again for the sins of the few? Looks that way to me.

QCassidy352
Jul 31, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by brogers
Don't want to live by any moral code? Then don't. I personally am glad we have them. Thy shall not kill. Does that bother you? Maybe we should do away with that as well.


ok, let me repeat what I said earlier: how is gay marraige a moral issue? How is it part of a moral code? In short, *where is the issue of morality here??*

"Thou shalt not kill" is not the same. Killing does harm to another person, and hence is immoral. Gay marraige does harm to no one. There's no comparision.

edit:
Funny how we blame the entire Catholic faith for the evils of certain preists.
No, it's not funny, and it's not irrational either. The Catholic Church is a structured hierarchy, and there was a SYSTEMATIC effort to cover up the "evils of certain priests." This was not just a few rouge priests. Very highly placed church officials concealed and were otherwise accessory to this misconduct even if they themselves were not guilty of it. Even when the whole thing broke the Church continued to hide and cover. And it came from the highest levels. Therefore although we cannot blame the faith per se, nor the average Catholic on the street, it is entirely reasonable and necessary to blame the church as an institution.

jxyama
Jul 31, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by brogers
To say that the Catholic Church should have no say so in this or any matter is a joke. They have an agenda just like every oraganization in the world including the Gay community. Don't talk about living free and then trash the Church for having an opinion and pushing their agenda.

except there's a slight difference.

subscribing to catholicism (or any other religion) is by choice - might be a very forced choice - but it's still a choice.

though inconclusive, definite argument can be made that the sexual orientation is, at the very least, partially genetic/hereditary, which a person has no choice.

this is an important difference.

to make an "extreme" analogy - what if there was a law preventing anyone of black heritage from getting married? should KKK's opposition to modify such a law be regarded in the same light as black activists' trying to change it?

[disclaimer] above is an example. EXAMPLE. no judgement is made or to be passed on my use of black heritage, KKK, etc. i'm not saying catholic church is being a KKK in the gay marriage issue. don't flame on the specifics of this example. [\disclaimer]

QCassidy352
Jul 31, 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by FriarTuck
Why just any two people? Why two? Why not three? Why not twenty?

Don't harsh my mellow with your oppressive legalisms, man.

I can't tell if you're being serious (I would guess not) but why in fact not? Who does it hurt to have a 3 person marraige? Can you think of any rational argument against it?

brogers
Jul 31, 2003, 02:22 PM
Funny how we blame the entire Catholic faith for the evils of certain preists. Funny how we trash God or whatever deity is out there whenever we think He/She might restrict our lives. Funny how we preach free speech and living free, but when someone from the church has an opinion, we kick and scream and wonder why they even have a say-so.

I'm not Catholic, but I am Baptist which might make me pretty scarry to some of the people on these boards. To say that the Catholic Church should have no say so in this or any matter is a joke. They have an agenda just like every oraganization in the world including the Gay community. Don't talk about living free and then trash the Church for having an opinion and pushing their agenda.

Don't want to live by any moral code? Then don't. I personally am glad we have them. Thy shall not kill. Does that bother you? Maybe we should do away with that as well.

And finally, someone said Religion caused the Holocaust and other terrible events. WRONG. Hitler gave us the Holocaust. Are we are blaming religion again for the sins of the few? Looks that way to me.

zim
Jul 31, 2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by brogers
Funny how we blame the entire Catholic faith for the evils of certain preists. Funny how we trash God or whatever deity is out there whenever we think He/She might restrict our lives. Funny how we preach free speech and living free, but when someone from the church has an opinion, we kick and scream and wonder why they even have a say-so.

I'm not Catholic, but I am Baptist which might make me pretty scarry to some of the people on these boards. To say that the Catholic Church should have no say so in this or any matter is a joke. They have an agenda just like every oraganization in the world including the Gay community. Don't talk about living free and then trash the Church for having an opinion and pushing their agenda.

Don't want to live by any moral code? Then don't. I personally am glad we have them. Thy shall not kill. Does that bother you? Maybe we should do away with that as well.

And finally, someone said Religion caused the Holocaust and other terrible events. WRONG. Hitler gave us the Holocaust. Are we are blaming religion again for the sins of the few? Looks that way to me.

In my defense, I want to make it clear that I was not intending on bashing the Catholic church, they have the right to their views. I am more angered towards our president who suggest that we adopt their statements as constitutional law. Look at the way he made his statement allowing for a long drawn out pause after the word sinners.

However, I do feel that the Catholic church is to blame for a majority of people's prejudices.

I find it sort of ironic that within the same year that the sodomy laws were found unconstitutional, we are debating the manner in which people will conduct marriage.

Moral codes can be questioned as to where there origins stem from, but regardless as to their place in time, I do not recall there being a you shall not marry of same sex commandment. My words are less harsh as to how the Pope addressed the issue, I am purely voicing my own opinion, not dictating how others should live their lives. My opinions do not harm anyone else free will to live, nor do they intrude on the privacy of others life styles.

brogers
Jul 31, 2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
except there's a slight difference.

subscribing to catholicism (or any other religion) is by choice - might be a very forced choice - but it's still a choice.

though inconclusive, definite argument can be made that the sexual orientation is, at the very least, partially genetic/hereditary, which a person has no choice.

this is an important difference.

to make an "extreme" analogy - what if there was a law preventing anyone of black heritage from getting married? should KKK's opposition to modify such a law be regarded in the same light as black activists' trying to change it?

[disclaimer] above is an example. EXAMPLE. no judgement is made or to be passed on my use of black heritage, KKK, etc. i'm not saying catholic church is being a KKK in the gay marriage issue. don't flame on the specifics of this example. [\disclaimer]


I apoligize that my original post hit twice. Not sure how that happened. Anyway, I disagree with your argument. A entire race of people is very different than a lifestyle or hereditary issue WITHIN a race of people. The church can disagree with Gay marriages just the same as another group can disagree with handguns for convicted felons....just an example. Don't flame me for gun issues. The Catholic church is not trying to supress a race of people, but rather disagreeing with what a group of people can do legally.

jxyama
Jul 31, 2003, 02:49 PM
i guess all i meant to say is, if a man is gay, it was (arguably, but most likely) not his choice to be gay. based on this:

should he be denied the rights and previledges (in this case, marriage) that are extended to others (straight people) solely because of something he had no choice over?

citing your example, convict had a choice on his actions. but being gay isn't really about choice, i think...

FriarTuck
Jul 31, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
I can't tell if you're being serious (I would guess not) but why in fact not? Who does it hurt to have a 3 person marraige? Can you think of any rational argument against it?

I would have thought you would go to your buddy Ben Franklin for some wisdom on this:

It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World.

I'm not interested in debating moral relativism, post-modernism, or natural law. I think the internet is just about the worst place to do that. Just chiming in with an observation.

Cheers!

brogers
Jul 31, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
i guess all i meant to say is, if a man is gay, he can only love another man. it was (arguably, but most likely) not his choice to be gay. based on this:

should he be denied the rights and previledges (in this case, marriage) that are extended to others (straight people) solely because of something he had no choice over?

This is truely an interesting argument and one worth concidering. However, my original post was to be sure that even the church have a right to agree or disagree with this issue....moral or otherwise and doing so does not make them remotely close to being arrigant or two faced and certainly not racist or any other thing.

Ugg
Jul 31, 2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by brogers
And finally, someone said Religion caused the Holocaust and other terrible events. WRONG. Hitler gave us the Holocaust. Are we are blaming religion again for the sins of the few? Looks that way to me.

Religion was the reason for the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, the problems in N. Ireland, the problems in Palestine. It's convenient to blame the problems on a person but it is not historically correct nor is it correct to blame it all on religion. Economic factors come into play as well. Religion though, has caused as much suffering as it has cured it.

The pope and the catholic church are out of touch with reality. Whether it be about celibacy (imposed by the church, not god or the bible), gay marriage, contraception, they are simply out of touch with the world as it exists and want to impose some outdated and dangerous beliefs on the world at large when they should be concerned with the viability of the church itself.

jxyama
Jul 31, 2003, 03:07 PM
brogers:

yeah, i agree. i don't really consider the catholic church to be arrogant or racist, etc. i understand that they are pursuing their own interest. while i don't really agree with their opinion, they certainly have the right to express them. for that, i'm not really mad.

i guess what i've been writing is basically the reason why i think same-sex marriage should be permitted. it's my opinion and makes sense to me. but again, others are entitled to their opinions... i just hope that maybe some people will pick up something from my "logic" and perhaps think some about this issue to form their own conclusion.

jayscheuerle
Jul 31, 2003, 04:00 PM
Marriage has traditionally been a religious institution, and that is fine. The problem is that the government uses marriage to define certain rights and privileges, which violates the separation of church and state. If religious orders want to define marriage from a legal standpoint, they need to agree to drop all associated perks (financial and legal) that are associated with marriage and keep it separate from a legally binding "union" that would be the only type of entered relationship recognized by the government. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, etc. would all be eligible for partner's "rights" and they would also be susceptible to the penalties that occur when such unions go south.

If the Pope wants marriage to himself, I say "let him have it", but knock the legs out from underneath it so that the only place it is officially recognized is within the church itself. Once married, couples could apply for "union" status if they desired the associated perks. After a while, "marriage" would lose it's meaning or it would be applied erroneously (with no legal ramifications) to what on paper was only referred to as a sanctioned union.

Why is this so hard? - j

Ugg
Jul 31, 2003, 04:07 PM
Does anyone else find the back to back announcements to be slightly odd? How much ya wanna bet that this was orchestrated! gw really couldn't take a stand on this until he had some powerful backing so he talks to the pope and lo and behold, they too are going to release a report......

macfan
Jul 31, 2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle


If the Pope wants marriage to himself, I say "let him have it"...

Is the humor in that statement lost on anyone?

zim,
In my defense, I want to make it clear that I was not intending on bashing the Catholic church ...

I do feel that the Catholic church is to blame for a majority of people's prejudices.

Yikes!

Let's have a little fun with that from another perspective:
"In my defense, I want to make it clear that I was not intending on bashing homosexuals ...
I do feel homosexuals are to blame for a massive moral decline in society."

jxyama,

except there's a slight difference.

subscribing to catholicism (or any other religion) is by choice - might be a very forced choice - but it's still a choice.

though inconclusive, definite argument can be made that the sexual orientation is, at the very least, partially genetic/hereditary, which a person has no choice.

this is an important difference.

I don't see that as an important difference at all. Whether one chooses to push an agenda to have the state support one's sexual orientaion is a choice, just like it is a choice for the Catholic church to decide whether they will support legalization of such unions. Besides, there are those Catholics who could simply argue that they do not have a choice in being opposed to such unions because they were baciscally born Catholic, or were compelled by God to believe the way they do!

Ambrose Chapel,
Again, why are they so scared that legally recognizing same-sex marriages will destroy heterosexual marriages?

I do not believe that it would destroy marriages, but it may well dilute and diminsh the meaning and purpose of marriage as many Americans hold it to be. Marriage is not just about rights. It is about the responsibility of one generation to the next. It is about a societal ideal of what the best way to raise childern etc. happens to be. Treating marriage as simply a contract between two people to get benefits from others in society diminishes marriage in a society, just as treating cohabitation of a heterosexual couple as identical to a marriage relationship diminshes the marrigae relationship.

macfan
Jul 31, 2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Does anyone else find the back to back announcements to be slightly odd? How much ya wanna bet that this was orchestrated! gw really couldn't take a stand on this until he had some powerful backing so he talks to the pope and lo and behold, they too are going to release a report......

Ugg,

How 'bout a new ipod? ;)

Have you been following the news lately? Ever hear of a third variable? Hint: Canada.

jayscheuerle
Jul 31, 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I do not believe that it would destroy marriages, but it may well dilute and diminsh the meaning and purpose of marriage as many Americans hold it to be.

LOL!!

Have you seen the divorce rates in this country?

" 'Til death do us part." is a joke. How about " 'Til we get tired of each other or something better comes along."?

The only way that the meaning and purpose of marriage could get more diminished or diluted would be to allow people to marry house-plants. Sure it's serious to the doe-eyed couple on the altar (for the moment), but the message that I hear coming from broken-homed generation Y (as in "Y" get married?) is that marriage is no more than a piece of paper.

I've been married almost 9 years, but I'm not going to declare that the love my wife and I share has any more depth than that shared by a gay couple that's been together for that long. That's beyond my knowledge regardless of how long we're getting along at the moment!

For much of todays youth, marriage has been destroyed.

- j

rainman::|:|
Jul 31, 2003, 05:42 PM
i just think this is all too funny. History MUST repeat itself, there is no other way, i have come to realize. Gays are just like any other group of people ever discriminated against, our perspective is just messed up. We see past civil rights issues, like women's liberation and slavery, long ago in the distance, all nicely played out for us. But we're just cresting the hill on the gay civil rights movement... I hear people say things like "if i lived in the times of the civil war, i wouldn't have been racist", etc... YES you probably would have, the idea that black people are animals seems absurd now but the idea that gay people choose to be gay (and are denied basic rights) will seem absurd to our grandchildren. And of course, racism/slavery and sexism were both based on that wonderful book The Bible, as was the holocaust. So stop spouting your little vaguely-worded passages at me... You would probably just ignore it (like you do the other 99% of deuteronomy, let alone the rest of the bible) if your church weren't using it as a political sword.

And screw moral decline, gays have been around since the dawn of time, if you want an explanation as to why things have gone to hell lately, look for things that have come into existance recently... technology, globalization, whatever. The idea that gay people have just infected us and our children and ruined all things decent in the last 100 years is TOTALLY illogical, gay people were heavily documented during the Rennaisance (most of the movement's key players, in fact, you owe us more than you know), ancient rome, ancient egypt...

it makes me sick to think that the US can participate in such nonsecular nonsense. We escaped our home country because of church opression, one would think we'd be less likely to allow it's existance.

History will be ashamed of the homophobes. I just hope they realized that not everyone was in favor of keeping a biologically different group of people void of basic rights.

As has been pointed out, gays aren't demeaning marriage... You guys had your chance, and look what came of it... Namely, The Bachelor, Married by America... It's our turn now. Before you make it even more 'meaningless' for us.

pnw

jxyama
Jul 31, 2003, 08:06 PM
macfan:

i just wanted to point out that homosexuals are denied the basic (for others) civil right to get married when being homosexual is not really by choice.

if there was a law that discriminated someone for factors one cannot control or have a choice over, i feel that makes for a much more compelling reason to fight the law than a conflict of viewpoint. for the former is an actual discrimination but the latter is a matter of civil/public opinion.

macfan
Jul 31, 2003, 08:56 PM
I understand the argument, but I also believe that legal recognition of homosexual marriage is an imposition on the rights of those who do not wish to recognize it, and pay for it, as a legitimate form of marriage.

zim
Jul 31, 2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I understand the argument, but I also believe that legal recognition of homosexual marriage is an imposition on the rights of those who do not wish to recognize it, and pay for it, as a legitimate form of marriage.

What do you mean by "pay for it"? Are you suggesting that taxpayers would have to pay money in support of same sex marriages? Sorry if I read into the comment wrong.

I also question how this would impose upon those who do not wish to recognize it? We are not debating smokers rights here, or which has an effect on those who select not to smoke, we are talking about an agreement between two people.

My fiance and I are getting our marriage license this week and its 50 bucks, I don't see any tax payers helping out with that. On top of the $50 we have to pay for blood work, marriage is not funded... again, if I read into your comment wrong, I apologize, I am more fueled up over the 50 dollar fee that I just found out about.

jadariv
Jul 31, 2003, 11:02 PM
Take this from a married guy. Married people pay more in taxes than single people.

Plus, in my mind, if you build an accepting environment where homosexual men feel they can enter longstanding relationships that matter. Isn't that going to cut down on some of the risky sexual behavior that causes aids to be prevalent in that population, thereby cutting down on health related costs.

Sounds fiscally responsible to me.

funkywhat2
Aug 1, 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by jadariv
Take this from a married guy. Married people pay more in taxes than single people.

Plus, in my mind, if you build an accepting environment where homosexual men feel they can enter longstanding relationships that matter. Isn't that going to cut down on some of the risky sexual behavior that causes aids to be prevalent in that population, thereby cutting down on health related costs.

Sounds fiscally responsible to me.

Trickle-down Homosexuality? I like it!:D

This pope guy, he must have a very sandy v*****. Very sandy. Why should he care what people do behind closed doors? He ought to just say "Yeah, whatever, let 'em burn in Hell." That's not to say that I feel that gays should burn in Hell (assuming there is one), I happen to be a supporter of gay marrages in this country.

I don't care so much aboout what the pope says. (But don't you just love his hat?) What really pisses me off is Bush. Marrage should not be a federal thing, at all, heterosexual or homosexual. He really should have side-stepped this one, because if it all goes south, it's not going to be pretty. The fact that he gets his personal politics involded also gets me angry, but all politicians do that.

This free country crap my parents and school drive into me also make me annoyed. We prance around like we're the greatest, the richest, the (insert quality here) but then we get spanked around by many european countries and get pulled around on a leash by special interest groups. Americans are very biggoted, and it makes me ashmed to be one.

jayscheuerle
Aug 1, 2003, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by jxyama
...being homosexual is not really by choice.


And what if it were?

It's a choice about sexual preference here, not whether or not to kick your dog! The necessity to legislate what adults do with their own bodies in order to validate an opposing stance is both heavy-handed and egomaniacal.

What amazes me are the homosexuals who remain Catholic. That's some serious self-hatred there...

Hetero or Homo, for 99% of the time (15 mins. a day every day, 45 mins. twice a week?), we're not having sex. We're either sleeping or at work, and hopefully spend the few remaining hours of the day either doing stuff for ourselves, with our friends, or if we're lucky enough, with someone we love. We have dinner, see movies, do laundry, go hiking... this is not stuff of sex, this is companionship. To deny people the legal recognition of their finding someone that they consider worthy of their love and future is arrogant.

What does the Pope know of physical love? Or even physical contact for that matter. Has he ever walked down the street holding someone's hand? Has he ever smoldered just looking into someone's eyes? Actually, I don't want to know these answers...

Nice guy perhaps, but he's coming off as an arrogant idiot.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether I was referencing Bush or Pope-man.

- j

Moxiemike
Aug 1, 2003, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
And what if it were?

It's a choice about sexual preference here, not whether or not to kick your dog! The necessity to legislate what adults do with their own bodies in order to validate an opposing stance is both heavy-handed and egomaniacal.

What amazes me are the homosexuals who remain Catholic. That's some serious self-hatred there...

Hetero or Homo, for 99% of the time (15 mins. a day every day, 45 mins. twice a week?), we're not having sex. We're either sleeping or at work, and hopefully spend the few remaining hours of the day either doing stuff for ourselves, with our friends, or if we're lucky enough, with someone we love. We have dinner, see movies, do laundry, go hiking... this is not stuff of sex, this is companionship. To deny people the legal recognition of their finding someone that they consider worthy of their love and future is arrogant.

What does the Pope know of physical love? Or even physical contact for that matter. Has he ever walked down the street holding someone's hand? Has he ever smoldered just looking into someone's eyes? Actually, I don't want to know these answers...

Nice guy perhaps, but he's coming off as an arrogant idiot.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether I was referencing Bush or Pope-man.

- j

I don't think Bush is capable of loving. ;)

He seems to be a man full of ignorance, and love is surely not an emotion of the ignorant.

jayscheuerle
Aug 1, 2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
... love is surely not an emotion of the ignorant.

Sure it is. Look at PETA!

:D

Moxiemike
Aug 1, 2003, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Sure it is. Look at PETA!

:D

Nah. That's called an agenda disguised as love. ;)

wdlove
Aug 1, 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
Religion was the reason for the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, the problems in N. Ireland, the problems in Palestine. It's convenient to blame the problems on a person but it is not historically correct nor is it correct to blame it all on religion. Economic factors come into play as well. Religion though, has caused as much suffering as it has cured it.

The pope and the catholic church are out of touch with reality. Whether it be about celibacy (imposed by the church, not god or the bible), gay marriage, contraception, they are simply out of touch with the world as it exists and want to impose some outdated and dangerous beliefs on the world at large when they should be concerned with the viability of the church itself.

Your forgetting that the God that influenced the written word in the Bible doesn't change his mind like humans. He is the same God yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Jesus did not change the law regarding homosexuality. The Church has the right to it's beliefs. If someone disagrees with the teaching of there particular church they are free to leave. It is wrong for a politician or anyone else to claim to be a Catholic, but go against the basic tennants of that religion!

rainman::|:|
Aug 1, 2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Your forgetting that the God that influenced the written word in the Bible doesn't change his mind like humans. He is the same God yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Jesus did not change the law regarding homosexuality. The Church has the right to it's beliefs. If someone disagrees with the teaching of there particular church they are free to leave. It is wrong for a politician or anyone else to claim to be a Catholic, but go against the basic tennants of that religion!

OK then, why is the bible today different from the bible that was written by the 40 men who were led by God? Because over centuries, it has been manipulated in every possible way by human beings for their own agendas, and God has been suspiciously silent in regards to restoring His alleged word. The original Bible says absolutely nothing about homosexuals WHATSOEVER, except implying gay relationships in both Ruth & Naiome and David & Jonathan. Most of the passages that are incorrectly quoted against gays refer to pagan fertility rituals that were considered abhorrent by God. Of course, it should also be noted that this is the same book that says you cannot eat pork, but you can eat a wide variety of insects.

To quote Jesus-- You hypocryte. He also referred to people that mixed old religion and contemporary politics as snakes full of venom and dancing skeletons. Jesus was not amused by people quoting the old testamant, since he came to invalidate it.

pnw

macfan
Aug 1, 2003, 11:00 PM
Jesus was not amused by people quoting the old testamant, since he came to invalidate it. --pnw on Jesus

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. --Jesus on Jesus

The law and the prophets, for those who don't know, is the old testament.

MrMacMan
Aug 1, 2003, 11:07 PM
If GOD cared SO MUCH about being against Homosexual Marriage, WHY DOESN'T GOD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?


Everyone says 'god' this and 'god' that.

Comeon, if god really hated Homosexuals as stated by Bush and the Pope why did God Create the idea of Homosexuals?


Hello?

Conflict of Intrest?

I'm tired of this constant bickering.

edit: Based on the idea that god is all powerfull god should be able to deal with such a 'atrocity' as one person put it after hearing the idea of gay marriage.

No one is going to touch it, if Dem's do nothing then they lose the gay vote to (green party anyone?) and if they do stick up for them Social-Right Wingers are going to call them 'pro-gay' which I don't think is such a bad thing...

macfan
Aug 1, 2003, 11:48 PM
MrMacman,
You are incorrect when you say that the Pope or Bush stated that God hates homosexuals.

brogers
Aug 1, 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
I don't think Bush is capable of loving. ;)

He seems to be a man full of ignorance, and love is surely not an emotion of the ignorant.

So now we are ignorant for our views. This is just wrong. I am pro life. If you disagree with me then I am ignorant? I am against gay marriages so I am incapable of love and ignorant? My kids are ignorant to the ways of the world, but they love their parents. I don't get your point. Strange idea there.

wdlove
Aug 2, 2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
OK then, why is the bible today different from the bible that was written by the 40 men who were led by God? Because over centuries, it has been manipulated in every possible way by human beings for their own agendas, and God has been suspiciously silent in regards to restoring His alleged word. The original Bible says absolutely nothing about homosexuals WHATSOEVER, except implying gay relationships in both Ruth & Naiome and David & Jonathan. Most of the passages that are incorrectly quoted against gays refer to pagan fertility rituals that were considered abhorrent by God. Of course, it should also be noted that this is the same book that says you cannot eat pork, but you can eat a wide variety of insects.

To quote Jesus-- You hypocryte. He also referred to people that mixed old religion and contemporary politics as snakes full of venom and dancing skeletons. Jesus was not amused by people quoting the old testamant, since he came to invalidate it.

pnw

The part about the changing Bible I agree. The church that I attend focuses on the Greek and Hebrew languages. It's by not understanding the words used to write the Bible that causes false interpretations.

Jesus said "I came to make the words of the Old Testament flesh." To fulfill the prophecies and make them real. Isaiah spoke of the coming of Jesus and his death on the cross. He rebuked the Pharisees for being clean on the outside but not the inside. That all food was clean, it's not what we take in that is unclean, for it goes out into the sewer. It's our words that do the damage.

Our church has a ministry to the homosexual community. It's the physical act that God was against. We love and pray for everyone!

Moxiemike
Aug 2, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by brogers
So now we are ignorant for our views. This is just wrong. I am pro life. If you disagree with me then I am ignorant? I am against gay marriages so I am incapable of love and ignorant? My kids are ignorant to the ways of the world, but they love their parents. I don't get your point. Strange idea there.

From what i've seen and heard from Bush, he SURELY is an ignorant man. I've never heard you talk brogers, but i'm sure if you have a conversation with me about being pro-life and come across as a well informed and intelligent debater, then you won't be ignorant.

Children are more perceptive than you'd believe. They're surely not ignorant to the ways of the world....maybe in your eyes, you think your children are ignorant to the ways of the world.

That would be your fault as their parent. They're only as ignorant as you allow them to be. ;)

m

bobindashadows
Aug 6, 2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by brogers
So now we are ignorant for our views. This is just wrong. I am pro life. If you disagree with me then I am ignorant? I am against gay marriages so I am incapable of love and ignorant? My kids are ignorant to the ways of the world, but they love their parents. I don't get your point. Strange idea there.

First of all, I almost got banned for calling someone ignorant. I see "ignorant"s flying left and right all over the place. I won't say why i think that is, it'll only get me in more trouble.

Second of all, I'd like to say that I am Christian, but not Catholic. That's because I believe that gays were created by God, and that he doesn't really care.

But MrMacMan, if you (and in-your-face atheists, see below) were truly familiar with Christianity, you'd understand this: God doesn't intervene because life isn't about God fixing things. It's about living life through difficulties with those you love. If God fixed everything for us, we wouldn't learn anything. Life is about struggle, and experiencing that struggle and getting something out of it. Terrible, terrible things happen in the world. But we will always be able to learn things from them. To quote a guy on O'Reilly's radio factor: "You should leave your objectivity at the door, mr o'reilly! Because I'm a proud atheist, and I don't believe in your "God"! I don't believe in a "God" that sits idly by while people get murdered, babies get raped, *beep*" and he got Cut off. If there weren't deviants in the world, then how would we teach ourselves what is wrong? God doesn't want us all to be the same, which I feel would be the result if He came in and fixed things every time something bad happened.

I think the Catholic church... well I don't know, it's gotten pretty freakin messed up from the time of Jesus. I personally think it doesn't NEED a big hierarchy anymore, since they aren't physical, political force like they were in the middle ages and such. They don't have an army anymore. The vatican - how big is it? Isn't it like 17 square miles? maybe not, but it's freakin tiny. It isn't the political force it used to be, so why have the hierarchy? Because it's tradition? The hierarchy wasn't tradition before they put it into place! It was just Jesus and his followers, and then it was just the followers.

And "in-your-face" atheists are atheists who try to press their belief on others, even though they don't realize they have a belief. (the belief being they don't believe in any faith) I think religion should be a private matter, and let me explain something to those who are going "CHURH AND STATE ARE SEPERATE!!11!1!1!!! WTF OMG LOL" - There has not yet been a President who has been Atheist. (as far as I know - maybe some were atheists behind closed doors but said that they believed in something) Whether you want to believe it or not, every president has had his religious beliefs affect him at one point or another. Each president does what he (or she, god forbid Hillary gets elected, or somebody else later on) believes is in the best interest in the country. Just because you don't agree does not make it illegal because of church and state laws. As I said before, every president has had his religious beliefs affect them at one point. It's personally my opinion that you all just hate GWB, and this is one reason why you can spread your hate. If you want to take all the religious people out of the government, go right ahead. You'll find yourself in anarchy.

As for the guy who was yelling about divorce rates - yeah, it's a problem. I personally think it needs to be solved. It's my opinion that it's the spread of liberal views on sex that cause it. Todays' youth (myself included in the group) are for the most part solely motivated socially by sex. There was a debate at my school, which is mostly liberal, i'd say 3:1 liberal:conservative, and there was a public debate we all had to be at about sex in high school. The conservative guys talked about how the value of sex has been destroyed, brought up some stats about how teenagers who have sex willy-nilly more frequently end up destitute, and also some stats about how having sex with some random "hot guy" hurt the girls self-images and self-esteem. The liberal side was mostly dumbfounded. Mostly the point was "sex is a wonderful experience and should be enjoyed by all." This is the trend that I believe is destroying marriage, and it's the fault of the liberals.

I sure hope I don't get banned for this. My last post against liberals nearly did it.

[edit] for safety, removed some "you"s and "your"s.

jayscheuerle
Aug 6, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
I sure hope I don't get banned for this. My last post against liberals nearly did it.

Perhaps it was just the lack of logic combined with angry defensiveness that did it?

:rolleyes:

bobindashadows
Aug 6, 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Perhaps it was just the lack of logic combined with angry defensiveness that did it?

:rolleyes:

Well, thank you for pointing out how I lacked logic. You got your point across real well there. And actually, I wasn't being defensive, It was really more of an attack on ignorance, but I know i probably should've been banned for it.

Sayhey
Aug 6, 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
...And "in-your-face" atheists are atheists who try to press their belief on others, even though they don't realize they have a belief. (the belief being they don't believe in any faith) I think religion should be a private matter, and let me explain something to those who are going "CHURH AND STATE ARE SEPERATE!!11!1!1!!! WTF OMG LOL" - There has not yet been a President who has been Atheist. (as far as I know - maybe some were atheists behind closed doors but said that they believed in something) Whether you want to believe it or not, every president has had his religious beliefs affect him at one point or another. Each president does what he (or she, god forbid Hillary gets elected, or somebody else later on) believes is in the best interest in the country. Just because you don't agree does not make it illegal because of church and state laws. As I said before, every president has had his religious beliefs affect them at one point. It's personally my opinion that you all just hate GWB, and this is one reason why you can spread your hate. If you want to take all the religious people out of the government, go right ahead. You'll find yourself in anarchy.

... It's my opinion that it's the spread of liberal views on sex that cause it...

There is a huge, huge difference between people of faith who bring their religious based outlooks on life into the arena of politics and those who wish to have religious doctrine determine state policy. The Vatican paper falls into the latter category.

With all the problems we have today about sex I would take them over the hypocritical, misogynistic, and just downright strange views of sex that held sway in my youth. There doesn't have to be a contradiction between enjoyment of sex and a responsible attitude towards others.

Oh yeah, I need a haircut too.

XnavxeMiyyep
Aug 6, 2003, 03:42 PM
"Moral" and "Immoral" are opinions. Almost every subject has its share of people who believe it is "moral" or "immoral". Why should a law be based on whether something is "immoral"? Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone any more than a regular marriage, so why should it be illegal just because there are people who think it is "immoral"? They can continue to believe so, but why should homosexuals be punished because of their beliefs?

If your religion doesn't support gay marriage, then don't be involved in one. This is the same with other topics. If you dislike pornography, don't look at it.:eek: If you think you shouldn't get an abortion, then don't get one. If you think sex is too sacred to have before marriage, then don't have sex. It's that simple.

jayscheuerle
Aug 6, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
"Moral" and "Immoral" are opinions.

Not so much opinions, but consensuses (consensae?) that shift according to the times. There is no absolute when it comes to behavior, though almost everyone agrees that something like murder is immoral and abhorrent (yet we can all think of situations where it would be justified).

We are living in a time where communication with cultures far different than ours is practically instantaneous. It is very easy to force our beliefs upon others because we see an absolute moral stance. This is culture clash, and we see it with countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa every day. Cutting off someone's hand for shoplifting is the "right" thing to do in some countries.

Many Western countries, where homosexuals have come out as friends and neighbors who just happen to enjoy the company of their own sex, are beginning to see that there is nothing inherently "wrong" or even troublesome about this. It's just another way and as with any minority, a struggle to gain acceptance by the majority is taking place. Gays are generally represented on television in a similar way to how blacks were represented on film in the early part of the last century–as comic relief. The Pope and GW are nothing but bigots who aren't allowing gays and lesbians to eat at the lunch counter or sit down on the bus.

Just like blacks, who have a history month to help point out the fact that many of the things that we take for granted were invented by black people, gays and lesbians have contributed greatly to society, though often under the guise of being straight. Perhaps we need a Gay History Month!

Attempts to regulate everything for everybody will always fail.

- j

MacViolinist
Aug 15, 2003, 03:02 PM
There are some mistakes common to almost all of the posts in this thread that bother me.

1. There seems to be an assumption that the pope does not have a right to speak his mind on this issue.

Please keep in mind that the pope is an elected representative of a certain group of people. Just as W. doesn't represent my political (or religious, I might add) ideals, the pope does not speak for all Catholics on this issue. One is not required to agree with all of the pope's interpretations of doctrine in order to be a Catholic. He is, however, accorded the right to free speech in this country just as anyone else is, and no matter how forceful his language may be, it is still his right to speak it, and to use whatever pressure he can to lobby.

2. Marriage has always been a religious issue. Just because it has been co-opted by the government though a gross violation of the separation between church and state does not make it less of a religious issue and more of a political one. In other words, focus on the issue at hand. If you desire equal rights and recognition from the government then go after that and demand that the government take it's hand out of marriage altogether, or, if you will, that it tax and punish homosexual unions in the same way that it screws straight unions. Make sure that you are not arguing for equality by a religion's standards while at the same time saying it's not a moral issue.

3. It should be noted that the Catholic church doesn't frown on homosexuality per se, but on all sexual activity outside of marriage. It is, at least in that sense, blind to the nature of the act, and recognizes fornication only as fornication and adultery only as adultery.

4. One person said something about blaming the institution as a whole rather than individuals. I don't remember if he/she was referring to the Catholic church specifically or religion in general. Either way, I think one should never blame an institution, ideology, or doctrine for the mistakes that individuals make. This anonymity is what provides a cover for the individuals responsible to continue in their actions. Never forget that for anything to happen, someone has to make a conscious decision to either do or allow it to happen. This goes for governments as well as businesses and religious institutions. It is irresponsible for us not to insist on individual accountability.


Ok. I'm done. Sorry for the length.