And again, the children argument comes up.

You are responding to the first post I made on this topic. Did someone else bring it up or are you referring to an age old argument?


So... those couples who are married but NOT trying for children should NOT be having sex, right?

Margo asked for nonreligious posts. But you seem to want to drag me into a religious discussion.

Correct. For Catholic couples, they vow to have children when they get married and they should do their best to keep that vow.

If you are not Catholic, you obviously live according to your own mores.


Seriously--if you really feel that marriage is for children, then all couples who do not WANT children should be denied marriage,

That is correct. Matrimony is the office of motherhood. If someone wants to be married but does not want children they are not permitted to be married in the Catholic Church.

Again, you are dragging this into a religious discussion. Is that what you want?


and all those who HAVE children should be forced to marry, right?

You are putting words in my mouth again. I still remember our last discussions. Please stick to what I've said. Not your projections upon me. Read my posts and respond to the words thereon.


And birth control should be thrown out the window, since sex is ONLY for children, and if you're not trying to have a child, you shouldn't be having sex--married or not.

And sex should then stop as soon as either half of the couple's sex organs no longer work, making that little blue pill worthless, since most men who need it are with women past childbearing age anyway. And menopause would be the beginning of the end for all couples. Should one couple lose their capacity for having children (emergency hysterectomy, or something like that), then the couple no longer should have sex, and should make SURE of that by sleeping in separate bedrooms, since marriage is ONLY for children, and well... if you can't have kids, you shouldn't be married.

If you want to have a non religious discussion with me on whether homosexuality is wrong, please respond to what I actually said in my last post on this thread.

If you want to debate Christian or Catholic doctrine on the matter of marriage and children, please start another thread.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hello again, De Maria:

OMG! Who can possibly argue with ignorance of this magnitude????

excon

All you have to do is walk into the HIV/AIDS wing of any hospital. There's no arguing the majority of the population therein.

But you aren't interested in intelligent discussion. That's why I rarely respond to your posts excon.

All you have to do is walk into the HIV/AIDS wing of any hospital. There's no arguing the majority of the population therein.How do you know if that AIDS patient at the hospital is gay?

How do you know if that AIDS patient at the hospital is gay?

Oh come on NH you know that you can JUST TELL when someone is gay. They have that "I am gay" vibe. :):)

I guess you missed the last round or you wouldn't be surprised. "People like me" don't believe in marriage - other people in that class are Attorneys. Attorneys don't believe in marriage either.

That's why I've never been married. Oh, no, wait, I'm wrong. I have.

Also beware - the poster is an expert at posting, waiting for your response, changing the original post - so you're talking to a ghost.

Obviously you're carrying a lot of baggage. I can only change my responses within the alloted time to edit. I believe everyone has that ability. Other than that I don't have the authority to change anyone's responses.

Wow you are one strong willed woman

I am a man.


to only have sex when you wish to procreate. No sex for the pure of enjoyment of sex for you.

That is where you are wrong. We don't have to worry about having children because we would love to have more children. So our sex is pure enjoyment.

On the other hand, you have to worry about condoms, about pills and about whether they have worked. So it is you that worries, not we.


I am glad that I did not marry my husband for the pure reason of having children. I am glad that I married my husband because he is my best friend, when children come into the picture it will be because our relationship is strong and whole. NOT because we got married. I could have easily had a baby before we were married...

That is wonderful for you. Obviously you either practice a different religion than I or you don't practice a religion which considers sex as a holy interaction between man and wife open to life.

But what does any of this have to do with the OP? Isn't this OP about homosexuality and the nonreligious reasons it is wrong?


You are wrong- same sex unions can have children. My aunt does...

Do you mean by artificial means or what?


Oh good lord you have to be kidding me. Can you honestly believe this? Have you done any research on AIDS and HIV? That myth was dispelled DECADES ago!

No it wasn't. Even today, everyone who goes to give blood is asked if they have come in contact with a homosexual before so doing? Why? Because homosexuals are prone to carry the disease.

How do you know if that AIDS patient at the hospital is gay?

I don't. But I know that the odds are that is the case.

How do I know? I worked at a large Cancer hospital for 10 years. I was aware of the makeup of the population of that hospital.

During that time, I also had information on many hospitals in my city. The percentages were the same for aids patients.

I no longer work in hospitals. But I have not heard that the percentages have changed.

I am a man..
My apologies




That is where you are wrong. We don't have to worry about having children because we would love to have more children. So our sex is pure enjoyment.

On the other hand, you have to worry about condoms, about pills and about whether or not they have worked. So it is you that worries, not we...

That is where you are wrong about me. We do not have to worry about any of those things. If we are blessed with a child (which I honestly hope we are) then that child will have been conceived in love. I do have to worry about pills. Fertility drugs- but I hope and pray that they work- alas that is another discussion.




That is wonderful for you. Obviously you either practice a different religion than I or you don't practice a religion which considers sex as a holy interaction between man and wife open to life.
Not that I feel I need to justify myself to you, but I am a Catholic. Married in a Catholic Church and attend mass on a weekly basis. That being said I understand the bible is a piece of literary work and open to interpretation. Heck this Sunday our Father gave a homily on a gospel reading and I got something totally different out of it then he did. Does that make my interpretation wrong. Nope...

I also believe that I should love and accept others just as Jesus did.


But what does any of this have to do with the OP? Isn't this OP about homosexuality and the nonreligious reasons why it is wrong?

This thread has had many different directions. This is just one of them.


Do you mean by artificial means or what??

Actually my Aunt was once married, her husband died at a young age. My Aunt was at the time pregnant. She decided not to lie to herself anymore and started dating her partner. They have been together ever since. It is the only family my cousin has ever known.




No it wasn't. Even today, everyone who goes to give blood is asked if they have come in contact with a homosexual before so doing? Why? Because homosexuals are prone to carry the disease.

They also ask you if you are feeling sick, if you recently have gotten a tattoo, or have any other diseases. I know this for a fact as my school just hosted a Red Cross Blood Drive.

I DARE you to report Excon for that. Seriously. Christians say things like that all the time, and most of the time it's just discussed further (as here) rather than being reported. Most of us non-Christians realize that of all religions, Christians are the most fervent about "knowing" that they're right or wrong--and all because THEIR holy book wasn't burned along with them when other religions got touchy about it.

Most Witches and other pagans lost their history and their grimoires when the Christians took ONE LINE from the Bible and went after witches and wise women with a vengeance--because they were different. Should we go back to THOSE days, too? I mean, the Bible says "thou shall not suffer a witch to live". Should I start watching my back, since obviously witchcraft is wrong according to the Bible? Just like, according to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong?

How DOES God think then? Has He appointed YOU to tell us? I mean, if He wants me to change my thinking, maybe He should pop down here and explain what he has against witches, other than that they don't worship Him. I mean, several hundred years of my "sisters" being burned is pretty drastic, don't you think? And if He really felt that way, and allowed it to go on that long--why is it okay to stop now, if you TRULY believe?

THAT is what drives me crazy about the whole Christian Principles thing: the fact that all you have to do is wait around 100 years or so, and a new interpretation of the Bible will prevail, and Christian Principles will change again.

As far as I know, Jesus said to spread the word about him, not to force others to believe in him. If I don't believe in him, I don't believe in his rules, and I should not have to live by them. Christian Principles, my right butt cheek. If we were living by Christian principles in this country, there would be no unwed mothers, no divorce, no hungry, no poor, no hate, people would forgive, there would be no extra-marital affairs, there wouldn't be pornography, etc.

And there's no way that you can tell me that with the majority of this country being Christian that the minority of other religions is causing ALL of these problems.

Look to yourself, first. If you have sinned, you repent, and don't sin again, right? Well, what is intolerance but hatred in the form of fear? You don't have to LIKE what someone else does, you just have to NOT DO IT YOURSELF. And you have to forgive those who trespass against you, or against god. It is not your place to judge them or hate them or belittle them, according to the Bible. It's your place to pray for them and forgive them and still treat them with compassion and love. GOD will judge, says the Bible.

So...if you don't agree with homosexuality--GREAT! Don't do it! If you don't want gay marriage, then go to a church that will not marry gays--but what the church and state do are completely separate. If you don't want your child adopted by gays--GREAT! You can choose your adoptive parents as a birthparent most times. But--because this country is based on the fact that all men are equal, you can not STOP gays from marrying, or adopting, or existing!
Get real... I was talking to EX.. not you. Dare me? Don't dare me.. I don't care.. this was addressed to HIM. I am not judging anyone... if he is upset... let HIM speak. K?

De Maria,

You came to this conversation late.

By the time YOU popped in here, we'd already covered a lot of the points you brought up again (like the procreation bit), and have continued the discussion down several veins, including those of religion and government.

Those of us non-Christians talking about religion now are responding to points made by Christians, and are basically just pointing out the flaws in those arguments.

I don't, by the way, worry about sex. I'd LOVE to have a child, and haven't used birth control in YEARS. Of course, I also am not a Christian, so do not have to live with that god's precepts of what sex is for (reproduction) and have always just been able to enjoy sex.

Get real ...i was talking to EX..not you. dare me? don't dare me..i don't care..this was addressed to HIM. I am not judging anyone....if he is upset...let HIM speak. K?

Just as an FYI when you post something on a public board anyone can comment. Synnen had every right to comment on your post, you made it a public post. Just so you are aware.

Thank for the info Tuscany! It was STILL addressed to Excon... and I am STILL entitled to MY opinion of HIS post... that is all I am saying. I was never going to report anyone and HE knows that... just my opinion of how Christains are treated.. and hmmm? I rest my case.

Funny, I could say the same thing about Christians.

None of the NON-Christians jumped all over my response. Just a Christian.

Funny how non-Christians are treated, hmmm?

[QUOTE]

Well duh, the framers of the constitution were predominantly Christians.


Then you should be saying "unfortunately the Country was founded by Christians"
Of the 55 colonial delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, 52 were members of

Christian churches.

Many of them, deists, belonged or attended because they would have been vilified had they not. T Jefferson declared himself a Christian with qualifications - only in the sense that he believed in what Jesus taught about how humans should behave towards one another.


there is no doubt about it; America was founded by Christians and the U. S. Constitution was based upon the eternal laws of God as revealed in the Bible. To think that the Ten Commandments are not historically relevant to the foundations of the American legal system is preposterous.

Nowhere in the US Constitution is God, god, a creator or any supernatural agent mentioned.

The principles in the Constitution were more largely based on the ideas of the Enlightenment and the 'rights of man' - those that humans have simply because they exist as thinking beings. Any of the supposed 10 C relevant to the foundations of US legal system were because they were universal, not something solely Judeo-Christian. The US has even declared itself to be NOT a Christian nation:

The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) contains the following Article XI:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen and as the said State have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. [emphasis added]

Synnen,

I didn't jump on anything you had to say regarding homosexuals... and all Christians are NOT created equal... but they are treated the same.. bummer

Hello again, sassy:

Cool. Jews like faygeles.

excon

I do too.. so what's your point?

Based on what I learned in school, people's sexual preference isn't quite decided until late teens. In fact people can be experimental at this time and experiment with members of the same sex.

In class, we learned that people are born in a continuum of sexual preference from none, to total same sex to completely bi to complete heterosexual.

Furthermore, what sex is a hermapherdite which is a person that has both external organs. What is a she male. Female appearance with male sexual organs and what are those that have SRS or (sexual re-assignment surgery).

I doub't you can put any though into "why homosexuality is wrong" without addressing the above mentioned issues.

I won't. It's food for thought.

I DARE you to report Excon for that. Seriously. Christians say things like that all the time, and most of the time it's just discussed further (as here) rather than being reported. Most of us non-Christians realize that of all religions, Christians are the most fervent about "knowing" that they're right or wrong--and all because THEIR holy book wasn't burned along with them when other religions got touchy about it.

Most Witches and other pagans lost their history and their grimoires when the Christians took ONE LINE from the Bible and went after witches and wise women with a vengeance--because they were different. Should we go back to THOSE days, too? I mean, the Bible says "thou shall not suffer a witch to live". Should I start watching my back, since obviously witchcraft is wrong according to the Bible? Just like, according to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong?

How DOES God think then? Has He appointed YOU to tell us? I mean, if He wants me to change my thinking, maybe He should pop down here and explain what he has against witches, other than that they don't worship Him. I mean, several hundred years of my "sisters" being burned is pretty drastic, don't you think? And if He really felt that way, and allowed it to go on that long--why is it okay to stop now, if you TRULY believe?

THAT is what drives me crazy about the whole Christian Principles thing: the fact that all you have to do is wait around 100 years or so, and a new interpretation of the Bible will prevail, and Christian Principles will change again.

As far as I know, Jesus said to spread the word about him, not to force others to believe in him. If I don't believe in him, I don't believe in his rules, and I should not have to live by them. Christian Principles, my right butt cheek. If we were living by Christian principles in this country, there would be no unwed mothers, no divorce, no hungry, no poor, no hate, people would forgive, there would be no extra-marital affairs, there wouldn't be pornography, etc.

And there's no way that you can tell me that with the majority of this country being Christian that the minority of other religions is causing ALL of these problems.

Look to yourself, first. If you have sinned, you repent, and don't sin again, right? Well, what is intolerance but hatred in the form of fear? You don't have to LIKE what someone else does, you just have to NOT DO IT YOURSELF. And you have to forgive those who trespass against you, or against god. It is not your place to judge them or hate them or belittle them, according to the Bible. It's your place to pray for them and forgive them and still treat them with compassion and love. GOD will judge, says the Bible.

So...if you don't agree with homosexuality--GREAT! Don't do it! If you don't want gay marriage, then go to a church that will not marry gays--but what the church and state do are completely separate. If you don't want your child adopted by gays--GREAT! You can choose your adoptive parents as a birthparent most times. But--because this country is based on the fact that all men are equal, you can not STOP gays from marrying, or adopting, or existing!

You sound so frustrated but I wonder why are you are torturing yourself on a religious forum anyway?
Maybe you so called atheist should just stay away from RELIGIOUS forums.. lol.. gees.. Why is that you come on religious forums and open up a discussion and then take offense at what we "religious" people have to say. If you are really wanting responses that agree with your beliefs and doctrines then why don't you spend more time on other discussion forum and just avoid this religious one.
Seriously.. I find it really ironic that athiests spend so much of their time and effort on religious forums. It seems to me that you just come here to harrasse believers about what they believe in an effort to promote your own beliefs. I think I speak for most believers here when I say we are not interested in athiestic beliefs, if we were we would be on an athiestic forum somewhere. So please if you want to have a civil debate about issues on a religious forum, be prepared to deal a difference in opinion in civil and respectful manner.

Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.


This question should be on a non-religious forum.

maybe you so called athiest should just stay away from RELIGIOUS forums..Don't you get it? Atheism IS a religion. They have every right to be here and show you the one and only TRUTH.

You sound so frustrated but i wonder why are you are torturing yourself on a religious forum anyway?
maybe you so called athiest should just stay away from RELIGIOUS forums.. lol .. gees.. Why is that you come on religious forums and open up a discussion and then take offense at what we "religious" people have to say. If you are really wanting responses that agree with your beliefs and doctrines then why dont you spend more time on other discussion forum and just avoid this religous one.
seriously.. i find it really ironic that athiests spend so much of their time and effort on religious forums. It seems to me that you just come here to harrasse believers about what they believe in an effort to promote your own beliefs. I think i speak for most believers here when i say we are not interested in athiestic beliefs, if we were we would be on an athiestic forum somewhere. So plse if you want to have a civil debate about issues on a religious forum, be prepared to deal a difference in opinion in civil and respectful manner.

What part of my earlier posts didn't you get? I never ever once said I was an atheist.

I'm a FIRM believer in Wicca. The goddess and the god, as well as the ancients and the elements, have my absolute faith.

I just don't worship YOUR god.

However, since it's "religious discussions" not "Christian discussions", and I have a religion, I believe that puts me on equal footing with you.

I'm not interested in converting to your Christian beliefs, either, but at least I have enough respect for them to KNOW what you believe. You don't have a CLUE about my religion, though.

I believe I have been civil--please point out to me where I have not used logical arguments to counter yours.

Again... just because I'm not of YOUR religion doesn't mean I don't have one of my own. And since you know so little about it, I've apparently been pushing mine less than you've pushed your own.

I am going to answer this question without referring to religion to answer it, as the question politely requests.

WHEN I WAS 12 YEARS OLD, MY MOTHER WHO WAS A NUN AND A VIRGIN BEFORE MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN, DIVORCED MY FATHER AND MOVED IN WITH A WOMAN. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT WAS A LIFECHANGING EXPERIENCE. SHE NEVER EXPLICITLY SAID SHE WAS A LESBIAN, BUT HER ACTIONS AND LIFESTYLE SHOWED ME THAT IS WHAT SHE WAS.
THIS TOOK MANY YEARS FOR ME TO PROCESS AND UNDERSTAND AND AT 36, THIS IS MY CONCLUSION:
FIRST off, I am not here to tell you whether homosexuality is wrong because I really don't know. I can only tell you what I feel. I know as a young girl, sexuality isn't something that I understood and now in my thirties I am just mastering my own comfort level with it.
Second, most people don't have any control over what they feel or what they desire, they do however, have control over how they act upon it. There are many reasons someone would deny their feelings of homosexuality, but not as many to become open and honest about them. I don't think you can find fault or judgement about how someone feels about another person, what comes into question is the choices and the lifestyle they make based on those feelings.
As a society, we have rules of law, issues of morality and ethics, as well as a standard of expectations of how to live and procreate. We have an understanding of religion and family that is intricately intertwined for many reasons. In order to preserve marriage and family, there must be the notion of keeping relationships heterosexual, it is critical to the survival as the patriarchal society that has dominated most cultures and societies worldwide, throughout history.

WITH THAT being said, it has NEVER stopped people from engaging in homosexual acts or relationships. For the most part, people go against everything they have ever been taught at school, home or in their church, when acting out those relationships. I don' t think the desire to be sexual with someone of the same sex, can be condemned, it however just a feeling and therefore, it is something that cannot be deemed "WRONG". What may be perceived as wrong, is going against the grain of society's expectations of how one should engage in appropriate relationships and act them out.

MAYBE to some it is wrong to live with someone of the same sex, or to have children together, but what I think is wrong is for people who are in heterosexual relationships that are unfaithful, unethical and abusive, to judge those that live different than themselves. It is hippocritical to judge others when those that judge do not live up to the standards that they hold others accountable to.
Moreover, homosexual relationships aren't easy to understand and they do have consequences that affect many different facets of their lives. Families are often ripped apart due to the realization of the gay lifestyle and they sometimes are ostracized from their family, profession and friends. NO ONE chooses to lose everything based upon how they feel about someone, sometimes the realization of being true to oneself overcomes the desire to be accepted by family, friends and their career. NOT only does one risk everything to become honest about their homosexual feelings, they often spend the rest of their life justifying their decisions, their lifestyle and their acknowledgement of who they are.

NO I don't think homosexuality is wrong, it is a choice to live out a lifestyle that coincides with their feelings of love for another person, that not everyone will agree with. It is inevitable. IT is unstoppable. NOT to be compared with choosing to kill, steal or abuse people, it is choosing to accept their feelings and hoping others will too. DO I understand the choice to live a gay lifestyle, no I don't. BUT that is because I am not gay. HOWEVER, I understand the ramifications of being in a relationship that is a lie because that is what society expects of you.

My mother has chosen to live out a gay lifestyle based upon how she FEELS about women. Does that mean I agree with it? I don't have to agree with it but I do have to love and respect her as my mother, because that is who she is. I was angry with her for many years, blamed her for breaking up our family and hurting my dad. BUT ULTIMATELY, her choice that I didn't understand then, has changed my outlook on life. I have become a more aware individual of things I don't understand, and accepting of that which I don't personally agree with. The only one I am responsible for is myself, my actions and my lifestyle. I cannot speak against, or judge the way another person chooses to live.

THAT is my truth and the way that I see it. I would rather live my life accepting others for who they are, not for who they love. I hope I can be true to myself and understand others who must do the same in their own life, in their way.. it isn't for me to judge, only to learn from.

I believe we were given free will for a reason, to use it, learn from it and grow to more spiritually evolved human beings. I don't understand homosexuality and I don't think I ever will, but I will never say it is wrong because who your heart loves isn't wrong, it just is. What you do with it may affect others, may have negative consequences and may create division and discord, but that doesn't mean being honest with who you are is wrong. WE tend to bash what we don't understand, instead of simply loving others who are different than ourselves. Disfunctional heterosexual relationships are wrong but they are supported because that is what we are taught to do. What we need to do is teach our children to accept that everyone is different and so are their choices, and sometimes our feelings have a way of affecting those choices.

I don't. But I know that the odds are that is the case.

How do I know? I worked at a large Cancer hospital for 10 years. I was aware of the makeup of the population of that hospital.

During that time, I also had information on many hospitals in my city. The percentages were the same for aids patients.

I no longer work in hospitals. But I have not heard that the percentages have changed.



Interesting statistics from the CDC:

AIDS cases reported in 2006
Male to male transmission 43.5%
Needle transmission 18%
Male to male plus needle transmission 5%
Heterosexual 32%
Other 1%

So it's 43.5% homosexual transmission; 56.6% other



All AIDS cases reported through 2006
Male to male transmission 48%
Injectable drug/needle transmission 25%
Male to male plus needle transmission 7%
Heterosexual 17.8%
Other 2%

48% homosexual; 52% other

Don't know whose argument these statistics support but found them interesting.

Obviously you're carrying a lot of baggage. I can only change my responses within the alloted time to edit. I believe everyone has that ability. Other than that I don't have the authority to change anyone's responses.



Did I say you changed anyone's responses but your own?

I am a man.

That is where you are wrong. We don't have to worry about having children because we would love to have more children. So our sex is pure enjoyment.




This is ENTIRELY too much information!

Interesting statistics from the CDC:

AIDS cases reported in 2006
Male to male transmission 43.5%
Needle transmission 18%
Male to male plus needle transmission 5%
Heterosexual 32%
Other 1%

So it's 43.5% homosexual transmission; 56.6% other



All AIDS cases reported through 2006
Male to male transmission 48%
Injectable drug/needle transmission 25%
Male to male plus needle transmission 7%
Heterosexual 17.8%
Other 2%

48% homosexual; 52% other

Don't know whose argument these statistics support but found them interesting.

Yes, But was you are neglecting to consider is the fact that Homosexual consist of only 2% of the population and yet account for 48% of the transmissions. Scary

Did I say you changed anyone's responses but your own?

You said I had changed mine. But you quoted me in your objection to my message. And the quote of my words in your message was exactly as I said it in my message.

This is ENTIRELY too much information!

I said that in response to someone else. No one is forcing you to read my messages.

I said that in response to someone else. No one is forcing you to read my messages.


I know but it's like watching a train wreck - can't tear my eyes away.

My apologies

No problem.


That is where you are wrong about me. We do not have to worry about any of those things. If we are blessed with a child (which I honestly hope we are) then that child will have been conceived in love. I do have to worry about pills. Fertility drugs- but I hope and pray that they work- alas that is another discussion.

Actually it is. Therefore so was your original objection.


Not that I feel I need to justify myself to you, but I am a Catholic. Married in a Catholic Church and attend mass on a weekly basis. That being said I understand the bible is a piece of literary work and open to interpretation.

Sounds as though you have a lot to learn about your Catholic faith:

According to Catholic Church teaching, Scripture is the Word of God:
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 81 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/81.htm)

And the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture must be interpreted according to the Tradition of the Church:

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 2 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#111)


Heck this Sunday our Father gave a homily on a gospel reading and I got something totally different out of it then he did. Does that make my interpretation wrong. Nope...

Yes.


I also believe that I should love and accept others just as Jesus did.

Jesus didn't accept anyone who did not repent of their sins.


This thread has had many different directions. This is just one of them.

Yeah, I'm just making a point. Atheists usually come to religious forum with an agenda and they don't care about usurping the threads for that agenda which is usually anti-Christian.


Actually my Aunt was once married, her husband died at a young age. My Aunt was at the time pregnant. She decided not to lie to herself anymore and started dating her partner. They have been together ever since. It is the only family my cousin has ever known.

And that proves that same sex unions do not conceive children.


They also ask you if you are feeling sick, if you recently have gotten a tattoo, or have any other diseases. I know this for a fact as my school just hosted a Red Cross Blood Drive.

I didn't say that there weren't other ways to catch the disease. But look at the statistics which someone posted in blue (JudyKay?) and notice the largest group suffering from AIDS.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Yes, But was you are neglecting to consider is the fact that Homosexual consist of only 2% of the population and yet account for 48% of the transmissions. Scary


I've seen that percentage as high as 10% -

As I said, I really don't know whose posture those statistics help or hurt -

I know but it's like watching a train wreck - can't tear my eyes away.

Its obvious that you don't like what I have to say. But your little smarmy comments just prove that you know your arguments don't hold water.

I've seen that percentage as high as 10% -

As I said, I really don't know whose posture those statistics help or hurt -

And you work in a courtroom supposedly helping battered women? That is scary.

Let me explain, even if the percentage of homosexuals in the population were 10%, the fact that they represent 48% of the population that suffers from AIDS is very bad. That is an argument against homosexual behavior never mind homosexual marriage.

You said I had changed mine. But you quoted me in your objection to my message. And the quote of my words in your message was exactly as I said it in my message.


Well, actually no one will ever know because this can only be "he said/she said."

Your post was extremely abusive. It had everything to do with me and nothing to do with the topic at hand. I responded in those words.

Your post was pulled, which caused my response to be pulled.

You then red flagged an earlier post of mine - and your red flag made no sense, by the way, given the content of the particular post you flagged - using my exact words.

The thread was then closed.

And you work in a courtroom supposedly helping battered women? That is scary.

Let me explain, even if the percentage of homosexuals in the population were 10%, the fact that they represent 48% of the population that suffers from AIDS is very bad. That is an argument against homosexual behavior never mind homosexual marriage.


I help battered women in the Courtroom? When do/did I do that?

I'm a liability investigator - I'm in and out of the Courtroom but I never said I "helped battered women." Even supposedly.

You know... I'm frankly getting annoyed at the atheist comments.

The strongest posters in this thread (that I have noticed--my apologies to those I miss) who are FOR the privileges of marriage to be non-discriminatory are:

1. Myself--Wiccan (NOT Atheist)
2. Tuscany --Roman Catholic (Christian)
3. excon - Jewish
4. Tal - I'm honestly not sure
5. Needkarma - Atheist
6. WVHiflyer - Unsure here too.

So... you (in general) keep calling those FOR gay marriage atheists, and telling us to go away since this is a Religious board, but:

A. Only one of the main 6 posting for gay marriage is a confirmed Atheist; and
B. Atheism is a religion too.

So... I agree this thread should be moved out of religious discussions, but it's funny how the "atheists" are accused of having an agenda--do not the Christians posting here have an equal and opposite "agenda" then?

PS... I have no idea what Judy's faith is, either. Sorry Judy... didn't mean to leave you out.

For those of you, who have never been hurt by other's comments - Judge the gay community.

For those of you, who have never felt different, been teased or ridiculed for being different - Point your finger at the gay community and tell them how horrible they are.

For those of you who have never felt overweight, underweight, too tall, too small - Stand up and let your negative voice and opinions be heard in reference to the Gay community.


For those of you, who never felt heartache from not being able to be with the one you love, whose hearts have never been broken - Lash out at the gay community for wanting to love.

But for all of those who know what it feels like to be different, to have your feelings hurt, to feel unloved and wanted by so many - remember that pain - and embrace all that share that pain - black, white, gay, bi, straight, tall, short - your brothers and sisters.

Don't try and stand in God's shoes - they will never fit any of us.

Wishing for peace,
Allheart ( A Roman Catholic )

**Standing Ovation for Allheart**

This thread is disgusting. The hate, the bigotry, the lies, the skewing and misinterpretation of facts is revolting. Add name calling and personal insults on top of that and there's no reason at all for this thread to remain open. It's disintegrated from a discussion to a hate-fest. Many of the comments in this thread are downright repulsive. I really wonder how some of you look in the mirror each day.

I'm unsubscribing. I hope this thread gets closed.

PS...I have no idea what Judy's faith is, either. Sorry Judy...didn't mean to leave you out.


Hey, no problem - I'm only here in order to raise my blood pressure.

I was raised Roman Catholic (my mother and the Pope are the only 2 people left in the World who don't eat meat on Friday), husband was raised Orthodox Jewish.

I was also raised old school Catholic - the worst sin is the sin of embarrassing your religion through your words or actions, such as being intolerant; driving people away from "the Church;" being a bad example. Between that and the incense - :)

My opinion - most of the injustices in the World are committed in the name of organized religion. One religion is always trying to make another see the light - or kill them in the process.

For those of you, who have never been hurt by other's comments - Judge the gay community.

For those of you, who have never felt different, been teased or ridiculed for being different - Point your finger at the gay community and tell them how horrible they are.

For those of you who have never felt overweight, underweight, too tall, too small - Stand up and let your negative voice and opinions be heard in reference to the Gay community.


For those of you, who never felt heartache from not being able to be with the one you love, whose hearts have never been broken - Lash out at the gay community for wanting to love.

But for all of those who know what it feels like to be different, to have your feelings hurt, to feel unloved and wanted by so many - remember that pain - and embrace all that share that pain - black, white, gay, bi, straight, tall, short - your brothers and sisters.

Don't try and stand in God's shoes - they will never fit any of us.

Wishing for peace,
Allheart ( A Roman Catholic )


Wow - did you write this? Most impressive - should be copied and pasted. Frequently. This is really amazing.

Talk about flashbacks - a good friend of mine committed suicide several years ago, post-partim depression, I think we all saw it coming but were helpless, left a husband and two small children. During her funeral mass the Priest, aware of the "How can she be buried from the Church? She was Catholic and she committed suicide," buzz, said - right from the altar - "It is not up to us to judge. It is up to us to be kind and supportive and understanding and love each other and we must leave it to God to judge."

I never heard another murmur about it and I honestly think people were nicer to each other for quite a while afterwards. Sobering words and, as you so aptly put it, "Don't try to stand in God's shoes."

Well, actually no one will ever know because this can only be "he said/she said."

Yeah, you know. But you are trying to smear my reputation.


Your post was extremely abusive. It had everything to do with me and nothing to do with the topic at hand. I responded in those words.

I didn't even address you. My post was addressed to the OP. Apparently, since my opinion was different from yours, you felt that I was attacking you. But this is America. I'm free to have my own opinion.


Your post was pulled, which caused my response to be pulled.

The thread is still there though closed:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/marriage/how-do-ask-husband-move-out-212028.html

Read it again and note how your first message addressed the OP.
My first message also addressed the OP.
Your second message addressed me. Although you were having trouble with the quotes, here is what you said to me:

... Unfortunately - religious advice aside - unless the OP is independently wealthy she has to go to Court to get child support and perhaps maintenance for herself. Living apart if he has alcoholic rages is not going to keep her safe.

Also - Christians aren't the only ones who pray.

So, you addressed me and objected to my advice to the OP.


You then red flagged an earlier post of mine - and your red flag made no sense, by the way, given the content of the particular post you flagged - using my exact words.

You had flagged one of my responses to your objections of my posts, and those were pulled. It is unfortunate because you had at that point begun to make all these accusations about my going back and changing messages, but your own messages contained the quotes which were evidence against you.


The thread was then closed.

Rightly so in my opinion. In one of your posts you tried to paint it as though I had derailed the thread. But it is obvious that it was you who derailed the thread in starting an argument against me.

But again, I have a right to my opinions as you have a right to yours.

Oh and you're displaying that trait that you find so detestable. Since apparently you can't change the subject.

Anyway, its in the past and if you are ready to drop it, I will as well. But if you keep trying to smear my reputation, I will have to continue defending myself.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I am so very sorry for your friend, Judy Kae tee. I am sure they are resting in peace now.
My words are straight from the heart - after many many many homilies :), preaching,
Love your brothers and sisters.

I'm not perfect by no means - far far from it. Many things in our life we can't control - but one thing we can, and that is being kind to one another - we all know how it feels to hurt -
And just need to remember that when dealing with others.

I help battered women in the Courtroom? When do/did I do that?

I'm a liability investigator - I'm in and out of the Courtroom but I never said I "helped battered women." Even supposedly.

That is certainly how you made it sound in one of those messages that was pulled. But that's good, I'm glad you aren't in that position. Much less scary.

Yeah, you know. But you are trying to smear my reputation.



I didn't even address you. My post was addressed to the OP. Apparently, since my opinion was different from yours, you felt that I was attacking you. But this is America. I'm free to have my own opinion.



The thread is still there though closed:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/marriage/how-do-ask-husband-move-out-212028.html

Read it again and note how your first message addressed the OP.
My first message also addressed the OP.
Your second message addressed me. Although you were having trouble with the quotes, here is what you said to me:


So, you addressed me and objected to my advice to the OP.



You had flagged one of my responses to your objections of my posts, and those were pulled. It is unfortunate because you had at that point begun to make all these accusations about my going back and changing messages, but your own messages contained the quotes which were evidence against you.



Rightly so in my opinion. In one of your posts you tried to paint it as though I had derailed the thread. But it is obvious that it was you who derailed the thread in starting an argument against me.

But again, I have a right to my opinions as you have a right to yours.

Oh and you're displaying that trait that you find so detestable. Since apparently you can't change the subject.

Anyway, its in the past and if you are ready to drop it, I will as well. But if you keep trying to smear my reputation, I will have to continue defending myself.

Sincerely,

De Maria



SURPRISE! "We" are allowed to address other people who post, not just the OP.

Its obvious that you don't like what I have to say. But your little smarmy comments just prove that you know your arguments don't hold water.


Let's vote on who does and who does not like what you have to say. I haven't made an argument in favor of or against homosexuality - you would like me to, but I haven't.

Show of hands on who does or does not like what you have to say as well as whether I have harmed your reputation or if you've done it yourself.

Let's leave an argument about a different post entirely out of this one, please.

That is certainly how you made it sound in one of those messages that was pulled. But thats good, I'm glad you aren't in that position. Much less scary.


Ahh, yes, the old "I could prove it but the message was pulled" argument. Drat!

Let's leave an argument about a different post entirely out of this one, please.


Agreed and I apologize - old history best not dragged onto a new board. Omit/erase/remove if you can - again, I was out of line.

SURPRISE! "We" are allowed to address other people who post, not just the OP.

No, I wasn't surprised. I bet you were surprised though. Didn't know what you were getting into.

Anybody interested in continuing the OP? Or was it all a sham in order to attack religion?

Ahh, yes, the old "I could prove it but the message was pulled" argument. Drat!

I did prove it. *** edited

DeMaria, this has been a continuing discussion over several days.

The topic IS "member discussions".

****edited

It has NOT been an attack on religion. It's been an attack on each other's arguments--just like any OTHER debate in the world.

Do you just not like it when people point out that your religion isn't perfect, and that the arguments given aren't "good enough" for some of us to be convinced to be prejudiced and discriminatory? Or do you have personal grudges against some of us posting here?

I have no problem with you (or anyone else) stating their religion as a reasoning for WHY they do something. I just have a problem with people who expect ME to adhere to the rules of a religion I do not believe in.

So.

Play nice, or even though I have been greatly enjoying the discussion myself, I will petition to have this thread closed based on YOUR comments, and on the fact that YOU are more guilty than anyone else of getting off-topic, by bringing in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POST to argue about.

Do you have a better arguement/reasoning? Frankly, your arguments haven't held enough weight for me to even consider them--especially since they were repeated from arguments earlier in the discussion.

And seriously--what part of "don't bring another thread into this one" did you just not get? Did you have to have the last word, like a 6 year old?

If you can't be reasonable and considerate in your posts, then go away. While this is obviously a heated discussion, because people have strong feelings about it--I hadn't heard anyone get nasty until you showed up.

Sounds as though you have a lot to learn about your Catholic faith:

According to Catholic Church teaching, Scripture is the Word of God:
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 81 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/81.htm)

And the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture must be interpreted according to the Tradition of the Church:

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 2 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#111)




Sincerely,

De Maria

Actually I have learned a lot from my Catholic faith. A lot about who I am and what I believe in. When my father died I left the faith for awhile, but found my way back. Why did I leave? Because I found the Catholic religon to be somewhat two faced. In many cases Catholics (myself included) tend to pick what they want to believe and follow. According to the bible birth control is wrong, so are tattoos. Yet many Catholics (myself included) have a tattoo or are on birth control. I also struggled with the idea (oddly more than my aunt did) that the Catholic Church could condemn those of a gay lifestyle, but yet welcome them into their church and accept their money. Yes my gay aunt also attends mass every Sunday WITH her Aunt (my great aunt) who is a nun. Yet many Catholics stand behind their religon when it works for their argument. I refuse to do that. I believe what I want to believe, follow my Lord in a way that works for both him and I and say my prayers at night.

I think that the Catholic Church is a wonderful institution full of faith, hope and love. But, it is based on a piece of literary work and I know for a fact that if I disagree with my priest he does not condemn me, nor would he tell me it is wrong to have a different outlook on the same scripture passage.

No, I wasn't surprised. I bet you were surprised though. Didn't know what you were getting into.

Anybody interested in continuing the OP? Or was it all a sham in order to attack religion?

Nobody is attacking a religon. If they were I would be the first to stand up and say it is wrong. People can believe what they want to believe. We are discussing the separation of Church and State. While your church might not recognize gay marriage- the state should.\


Edit: Sorry about the double post.

Let's vote on who does and who does not like what you have to say. I haven't made an argument in favor of or against homosexuality - you would like me to, but I haven't.

Uh, isn't that what this thread is about? In other words, the only reason you have come on the thread is to rehash an old argument you hold against me.


Show of hands on who does or does not like what you have to say as well as whether I have harmed your reputation or if you've done it yourself.

The point is, that it doesn't matter whether they like what I say or they don't. What matters is that I have a right to my opinion.

That is where you don't seem to understand the idea behind this forum. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

So, if you're quite through, I'd like to discuss the OP with anyone who actually wants to do so. Whether they agree with my opinion or not.

Synn-
While I originally enjoyed this debate the nasty comments have gotten a bit out of hand. I would not blame you if you decided to close this thread.

Sassy can you remain calm and curb the personal attacks?

1. Myself--Wiccan (NOT Atheist)
2. Tuscany --Roman Catholic (Christian)
3. excon - Jewish
4. Tal - I'm honestly not sure, (Non religious, but believe in a personal relationship with the God of my understanding.)
5. Needkarma - Atheist
6. WVHiflyer - Unsure here too.

So... you (in general) keep calling those FOR gay marriage atheists, and telling us to go away since this is a Religious board, but:

The arguments that you provided were that the gay community spreads AIDS (a myth)

If you believe that you are simply closing your eyes to the facts.

Top "Gay" Organization Comes Clean: "HIV is a gay disease." (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021402.html)
jgrantswankjr: HOMOSEXUALS: 'WE SPREAD AIDS/HIV' (http://jgrantswankjr.blogspot.com/2008/02/homosexuals-we-spread-aidshiv.html)


and that sex is made strictly for the means of reproduction.


If I said that you will need to quote me.


AIDS can be found in every community gay straight or otherwise. Your justification shows ingnorance to the facts found since the early 80's.

I didn't say that AIDS wasn't everywhere. But it is spread mostly by the gay community:
“’Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that’” per CWFA.


I applaud you if you only have sex as a means to reproduce. Personally, I use sex as an expression of love. THe child that I conceive is a child conceived in that love. Sex is so much more than a way to reproduce.

You obviously didn't understand my post. You might want to read it again.

sincerely,

De Maria

I will say this to the one person, if you do not believe that the bible is the world of God, then you have no real faith in what the Catholic Church teaches, and of course the priest should be nice to those that disagree to a point, but if the priest does not believe it is the living world of God he does not need to be a priest. And there are many that don't need to be out there. Some of the "rules" of the church are very debatable, but there are other items of faith that are not within the church. And while it is a wonderful literary work, it is more than that to any catholic who believes in their faith.

De Maria

You can't take statistics and deduce from them that AIDS is a 'gay disease'- in the U.S. 64% of newly infected women, and 54% of newly infected men, are infected. Can we call it an African American disease? 74% of people in the world living with AIDS live in sub-Saharan Africa-

And your statement earlier about homosexual unions 'bringing' aids is entirely false. As someone (don't recall who) pointed out to you, AIDS is not brought about, it is communicated, transmitted, spread... and there are many ways of doing this. Including heterosexual sex. It's not something exclusive to the gay community.

Ok, we are about two more insults ( from both sides, BOTH sides)

Yes we all think the other side is narrow minded and we all think the other side is stupid, I think we have that figured out by now. Perhaps we need a list of the same insults we have posted time and time again.

Remember there is a lot more room to "discuss" but this thread as most is started that down hill.

In the end, if those that are not christian, they do not accept what we beelive is a logical proof, and to the christian, we will not accept that the bible is not the word of God. So there is not ever going to be a winner.

In fact I think we often show each side as to the worst, as both lower standards.

So play nice

OK, not sure if the Aids post is going any any good direction, but I will play with it myself for a bit.

If homosexual couples or people, make up a much smaller percent of all people. But make up nearly 1/2 of those that get it, I would seem that homosexuals by pure percentages have a much higher risk. If they make up 10 percent or less of total people, and they make up almost 1/2 of the cases, That seems sort of obvious unless I am missing something.

With that given, does it merely mean they practice less safe sex, or practice less care in selection ? ( not saying it does, just open questions)

The thing is, Fr. Chuck, no one (well, not me anyway) is asking a Christian not to believe that the Bible is the 'word of God'- y'all can believe that, and that's fine and dandy, it doesn't bother me none what anyone believes.

What I have a problem with is when what YOU (not you specifically, collective you) believe impacts my ability to have legal rights through marriage with my partner. I feel that there may be two sides to the morality of homosexuality, due to religious beliefs, and that's fine. If you believe it's wrong, don't be gay. Easy. But for there to be two sides as far as legalities go there needs to be some sort of justification and basis, aside from religion, in regard to the alleged "harm" that allowing homosexuals equal rights will bring upon society. And as far as this discussion has gone, I've yet to see a strong argument that indicates that gay people are fundamentally harmful to society, and that allowing gays to marry would be detrimental to our society...

I, nor anyone else that I've noticed (and I could have missed some, so correct me if I'm wrong) said 'christians shouldn't believe that homosexuality is wrong, even if it is in the bible, because the bible's just a piece of literary work'--- just that a religion should not dictate the laws. And if there's no logical reason, no explicitly seen harm caused to society by allowing gay people to marry... then what the heck is the problem?

I do admit though, it has gotten a bit nasty... not at all my intention in posting this... cordial debate is fun and helpful and productive. When it gets to personal attacks and condescending comments... eh, not so much fun anymore. =)

Strange, There have been homosexuals since the beginning of time, aids is new and recent.

DeMaria, this has been a continuing discussion over several days.

The topic IS "member discussions".

In the "religious discussions" sub forum.


If you can't play nicely, then go away. Seriously. You're just being a jerk,

You consider everyone a jerk who can defend his views from your attacks.


rather than discussing ALL of the issues brought up.

I responded to the OP. The OP designated "Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation...."

Yet everyone that has responded to my message has brought religion into the picture.


It has NOT been an attack on religion.

Let me see:

My opinion - most of the injustices in the World are committed in the name of organized religion. One religion is always trying to make another see the light - or kill them in the process.

That doesn't count as an attack on religion why?


There clearly is asked why you BELIEVE the way you do. And with belief being the one and only basis for religion

This is a more subtle attack because it seeks to portray religious belief as being without foundation.

And there are more throughout the thread. I'm surprised you haven't seen them.


It's been an attack on each other's arguments--just like any OTHER debate in the world.

That too.


Do you just not like it when people point out that your religion isn't perfect,

Well, uh, isn't this supposed to be a discussion about whether homosexuality is wrong for secular reasons?

Anytime you want to challenge Catholic doctrines, just start a thread, if I'm aware of it, I'll respond. But I wasn't aware that this thread was about my religion. When did it become so? Maybe that's why I feel that the nonreligious are attacking religion on this thread. So far, most of the people who have addressed me, with the exception of a person holding a grudge, has made religious comments on the subject at hand.


and that the arguments given aren't "good enough" for some of us to be convinced to be prejudiced and discriminatory?

Now see. That is your modus operandi. Instead of addressing my arguments, you prefer to color them as prejudiced and discriminatory. But the OP specifically asks why, from a non-religious standpoint, we believe homosexuality is wrong.

I gave my opinion from a non-religious standpoint.


Or do you have personal grudges against some of us posting here?

No. But I do remember you and others who like to twist words and argue straw men rather than confront the actual arguments. Just as you've done in this message where I pointed it out above.


I have no problem with you (or anyone else) stating their religion as a reasoning for WHY they do something. I just have a problem with people who expect ME to adhere to the rules of a religion I do not believe in.

Please point out where in this thread, I have brought up religion. I pointed out quite clearly with everyone that addressed me and tried to turn the discussion into a religious discussion when the OP is quite clear that is not what he wants.

And please point out when I have ever expected you to adhere to a religion in which you don't believe.


So.

?? So... what?


Play nice, or even though I have been greatly enjoying the discussion myself, I will petition to have this thread closed based on YOUR comments, and on the fact that YOU are more guilty than anyone else of getting off-topic, by bringing in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POST to argue about.

If you go back in the thread you'll find that I didn't bring that up. That argument was brought to me.

But feel free to close the thread anytime you like. There are plenty of others.


Do you have a better arguement/reasoning?

You haven't even addressed my first reasons. Why do I need to bring up anything else?


Frankly, your arguments haven't held enough weight for me to even consider them--especially since they were repeated from arguments earlier in the discussion.

Perhaps. But more likely, you couldn't handle them so you decided to ignore them.


And seriously--what part of "don't bring another thread into this one" did you just not get?

I thought you were talking to the other party cause I didn't bring it up. But who died and made you a mod? As far as I know, your words carry no weight here. Or at least, they only carry as much as mine.


Did you have to have the last word, like a 6 year old?

Unlike a six year old who when he can't handle an argument resorts to insult, I can handle all your arguments.


If you can't be reasonable and considerate in your posts, then go away.

I think I'm eminently reasonable and considerate in my posts. If you don't like my opinions, then you go away. I'm here to stay.


While this is obviously a heated discussion, because people have strong feelings about it--I hadn't heard anyone get nasty until you showed up.

Show me where I got nasty. I'll show you where I did so in response to an attack on my reputation. Start with my first post on this thread and follow it on down.

As usual, you hold a double standard. If those with whom you agree get nasty and rude, you uphold their behavior. But when one defends themselves against their unfounded insinuations and accusations, you hold that as being rude.

Sincerely,

De Maria

And if there's no logical reason, no explicitly seen harm caused to society by allowing gay people to marry... then what the heck is the problem?


I often wonder the same thing.

I do too... which was one of my reasons for this post... sadly, things seem to have deteriorated around here.

Heavens, wish I could rain fire on both sides that does all that stupid cut and paste, it takes up 1/2 the page to pick each others words apart,
** yes both sides.

But the issue is that what you call a "right" we don't see as a legal right, since we can not see any consititional right that protects it.
In fact marriage is a state issue, and people that can marry in one state can not marry by age or by some other issue, that can marry in one state, but is not allowed in another. Marriage ( the state license) is the issue.
I don't believe in it to start with, I would challenge that the state even has a "right" to regulate it to start with. And the other issues is not perhaps the marriage, but the other legal issues that is tied to it. For example if we went with the "FAIR" tax based on what we spend, there would be no filings, no deductions for being married, So perhaps the discounts we see for married needs to be addressed.

The state telling us who is allowed to get what we own when we die, is that even right, perhaps that should be done away with and everyone has to file a new will or request every year or acknowlege their old one is still valid.

Sorry for the ramble, pural marriage was on Opah today

For example, I can not understand why pural marriage, poligomy is not allowed, there is nothing against it in the bible or Quran but yet is it not only not allowed, they still arrest people for it,
What would you say if they were to lock up people for having homosexual sex, is that not in basic ways a similar issue, a persons lifestyle preference is not only not allowed but illegal?

The thing is, Fr. Chuck, no one (well, not me anyway)

Not you anyway. That is correct. But you don't speak for the rest of these folks because that is essentially all I'm getting is an attack on my religiouis beliefs. Even though I'm doing my utmost to answer your question from a secular perspective.


is asking a Christian not to believe that the Bible is the 'word of God'- y'all can believe that, and that's fine and dandy, it doesn't bother me none what anyone believes.

Good. No problem with that attitude whatsoever.


What I have a problem with is when what YOU (not you specifically, collective you) believe impacts my ability to have legal rights through marriage with my partner. I feel that there may be two sides to the morality of homosexuality, due to religious beliefs, and that's fine. If you believe it's wrong, don't be gay. Easy. But for there to be two sides as far as legalities go there needs to be some sort of justification and basis, aside from religion, in regard to the alleged "harm" that allowing homosexuals equal rights will bring upon society.

And as far as this discussion has gone, I've yet to see a strong argument that indicates that gay people are fundamentally harmful to society, and that allowing gays to marry would be detrimental to our society...

Maybe you didn't read my post. In summary of my earlier post:
1. Homosexual couples can't reproduce. Therefore, since survival of the species is considered to be the paramount concern in nature, homosexual behavior would negatively impact that ability.
2. AIDS and other diseases. Homosexuals make up from between 50 and 70% of the population. Therefore they are a serious threat to the spread of these epidemics.
3. And since children frequently learn based upon what they see, if children are exposed to this type of behavior by people they trust, the cycle of nonreproduction and spread of disease could spiral out of control.


I, nor anyone else that I've noticed (and I could have missed some, so correct me if I'm wrong) said 'christians shouldn't believe that homosexuality is wrong, even if it is in the bible, because the bible's just a piece of literary work'---

Consider yourself corrected.


just that a religion should not dictate the laws.

In this country, a religion does not dictate the laws. But human beings being the subjective creatures which we are, can't separate their beliefs from their being. Therefore, since the majority of people continue to have Christian mores and ethics, even if many of them no longer consider themeselves Christian, this country will continue to have laws based upon those Christian mores and ethics which the majority believe.


And if there's no logical reason, no explicitly seen harm caused to society by allowing gay people to marry... then what the heck is the problem?

We can continue that line of thought when you address my concerns above.


I do admit though, it has gotten a bit nasty... not at all my intention in posting this... cordial debate is fun and helpful and productive. When it gets to personal attacks and condescending comments... eh, not so much fun anymore. =)

I agree.

As for me, if anyone wants to have a cordial debate with me, I'm always ready. But if anyone wants to make personal attacks and condescending remarks. Well, I give as good as I get.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The thing is, Fr. Chuck, no one ... is asking a Christian not to believe that the Bible is the 'word of God'
Correct. A Christian - just like every human being - may believe whatever he/she prefers.
And all a Christian has to do externally from standard religious duties is to keep to his/her mission and spread "the word".

I note that nobody is asking any Christian to marry a same-sex partner.
And also nobody is asking any Christian to abort a growing fetus from the womb.

Of course a Christian may express the word, and state that he/she is against same-sex marriages. But that is no license to try to stop others from doing so.
And a Christian may express the word, and state that he/she is against abortion. But that is also no license to try to stop others from doing so.
From a moral point of view a person can object against other views, but than one should use moral and not religious arguments.

Believe whatever you prefer to believe, and spread the word : no problem !
But do not try to force your religious beliefs unto others with different viewpoints !

;)

Heavens, wish I could rain fire on both sides that does all that stupid cut and paste
Hmmm... A new version of raining "fire and brimstone"?. Now for posting quotes??
And the funny thing is that the worst offenders are the conservative Christians!!

:D :D :D :D :D

Correct. A Christian - just like every human being - may believe whatever he/she prefers.

And all a Christian has to do externally from standard religious duties is to keep to his/her mission and spread "the word".

Good. Because many people try to keep us from spreading the word. They claim the right to teach their beliefs but object vehemently when we teach ours.

I note that nobody is asking any Christian to marry a same-sex partner.
And also nobody is asking any Christian to abort a growing fetus from the womb.

Of course a Christian may express the word, and state that he/she is against same-sex marriages. But that is no license to try to stop others from doing so.
And a Christian may express the word, and state that he/she is against abortion. But that is also no license to try to stop others from doing so.
From a moral point of view a person can object against other views, but than one should use moral and not religious arguments.

Believe whatever you prefer to believe, and spread the word : no problem !
But do not try to force your religious beliefs unto others with different viewpoints !

;)

My question is, did you address the OP? Is Homosexuality wrong, in your opinion? Please state why or why not without making religious comments.

Hmmm .... A new version of raining "fire and brimstone" ? ... Now for posting quotes ???
And the funny thing is that the worst offenders are the conservative Christians !!!

:D :D :D :D :D

Only one. I'm the worst offender. I do it because I read every message thoroughly and I address every point that I identify.

Hmmm .... A new version of raining "fire and brimstone" ? ... Now for posting quotes ???
And the funny thing is that the worst offenders are the conservative Christians !!!

:D :D :D :D :D

Well I did say both sides, and it did come right after one of the Christians, I know you don't beleve me, but I don't take sides when I moderate. Often these posts get closed because of the Christians as this one is getting close to being.

Maybe you didn't read my post. In summary of my earlier post:
1. Homosexual couples can't reproduce. Therefore, since survival of the species is considered to be the paramount concern in nature, homosexual behavior would negatively impact that ability.
2. AIDS and other diseases. Homosexuals make up from between 50 and 70% of the population. Therefore they are a serious threat to the spread of these epidemics.
3. And since children frequently learn based upon what they see, if children are exposed to this type of behavior by people they trust, the cycle of nonreproduction and spread of disease could spiral out of control.

I did read your post. Perhaps you didn't read through the discussion before posting, though... one of your poitns has already been discussed (reproduction). I will attempt to locate at least my contribution to the discussion and repost it here for you to read in a few moments (bare with me, I'm at work and trying to post between tasks... not the easiest thing to do! )-

In regard to your concern with AIDS- I'll reference the American Red Cross website, which states:

"In many countries, the numbers of women with HIV are nearly equal to the numbers of infected men, and the number of women with HIV/AIDS continues to steadily increase worldwide. As of July 2002, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) estimated that about 18 million women were living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, accounting for 47 percent of the 37.2 million adults living with HIV/AIDS. In many countries, HIV spreads mostly through sex between men and women. And in the United States, the number of people with HIV/AIDS who became infected through sex between men and women continues to grow."

Additionally,

"African-American and Hispanic women together represent less than one-fourth of all U.S. women, but account for more than three-fourths (76%) of AIDS cases among women in this country (CDC Update, 6/98). "

So prevelance of AIDS within a group cannot be used to show that their actions are necessarily 'wrong'- because if we used that logic, then we could say it's wrong for men to have heterosexual relationships with African-American and Hispanic women because they account for 76% of new AIDS infections in the U.S.- or that in the countries where AIDS is spread through heterosexual sex, that heterosexual sex is 'wrong'-

Doesn't make much sense---

Sorry I'm not being as thorough as I'd like to be- but I'm at work, and it's not easy to post right now... doing my best, please forgive my choppy thoughts-

=)

**EDIT: Found the post I was looking for- to save space, it's from 6/10, 9:52p, page 3 of this discussion.

I don't take sides when I moderate.
I did not suggest that.
I can see why you disagree with all these extreme long posts with many quotes.
But do you see a small quote like this one also as wrong?
If so : WHY ? It shows to which remark I refer !

;)

Maybe you didn't read my post. In summary of my earlier post:
1. Homosexual couples can't reproduce. Therefore, since survival of the species is considered to be the paramount concern in nature, homosexual behavior would negatively impact that ability.
This world is overpopulated enough. There are both homosexual and heterosexual marriages that are NOT bringing more children into the world. Additionally, there are couplings that DO bring children into the world without the benefit of marriage, and those children end up somewhat disadvantaged because one parent or the other isn't around to help raise them. I think that as long as a couple is faithful to each other and demonstrates the values of marriage and the importance of love--who cares what gender they are? Sex is not just for procreation, and neither is marriage. If marriage were only for procreation, then my husband and I may as well divorce, since we've been unable to have children. Additionally, I see a double standard there, with the fact that marriage should be for procreation, but procreation happens with or without marriage, with or without two parents sticking around, and with or without benefits for the state. In other words: If you are not dictating who can and can not have kids, then you can not dictate who can and can not marry based on whether or not they will be having children.
2. AIDS and other diseases. Homosexuals make up from between 50 and 70% of the population. Therefore they are a serious threat to the spread of these epidemics.
AIDS and other diseases are spread by heterosexual sex as well. Perhaps if homosexuals were encouraged to marry and be with ONE partner, and if the monogamous lifestyle were more accepted by ALL people for the homosexual subculture, there would be less spreading of diseases. But the truth is--homosexuals are pressured into hiding much of the time, and having a relationship that is constantly hidden instead of proudly announced to the world tends to make that relationship fall apart--ask anyone who has ever had to hide who they were dating for whatever reason from their family. The fact that it's very hard to come "out" makes for a lifestyle of several clandestine partners rather than open, loving relationships.

Again, AIDS/HIV is not solely a homosexual problem. It's a societal problem. Look at how many posts we have here on AMHD from teens who had unprotected sex--and are only worried about being pregnant!

3. And since children frequently learn based upon what they see, if children are exposed to this type of behavior by people they trust, the cycle of nonreproduction and spread of disease could spiral out of control.

Children learn what they see, true. But children shouldn't be seeing what's in anyone's bedroom--homosexual or heterosexual. I know people with gay parents (yes, two moms or two dads) and they're completely straight. Being homosexual is not "learned", or no one with two happily married heterosexual parents would EVER become gay, right?

Children should be exposed to love, and love that is unconditional for them, regardless who it comes from. If your parents love and respect each other, you will learn to love and respect your mate. If your parents learn to accept people for who they are, you will learn tolerance. If your parents show you that adoption is a lovely option for children stuck in the foster care system, you will learn that ALL children are meant to be loved, and that adoption is as valid an option of "reproducing" as biologically conceiving.
And again...we don't NEED more people in this world. Having a child, or adopting a child, to raise together in love is a great thing--but absolutely NOT necessary to a marriage. And while I would love to have kids, I'm certainly not going to divorce my husband if we are not so blessed as to have them.
Basically, what I'm saying is that teaching tolerance and love as a parent will stick more to a child than whether or not their parents are straight or gay. I'm one of the few people I know whose parents are still married to each other. I don't see how divorce teaches anything to a child other than that when the going gets tough, you bail on a commitment you've made to another person, your god, and your children. I do see that a gay marriage would teach children that if you love someone, you commit to them, no matter how hard the road is.

Synn, I agree with your post 200%- and can personally vouch for this statement:

"But the truth is--homosexuals are pressured into hiding much of the time, and having a relationship that is constantly hidden instead of proudly announced to the world tends to make that relationship fall apart--ask anyone who has ever had to hide who they were dating for whatever reason from their family. The fact that it's very hard to come "out" makes for a lifestyle of several clandestine partners rather than open, loving relationships."

Staying in a committed relationship is nearly impossible when you're forced to hide it. And feeling pressured to remain hidden also adds an element of shame to your life which causes a decrease in your idea of self-worth... which often leads to making poor decisions, including unsafe sex, use of drugs, etc. which can lead to the transmission of communicable diseases, namely AIDS.

If the environment in which gay people lived were to change, and especially if marriage were an option, I'm willing to bet everything I've got that AIDS statistics within the gay community would drop drastically.

I did not suggest that.
I can see why you disagree with all these extreme long posts with many quotes.
But do you see a small quote like this one also as wrong?
If so : WHY ? It shows to which remark I refer !

;)

They are all allowed, I just persoally don't like the ones where they pick each word apart, instead of just giving a answer as to what they believe about something. I often quote to be sure I address the points, but then delete the copy to make it easer to read.

And I will be honest, on many things I don't read all of them but scan them for insults, bad words or some issues, Once in a while I find one I like to address.

So they are free to do it, but some of them get sort of boring, they do it on every post, There was something said about excessive quoting one time a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever a formal rule.
And then there is no line what is too much.

It may just be me, but after a bit they do get tiring to try and read though to check on.

I have not had a problem with your posts in like forever,
OK, all of us most likely cross a line once in a while on a post pushing a little too far but again in the discussion areas we try and let it be a little more free and open,

Maybe these discussion posts should have a life span, like 2 weeks or 4 week, since all of them seem to go down hill at some point, but then that is not my place to suggest anything like that.

I did read your post. Perhaps you didn't read through the discussion before posting, though...

Not 100% no. Just enough to give me the general idea of what was being discussed. That is why my initial post was an attempt to sway the discussion back to a "non" religious answer to the question.


one of your poitns has already been discussed (reproduction). I will attempt to locate at least my contribution to the discussion and repost it here for you to read in a few moments (bare with me, I'm at work and trying to post between tasks... not the easiest thing to do! )-

I couldn't find the message you described below... 6/10, 9:52p, page 3 of this discussion
... on page 3.


In regard to your concern with AIDS- I'll reference the American Red Cross website, which states:

"In many countries, the numbers of women with HIV are nearly equal to the numbers of infected men, and the number of women with HIV/AIDS continues to steadily increase worldwide. As of July 2002, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) estimated that about 18 million women were living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, accounting for 47 percent of the 37.2 million adults living with HIV/AIDS. In many countries, HIV spreads mostly through sex between men and women. And in the United States, the number of people with HIV/AIDS who became infected through sex between men and women continues to grow."

These stats do not seem to address whether one or both of the individuals were bi or homosexual.

Since homosexual behavior crosses naitional boundaries, has this question been addressed?


Additionally,

"African-American and Hispanic women together represent less than one-fourth of all U.S. women, but account for more than three-fourths (76%) of AIDS cases among women in this country (CDC Update, 6/98). "

So prevelance of AIDS within a group cannot be used to show that their actions are necessarily 'wrong'-

You are mixing apples and oranges. Homosexual behavior crosses ethnic and racial lines. Therefore, we need to identify if these people in the various groups are also engaging in homosexual behavior.


because if we used that logic, then we could say it's wrong for men to have heterosexual relationships with African-American and Hispanic women because they account for 76% of new AIDS infections in the U.S.- or that in the countries where AIDS is spread through heterosexual sex, that heterosexual sex is 'wrong'-

That stat doesn't tell the complete story. Unless you are saying that 50 to 70% of the Mexican population are infected with HIV or that 50 to 70% of the African American population is infected with AIDS.

But authorities from the gay community are saying that 50 to70% of the gay community is infected with AIDS.
Homosexual Leader Calls AIDS 'a Gay Disease' -- 02/15/2008 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200802/CUL20080215b.html)


Doesn't make much sense---

No, it doesn't. There is no comparison.

This is the breakdown in the US by cultural group.

Adults aged 40–49 years were more likely to be HIV positive compared with those aged 18–29 years. Approximately 0.61% of adults aged 40–49 years were HIV positive, compared with 0.55% of 30–39 year-olds and 0.25% of 18–29 year-olds.

*
In 1999–2006, the non-Hispanic black population had an increased prevalence of HIV infection compared with other population subgroups.

The prevalence of HIV infection among the non-Hispanic black population was 2.01%, which was significantly higher than among the non-Hispanic white population (0.23%) and the Mexican-American population (0.30%).
Among the non-Hispanic black population, the prevalence of HIV infection was higher among men (2.64%) than among women (1.49%).Is herpes simplex-virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection associated with HIV infection?
NCHS Data Brief, Number 4, January 2008 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db04.htm)

Note that all of these are less than 1% of the cultural population. Less than 1% of Mexican Americans. Less than 1% of African Americans.

But 70% of the people with AIDS in this country are gay. And how many more have they infected who are not gay.

Now lets look at the incidence of the disease in the homosexual population in general.

CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that a substantial percentage (9.2%) of the male population of Amsterdam is homosexually active. In the absence of serologic data it is estimated that 16 to 17% of these men is HIV positive.
HIV prevalence and magnitude of the male homosexual population in Amsterdam. (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102199910.html)

according to the FDA. About 8% of the US male homosexual population is HIV positive.
FDA declines to lift ban on homosexual men as blood donors -- Josefson 321 (7263): 722 -- BMJ (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7263/722)

Notice that less than 1% of Mexican Americans or African Americans are HIV positive, but 8% of homosexual males in the US and 16% of homosexual males in Amsterdam are HIV positive.

Therefore I would have to concur with the gay leader who said that AIDS is a gay problem.


Sorry I'm not being as thorough as I'd like to be- but I'm at work, and it's not easy to post right now... doing my best, please forgive my choppy thoughts-

=)

**EDIT: Found the post I was looking for- to save space, it's from 6/10, 9:52p, page 3 of this discussion.

No problem. I couldn't find that message however.

Sincerely,

De Maria

For Fr_Chuck

I see what you mean with the post just below this one. Too long, too many quotes, and therefore getting boring already after a couple of lines!

;)

I hope you mean right above, but I guess it depends on what mode of viewing, I use linear mode, not the threaded or the hybird mode.

And if you "beleived" in a hell, it would be shaking, since we have agreed on something

Also


Not 100% no. Just enough to give me the general idea of what was being discussed. That is why my initial post was an attempt to sway the discussion back to a "non" religious answer to the question.



I couldn't find the message you described below... 6/10, 9:52p, page 3 of this discussion
... on page 3.



These stats do not seem to address whether one or both of the individuals were bi or homosexual.

Since homosexual behavior crosses naitional boundaries, has this question been addressed?



You are mixing apples and oranges. Homosexual behavior crosses ethnic and racial lines. Therefore, we need to identify if these people in the various groups are also engaging in homosexual behavior.



That stat doesn't tell the complete story. Unless you are saying that 50 to 70% of the Mexican population are infected with HIV or that 50 to 70% of the African American population is infected with AIDS.

But authorities from the gay community are saying that 50 to70% of the gay community is infected with AIDS.
Homosexual Leader Calls AIDS 'a Gay Disease' -- 02/15/2008 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200802/CUL20080215b.html)



No, it doesn't. There is no comparison.

This is the breakdown in the US by cultural group.

Adults aged 40–49 years were more likely to be HIV positive compared with those aged 18–29 years. Approximately 0.61% of adults aged 40–49 years were HIV positive, compared with 0.55% of 30–39 year-olds and 0.25% of 18–29 year-olds.

*
In 1999–2006, the non-Hispanic black population had an increased prevalence of HIV infection compared with other population subgroups.

The prevalence of HIV infection among the non-Hispanic black population was 2.01%, which was significantly higher than among the non-Hispanic white population (0.23%) and the Mexican-American population (0.30%).
Among the non-Hispanic black population, the prevalence of HIV infection was higher among men (2.64%) than among women (1.49%).Is herpes simplex-virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection associated with HIV infection?
NCHS Data Brief, Number 4, January 2008 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db04.htm)

Note that all of these are less than 1% of the cultural population. Less than 1% of Mexican Americans. Less than 1% of African Americans.

But 70% of the people with AIDS in this country are gay. And how many more have they infected who are not gay.

Now lets look at the incidence of the disease in the homosexual population in general.

CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that a substantial percentage (9.2%) of the male population of Amsterdam is homosexually active. In the absence of serologic data it is estimated that 16 to 17% of these men is HIV positive.
HIV prevalence and magnitude of the male homosexual population in Amsterdam. (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102199910.html)

according to the FDA. About 8% of the US male homosexual population is HIV positive.
FDA declines to lift ban on homosexual men as blood donors -- Josefson 321 (7263): 722 -- BMJ (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7263/722)

Notice that less than 1% of Mexican Americans or African Americans are HIV positive, but 8% of homosexual males in the US and 16% of homosexual males in Amsterdam are HIV positive.

Therefore I would have to concur with the gay leader who said that AIDS is a gay problem.



No problem. I couldn't find that message however.

Sincerely,

De Maria




Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men | Resources | HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm)


In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005






Nice references.


Men having sex with men, in the US, is a very high risk for contracting hiv; however, I disagree that this is just a "gay" problem.

IVDA, sexual promiscuity are also high risk behaviors.

Even if HIV only effected gay men, those gay men have parents, siblings, friends, etc. and they are also effected by HIV.

This world is overpopulated enough.

That is your opinion. I believe there is a great deal of room on this planet to sustain human life.


There are both homosexual and heterosexual marriages that are NOT bringing more children into the world.

Homosexual unions can't bring more children into the world. Heterosexual couples may, due to some impediment or due to birth control, not have children. But homosexual unions can't ever have children except through unnatural means.

So, I don't see the point of comparing the two in this statement as though some homosexual unions could bring new life into the world when they are barren unions by definition.


Additionally, there are couplings that DO bring children into the world without the benefit of marriage,

But they are not homosexual unions. This thread is about the secular reasons homosexual behavior is wrong.

Those same secular reasons do not apply to heterosexual behavior outside of marriage.


and those children end up somewhat disadvantaged because one parent or the other isn't around to help raise them.

Frequently, but not always.


I think that as long as a couple is faithful to each other and demonstrates the values of marriage and the importance of love--who cares what gender they are?

Aren't you mixing apples and oranges. We are talking about homosexual behavior and why it is wrong or why it isn't. One can love another without engaging in sexual behavior of any sort.

So, unless you can demonstrate that homosexual love is more faithful somehow or more loving than heterosexual love, there is no advantage in this regard. And since the procreation of children frequently brings couples closer to each other, at least in my opinion, I would consider it a disadvantage for the longevity of the homosexual couple.


Sex is not just for procreation, and neither is marriage.

Who said that it was? Others here have accused me of saying such, but I don't remember doing so. If you can provide the quote that confused you, I'll explain what I meant.


If marriage were only for procreation, then my husband and I may as well divorce, since we've been unable to have children. Additionally, I see a double standard there, with the fact that marriage should be for procreation, but procreation happens with or without marriage, with or without two parents sticking around, and with or without benefits for the state.

When I mentioned the inability of homosexual couples to procreate, I did so in the context of the survival of the species. As I look at nature, the paramount concern seems to be with the reproduction of the individual so that the species may survive.


In other words: If you are not dictating who can and can not have kids, then you can not dictate who can and can not marry based on whether they will be having children.[/B]

I'm not dictating anything. All I did was express my opinion as to why homosexual behavior is wrong. You seem to be objecting to my statement of the inability of homosexual couples to procreate on some sort of moral grounds. But this discussion is not about mores or religions. It is about other reasons it is wrong.


AIDS and other diseases are spread by heterosexual sex as well.

But most people with AIDS are homosexual as has been confirmed by the homosexual community.
Homosexual Leader Calls AIDS 'a Gay Disease' -- 02/15/2008 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200802/CUL20080215b.html)


Perhaps if homosexuals were encouraged to marry and be with ONE partner, and if the monogamous lifestyle were more accepted by ALL people for the homosexual subculture, there would be less spreading of diseases. But the truth is--homosexuals are pressured into hiding much of the time, and having a relationship that is constantly hidden instead of proudly announced to the world tends to make that relationship fall apart--ask anyone who has ever had to hide who they were dating for whatever reason from their family. The fact that it's very hard to come "out" makes for a lifestyle of several clandestine partners rather than open, loving relationships.

So its everyone's fault that homosexuals are promiscuous? Sounds as though you have simply admitted that homosexuals are more promiscuous than the general population but you are trying to shift the blame from their own weak morals to the everyone else.


Again, AIDS/HIV is not solely a homosexual problem. It's a societal problem. Look at how many posts we have here on AMHD from teens who had unprotected sex--and are only worried about being pregnant!

Nor did I say that it was solely a homosexual problem. But it is evident and even admitted by some in the homosexual community that it is a huge problem in their community. And the statistics show that it is far out of proportion a homosexual problem than anything else.


Children learn what they see, true. But children shouldn't be seeing what's in anyone's bedroom--homosexual or heterosexual.

I agree. But isn't that a religious norm? Or why do you believe that children should not see sexual behavior? After all, doesn't our society put it all over the media? If that is wrong, why isn't there an outcry except from the religious community?


I know people with gay parents (yes, two moms or two dads) and they're completely straight.

Uh, no you don't. You mean you know people who were raised by gay couples. The gay couples did not reproduce the children naturally. They were conceived in the way that nature intended and they were then raised in a very unnatural situation.

But it is strange that you would mention this. Do you mean that the children were not "harmed" by the experience?


Being homosexual is not "learned", or no one with two happily married heterosexual parents would EVER become gay, right?

Yes it is learned. Children frequently learn from people other than their parents.


Children should be exposed to love, and love that is unconditional for them, regardless who it comes from.

That type of love usually comes only from their natural parents.


If your parents love and respect each other, you will learn to love and respect your mate. If your parents learn to accept people for who they are, you will learn tolerance. If your parents show you that adoption is a lovely option for children stuck in the foster care system, you will learn that ALL children are meant to be loved, and that adoption is as valid an option of "reproducing" as biologically conceiving.

If homosexual behavior is wrong because it spreads disease and because it is an unnatural behavior which does not reproduce the species, I don't believe it can be made to appear to be good simply because it takes a child out of the foster care system.

By the way, I know a couple of foster parents and they are loving people who care about the children. Just because the media paints foster parents as uncaring, money grubbing people, that doesn't make it true.

I don't have any stats on that matter, but I think if the majority of the foster parents were as evil as they are portrayed in the movies, the whole system would have been scrapped long ago.


And again...we don't NEED more people in this world.

I disagree. I believe we need children quite a lot. I can't imagine how dreary this world would be without them.


Having a child, or adopting a child, to raise together in love is a great thing--but absolutely NOT necessary to a marriage.

But they are certainly a joy and a blessing.


And while I would love to have kids, I'm certainly not going to divorce my husband if we are not so blessed as to have them.

I hope no one here has suggested such a thing. The only ones who have put those words in my mouth are those who can't discuss things intelligently and need to twist my words in order to garner for themselves some sort of empty victory. But I never said such a thing.


Basically, what I'm saying is that teaching tolerance and love as a parent will stick more to a child than whether or not their parents are straight or gay. I'm one of the few people I know whose parents are still married to each other. I don't see how divorce teaches anything to a child other than that when the going gets tough, you bail on a commitment you've made to another person, your god, and your children.

That is wonderful.


I do see that a gay marriage would teach children that if you love someone, you commit to them, no matter how hard the road is.

Well, since you mentioned God right above this last statement, I guess I'll mention God also.

I believe that a homosexual relationship which adopted children would teach children, in addition to the things I've already mentioned (aka an unhealthy and unnatural relationship). It would also teach them irreverence toward God who created them to be man and wife whose union would lead to the procreation of children.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Oh my dear heavens,

This thread is beginning to hurt my head and heart. So I will probably opt to let all of you share your thoughts without me.

I would like to clarify that it's never good to judge an entire community, because chances are, you will get it wrong. To me, if you love God, truly love him, then you love all who He has created. So, it's best not to lay discomfort at the feet religious types, believers of any sort.

Reglious types are individuals, and should not be thrown in a category all to itself, nor should any group.

I am more then baffled at all of this. This is not a political discussion, where during the discussion, no one really gets hurt. This is a discussion about a group of people, loving people, who cry, laugh, hurt, feel pain, hopefully feel happiness. To slap a label of promiscuous on this group, leaves a great deal to be desired, and in my opinion, could not be more wrong or unkind.

If you are not gay, how can you go on and on and with such vigor, point out what you believe to be another person's faults. I think your time could be better spent and use that love in your heart for healthier outcomes.

Hurt when others hurt, and I think you will change the way you view all subject matters.

Men having sex with men, in the US, is a very high risk for contracting hiv; however, I disagree that this is just a "gay" problem.
Totally incorrect. The risk is not caused by the selection of sex partner, but by the unwise lack of using an appropriate condom during that activity.

Get your facts right !

:rolleyes:

Sincerely, De Maria
That was the best part of your post. The rest was much too long with too many quotes too keep it interesting enough to follow.

:rolleyes:

Oh my dear heavens ...
I fully agree with you. Many posts here are mainly statements trying to get personal opinions forced onto others. What has happened to tolerance and respect for other views, and where is the validation for these immovable opinions?

:)

I will say this to the one person, if you do not beleive that the bible is the world of God, then you have no real faith in what the Catholic Church teaches, and of course the priest should be nice to those that disagree to a point, but if the priest does not beleive it is the living world of God he does not need to be a priest. And there are many that don't need to be out there. Some of the "rules" of the church are very debatable, but there are other items of faith that are not within the church. And while it is a wonderful literary work, it is more than that to any catholic who beleives in thier faith.

Fr. I do believe that the bible is the word of the Lord, but I also believe how we interpret that word is affected by our experiences. For example the song On Eagles Wings is one of my most favorite songs that we sing at church, but do to my life experiences every time I hear that song I cry. Does that happen to you? It does not happen to my husband. My life experiences have brought a different meaning to that song for me.

AT my wedding our Liturgy was from Tobit 8;4b-8 Allow us to live together to a happy old Age. Perhaps you know the one I am talking about? My husband and I chose that one because it meant something to us. Yet a reading from the Songs of Songs (Hark, my lover here he comes) was not chosen because of the way I interpreted it- I did not want it read at my wedding. I still believe that it is the word of the Lord, but my interpretation was different then that even of my husbands.

I believe in the bible, I believe in the Lord, but I also believe that life experiences change the outlook on which you view your religon. Lord knows that if my father did not die I would never have questioned the Lord or my place in the Catholic Church. But because of that I am stronger, my faith is stronger, and my love keeps me safe.

But they are not homosexual unions. This thread is about the secular reasons why homosexual behavior is wrong.

Those same secular reasons do not apply to heterosexual behavior outside of marriage.



Sincerely,

De Maria

You better go back and read the original post De Maria- that is not a discussion why homosexual behavior is wrong. It is about why homosexual should or should not be allowed to marry and its affect on society. No where did the original poster say that homosexual behavior is wrong.

/sigh

DeMaria, I'm done arguing with you. I'd have to tear apart YOUR post the way you did mine, and frankly, I agree with others that it's long, annoying, whatever.

A couple of very loud thoughts, I had though:

If only "natural" parents could love a child unconditionally--are you saying that no adoptive parent (regardless sexual orientation) ever loved a child the way a birth parent does? Frankly, I'm incredulous that you'd think that, or that you'd think adoption was an "unnatural" way for a couple to have a child.

I never said "God" anywhere in the post I made. I said that marriage was, as a general rule, a commitment that you made to--among others--"your god". MY personal god has no problem with homosexuality, so a gay person of my religion would have no upset god/goddess because it was "unnatural" and "couldn't conceive children".

As far as kids not seeing any sexual behaviour--that's not a religious more on my part. That's common sense, the way I see it. Small children are not able to understand sexual behaviour as it exists in the adult world. Deliberately exposing them to sexual behaviour, of any sort, is a Very Bad Idea. But, hey! If YOU want to have sex in front of your kids, my religion isn't going to stop you. The STATE probably will, but that's kind of the point of this---the rights of the state to determine what constitutes a legal union over the religious right screaming that it's unnatural. As far as the media goes on this subject, well... I don't have kids. But *I* don't watch TV, seldom go to movies, and the worst media in my house is probably a Glamour magazine. Since I'm not exposing myself to that sort of media, I wouldn't be exposing any kids I would have to it. And in several posts over the last 1.5 years, I think I've made it clear what I think about the media driving the sexuality of this country---and what I think of parents who do not take the personal responsibility to shelter their kids from it, including and especially Disney movies---but that's another thread. I'm basically pointing out that personal responsibility trumps the media, and that as long as a lifestyle choice is not HARMING someone, then there should be no law against it.

For someone who accuses people on a regular basis of twisting your words, you sure did a great job twisting mine there.

Where is your evidence, then, that children are HARMED by growing up in a homosexual environment? Because what this still comes down to, for me, is that as long as it is not HARMING anyone, what is the problem with homosexual marriages?

To piggyback off what Synn says:

There is absolutely no concrete evidence that children with gay parents are no well adjusted or "turn gay." Besides- I would rather have a child in a loving same sex home then in a home where they are abused either physically or mentally.

A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totally different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.

It is not fair.Not fair to who?
And I believe most gay couples adopting are lesbians.

A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totaly different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.Hello again, sassy:

You're right... But, most marriage statutes DON'T say one man and one woman. States are scrambling to make them say that as we speak. But, until they do, I agree with you. Anybody ought to be able to do what the law allows them to do - and that's get married.

excon

A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totaly different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.

Nobody said that you had to accept it, but how can you deny a group of people the right that others have? There you go again determining what is normal and what is not normal according to your standards.

Well, Sassy, how about this?

A "normal" is a mommy, a daddy, and a child/children.

Since single parents don't have either the "mommy" or the "daddy" part, let's take those kids away and give them to a "normal" family so that no kid has to grow up in an "abnormal" family. Let's also ban divorces so that all kids have a "normal" family, with two heterosexual parents, even if those parents hate each other with a passion.

After reading the above, do you see how not only has our definition of "family" changed in the last 60 years, but so has our definition of "normal"?

Anyone can be a family, hon. All you need is love to make a family.

A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totaly different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.
Here we go with religion again.

Just because your religion only allows it to be one way, that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow it too.

Example: All of history. Let's see if I can just replace a few words in your post, and we can point it at a different issue, lets say, the Spanish Inquisition.

A [removed] man has the same right as any man has to [worship catholicism]. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totally different and abnormal definition of [faith] because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.


Hmm. Only had to change 3 words. That was easier that I thought.

Edit: By the way, that 'totally different and abnormal definition of faith,' in case you're unfamiliar, would be Protestants or Jews.

Here we go with religion again.

Just because your religion only allows it to be one way, that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow it too.

Example: All of history. Let's see if I can just replace a few words in your post, and we can point it at a different issue, lets say, the Spanish Inquisition.

A [removed] man has the same right as any man has to [worship catholicism]. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Why should we be forced to accept a totaly different and abnormal definition of [faith] because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair.


Hmm. Only had to change 3 words. That was easier that I thought.

Absolutely OUTSTANDING!!

sassyT, A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman.
Those are your interpretations of his right, and frankly its none of your business, nor any skin off your nose. If you want to live by the rules of ancient man... be my guest. But your opinion is not welcome, as mine probably isn't either.



His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs.
You are joking right, as if you care what his needs are.



Why should we be forced to accept a totally different and abnormal definition of family because a certain group of people choose to live their lives a certain way. It is not fair

You aren't forced to do anything but mind your own business. What's unfair is thinking you have a right to tell someone what's best for them.

I don't care what religion your into, doesn't matter, but your callous disregard and assumptive, behavior has you sounding like your way out of bounds.

Can't you let go, and let God for chrissake?

Just because your religion only allows it to be one way, that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow it too.




Anyone can be a family, hon. All you need is love to make a family.



Very well said!

Nobody said that you had to accept it, but how can you deny a group of people the right that others have? There you go again determining what is normal and what is not normal according to your standards.

How can they not see that for themselves?

The State should not be forced to recognise such a Uninion period. The can have their ceromonies and commit to one another, I don't care but don't force the state to recognise it otherwise like I said, we may as well then give "rights" to a woman who wants to marry 25 of her male and female buddies or a man who want to marry a horse etc.

The State should not be forced to recognise such a Uninion period. The can have their ceromonies and commit to one another, i dont care but dont force the state to recognise it otherwise like i said, we may as well then give "rights" to a woman who wants to marry 25 of her male and female buddies or a man who want to marry a horse etc.
Separation of church and state... your church might not like it, but the state should recognize it.

Separation of church and state...your church might not like it, but the state should recognize it.

No actually it is the States that don't like it, that is why it has not been widely accepted.
It has nothing to do with religion. Just common sense..

No actually it is the States that dont like it, that is why it has not been widely acceptedHello again, sassy:

Not widely accepted?? What?? Not widely accepted?? Did you say it's not WIDELY ACCEPTED?? It's the law of the land - has been for more than 200 years.. It's accepted EVERYWHERE. It's in the BILL OF RIGHTS. It's accepted by everybody except a few religious zealots like you.

I don't think you're paying attention, at all.

excon

Hello again, sassy:

Not widely accepted???? What???? :mad: Not widely accepted??? Did you say it's not WIDELY ACCEPTED????? :mad: It's the law of the land - has been for more than 200 years.. It's accepted EVERYWHERE. :mad: It's in the BILL OF RIGHTS. It's accepted by everybody except a few religious zealots like you.

I don't think you're paying attention, at all.

excon

I didn't know gay marriage legalised in all states? Mmm.. I must have missed that news ;)

Well actually no, there is no exact separation of Church and State. It does not exist, that phrase came from a Speech given by Thomas Jefferenson, to a Church about them being protected from the state.

In fact you will see all that is in the Constitution, is that there will be no NATIONAL religion, it actually does not say that a state could not have their own state religion, because remember at that time, the federal government did not have control over the states.

It also says that the government will not pass any laws restricting religion. Well we know that has not happened, and there are laws effecting practice of religion all the time.

But separation, no, it is a myth, does not exist anyone, please go and look, you can not find it, This myth has been pushed more and more, esp by the non religious as a method of attacking religions and trying to stop them from having any political voice.

Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html)

That was the best part of your post. The rest was much too long with too many quotes too keep it interesting enough to follow.

:rolleyes:

I was addressing a long post. I like to be thorough.

Well actually no, there is no exact seperation of Church and State. It does not exist, that phrase came from a Speech given by Thomas Jefferenson, to a Church about them being protected from the state.

In fact you will see all that is in the Constitution, is that there will be no NATIONAL religion, it actually does not say that a state could not have thier own state religion, because remember at that time, the federal government did not have control over the states.

It also says that the government will not pass any laws restricting religion. Well we know that has not happened, and there are laws effecting practice of religion all the time.

But seperation, no, it is a myth, does not exist anyone, please go and look, you can not find it, This myth has been pushed more and more, esp by the non religious as a method of attacking religions and trying to stop them from having any political voice.

Charters of Freedom - The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html)

That's right.. when lies and myths are repeated for long enough people start believing they are true.

You better go back and read the original post De Maria- that is not a discussion why homosexual behavior is wrong. It is about why homosexual should or should not be allowed to marry and its affect on society. No where did the original poster say that homosexual behavior is wrong.

Doesn't the title of the thread sums up the author's intent?

Is Homosexuality Wrong?

Then the first question reads, and I quote:

Without using religion, ... please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong,....

Should I have ignored that part of the question?

And it seems to be the main idea of the entire article because, logically speaking, if homosexuality is wrong, then it is wrong to have homosexual marriage, which is the next question:

why gays should not have the right to marry,

To put it differently, if homosexuality is not inherently wrong, then gays should have the right to marry.


and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.

I believe I've also answered this part of the question.

So, I've reread the question and I come up with the same conclusions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The State should not be forced to recognise such a Uninion period.The state isn't forced, people put it on a ballot by petition and its voted on.

To put it differently, if homosexuality is not inherently wrong, then gays should have the right to marry.

Absolutely, that's what we have been saying.

It also says that the government will not pass any laws restricting religion. Well we know that has not happened, and there are laws effecting practice of religion all the time.


This myth has been pushed more and more, esp by the non religious as a method of attacking religions and trying to stop them from having any political voice.

How so?

/sigh

DeMaria, I'm done arguing with you.

That is your problem Synnen. Your view continues to be that everyone must agree with you or they are being offensive. I wasn't arguing, just expressing my views.


I'd have to tear apart YOUR post the way you did mine, and frankly, I agree with others that it's long, annoying, whatever.

If you could, you would.


A couple of very loud thoughts, I had though:

If only "natural" parents could love a child unconditionally--are you saying that no adoptive parent (regardless sexual orientation) ever loved a child the way a birth parent does?

Did you read that in my message? Where?


Frankly, I'm incredulous that you'd think that, or that you'd think adoption was an "unnatural" way for a couple to have a child.

An adoption by a heterosexual couple is a natural way of raising a child as they provide father and mother. What is unnatural is a homosexual union and therefore, by extension, it is unnatural for a homosexual couple to raise a child as father and father or mother and mother.


I never said "God" anywhere in the post I made.

Not with a capital G no.


I said that marriage was, as a general rule, a commitment that you made to--among others--"your god".

My God is God with a capital G.


MY personal god has no problem with homosexuality, so a gay person of my religion would have no upset god/goddess because it was "unnatural" and "couldn't conceive children".

Are you dragging this back into a religious discussion? As for me, homosexuality is condemned as a sin in my religion.


As far as kids not seeing any sexual behaviour--that's not a religious more on my part. That's common sense, the way I see it.

Ok. It's a belief based on nothing more than opinion. I can understand that. As for me, I agree but for religious reasons. My religious reasons seem to correspond to your common sense.


Small children are not able to understand sexual behaviour as it exists in the adult world. Deliberately exposing them to sexual behaviour, of any sort, is a Very Bad Idea. But, hey!

Oh, oh! I recognize that 'but hey!" You're getting ready to twist my words.


If YOU want to have sex in front of your kids, my religion isn't going to stop you.

Please show me where I said that I wanted to have sex in front of ANY children, let alone my own. Pleeasse. Otherwise, accept that you are simply making a derisive comment because, well I don't really know why you behave like this. Perhaps this is how your religion teaches you to behave.


The STATE probably will, but that's kind of the point of this---the rights of the state to determine what constitutes a legal union over the religious right screaming that it's unnatural. As far as the media goes on this subject, well... I don't have kids. But *I* don't watch TV, seldom go to movies, and the worst media in my house is probably a Glamour magazine. Since I'm not exposing myself to that sort of media, I wouldn't be exposing any kids I would have to it. And in several posts over the last 1.5 years, I think I've made it clear what I think about the media driving the sexuality of this country---and what I think of parents who do not take the personal responsibility to shelter their kids from it, including and especially Disney movies---but that's another thread. I'm basically pointing out that personal responsibility trumps the media, and that as long as a lifestyle choice is not HARMING someone, then there should be no law against it.

I happen to agree. But go ahead twist my words and insult me again. That is the way you apparently discuss things with people with whom you don't agree 100%.


For someone who accuses people on a regular basis of twisting your words,

I don't accuse. I prove that people twist my words by quoting whatever they attribute to me and comparing it to what I actually said.


you sure did a great job twisting mine there.

Where? Since you didn't quote me I don't know what you are talking about. Should I simply go through my entire message and try to figure out where I twisted your words? That's too much work. If you feel I twisted your words, prove it.

But wait, I quote everything that people say and I address each idea point by point. So I couldn't have twisted your words. Maybe you mean that I didn't understand what you meant, is that it?


Where is your evidence, then, that children are HARMED by growing up in a homosexual environment?

Did I say they were harmed? I asked you if you meant that they were harmed? Read my words again:

First you said:
I know people with gay parents (yes, two moms or two dads) and they're completely straight.

And the last part of my response reads:
But it is strange that you would mention this. Do you mean that the children were not "harmed" by the experience?

In other words, why did you mention that they turned out "straight"? Staight is another word for "fine" or "healthy" correct. After all, the alternative to straight is bent or deformed. Or is there another alternative of which I'm not aware?


Because what this still comes down to, for me, is that as long as it is not HARMING anyone, what is the problem with homosexual marriages?

I've already listed my opinions. And I've tried to substantiate them with current data on the matter.

So, since you have stated that you are through addressing me, then perhaps we can agree to disagree.

Bye,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Actually I have learned a lot from my Catholic faith. A lot about who I am and what I believe in. When my father died I left the faith for awhile,

I did also.


but found my way back.

And I also came back.


Why did I leave? Because I found the Catholic religon to be somewhat two faced.

Sounds as though you still feel that way. But you are mixing concepts. The fact that Catholics sin can't be blamed on the Catholic Church teaching it. The Catholic Church teaches not to sin. If we sin, we do it in spite of Catholic teaching, not because of it.


In many cases

Many but not all. There are also many who don't pick but who observe all the teachings of the Catholic Church as best they can.


Catholics (myself included) tend to pick what they want to believe and follow.

Again, not all. Many, perhaps even most. Some from ignorance of the teachings others from a simple case of disobedience. But not all.


According to the bible birth control is wrong,

True.


so are tattoos.

Where is that in the Bible?


Yet many Catholics (myself included) have a tattoo or are on birth control.

The Catholic Church teaches that birth control is a sin because husband and wife must be open to the complete life giving love that God gives them through the giving of their bodies one to the other. But I don't see the teaching that tattoos are a sin in any of the Scriptures or Catechisms.

Or do you mean a tattoo displaying sinful matter? Such as a tattoo of a bad word or a blasphemous icon? Those would be sinful not because they are tattoos but because of what they display.


I also struggled with the idea (oddly more than my aunt did) that the Catholic Church could condemn those of a gay lifestyle,

Now we are having a religious discussion. But since you are displaying a grave misunderstanding of the Church which you claim to believe, I feel that I must respond.

First, I have no idea what you are talking about. The Church does not condemn those of a gay lifestyle. They condemn themselves by persisting in a sinful situation. Have you ever seen any Church official go to a homosexual and drag him or her by the ear into Church? I haven't. But the Church teaches the doctrines of Jesus Christ, you are free to obey or disobey as you chose. But you know the consequences of your actions.


but yet welcome them into their church and accept their money.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about. The Church doesn't go search for homosexuals and ask them for money.

The Church addresses all sinners and asks that they convert, leave their sin behind and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. If the homosexual leaves the sin behind, he becomes a former homosexual. He does not continue in that sin.

After any sinner converts and becomes a member of the Church, then the Church asks for tithes and other types of non-monetary support still in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.


Yes my gay aunt also attends mass every Sunday WITH her Aunt (my great aunt) who is a nun.

I've known homosexuals who feign Catholicism in order to live peacefully at home. I've heard that some former homosexuals have embraced the teachings of the Church and have left their sin behind. I hope your aunt is no longer practicing the gay lifestyle. But that is between her and God. The Church has definitely taught her without any equivocation that the gay lifestyle is a sinful lifestyle and no matter how often she goes to Church, if she doesn't leave that lifestyle behind, she will not receive any grace from God.


Yet many Catholics stand behind their religon when it works for their argument. I refuse to do that. I believe what I want to believe, follow my Lord in a way that works for both him and I and say my prayers at night.


I think that the Catholic Church is a wonderful institution full of faith, hope and love.

Hm? Did I misunderstand what I just read above? If you truly believe the Catholic Church is full of faith, hope and love, then obey Her.


But, it is based on a piece of literary work

No, its based on the Word of God in Tradition and in Scripture. And the most important teaching is the Holy Eucharist which is our source and summit because it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.


and I know for a fact that if I disagree with my priest he does not condemn me, nor would he tell me it is wrong to have a different outlook on the same scripture passage.

You are mixing truth and error.

Your priest would not condemn you if you interpreted a verse of Scripture differently than he. I've interpreted many Scriptures differently than my priest. But neither he nor I were interpreting the Scripture apart from the Church. Both our interpretations fell under the Catholic umbrella.

Case in point. I believe that Luke 16, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a description of a man in purgatory, my priest believes it is a man in hell. But both fit under the Catholic umbrella. Therefore neither of us has sinned.

But if you, believe that Scripture is telling you that you can have an abortion or that you can use artificial birth control, or that homosexuality is not sinful, then tell that to your priest and see if he doesn't correct your interpretation according to the teaching of the Church.

And if you persist in your error, he won't condemn you, you will condemn yourself either to hell or to purgatory depending on the seriousness of your sin.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hey everybody, look at post #361. It's from De Maria, and I actually got all the way through it. I had gained hope for her. But then she posted two more times, with the giant list of whatever that I don't think any of us has actually read. :(

De Maria: Do you really think you're going to change anyone's mind with a obscenely long boring post about nothing but counterpoints to someone who wasn't arguing with you in the first place? I'm pretty sure most of what is said here isn't personal. If you have a different opinion, that's fine. Have you already stated you case in re: to the OP? If so, then you don't need to say it again and again. And again. And again.

If you're like me, you stick around to see other opinions. If you're unlike me, you feel like everyone who has an opinion that doesn't match yours is attacking you. Newflash: it isn't. People don't agree on things. You can see it in your precious Christianity every day. Look at all the denominations...

Correct factual inaccuracies. FACTUAL, not HYPOTHETICAL. As much as you want to push the bible down everyone else's throat, it CANNOT be proven. YOU may believe it is true. FACTUALLY, it is unknown.

Synnen, can you answer this question for me plse, just yes or no

do you think people should be allowed to marry thier dog/pet?


No, I don't.



So... you don't think a person should be allowed to marry their dog... Is that because your religion says so?
no.. I didn't think so, so I don't see why you (and other supporters of gay marriage here) have been accusing me of imposing my "religious" beliefs on the matter. I told you before, I don't support gay marriage, not because of my religion but just because I don't see it as something that should be considered valid in the same way you don't think people marrying animals should be valid, independent of your religious beliefs.

I don't think a person should be able to marry a dog because--I'll repeat myself again, here, and maybe you'll GET it this time--a dog or other animal can not give consent to be married. Honestly, I don't think you understand what consent means. It means that both parties AGREE, openly, that they are willing to enter into marriage with each other. Since I've never heard of anyone who speaks fluent "Bark", a dog can not give consent, even through an interpreter.

Are you comparing homosexuals to animals? Really? Are they "less" than you? Are their feelings less "valid" than yours?

Sassy, there used to be a lot of Americans who thought Black people's citizenship shouldn't be considered valid, independent of their religious beliefs too. That doesn't make it right.

Speaking for myself, People shouldn't marry their pets because the pets can't consent. They're not physically capable of expressing the same emotions that we do. Furthermore, they wouldn't have any benefits, because they have no monetary income, can't express interest in adoption, so next of kin is unneeded, and they wouldn't be able to spend anything that is willed to them. These things make a legally recognized union between a person and a domestic animal completely unnecessary.

[QUOTE=Synnen]I don't think a person should be able to marry a dog because--I'll repeat myself again, here, and maybe you'll GET it this time--a dog or other animal can not give consent to be married.

And I don't think a man should be able to marry another man because it goes against the nature of what marriage should be. So why should you insist that I am forcing my "religious beliefs" on the issue? My opinion on this matter has nothing to do with religion just pure common sense for what marriage is and has always been.


Honestly, I don't think you understand what consent means. It means that both parties AGREE, openly, that they are willing to enter into marriage with each other. Since I've never heard of anyone who speaks fluent "Bark", a dog can not give consent, even through an interpreter.

I know what consent means, however a person wanting to marry a dog/pet can present some of the same arguments that gays gives.


Are you comparing homosexuals to animals? Really? Are they "less" than you? Are their feelings less "valid" than yours?

No.. I am not comparing a Gay to a dog. The reason for my asking what your view was on people marrying pets was to simply illustrate that one can be opposed to gay marriage independent of the religious beliefs. So calling me a "religious zealot" because of my beliefs on gay marriage is just misreprestation of reality :rolleyes:

I haven't posted in 20 pages or so, and the argument is exactly the same, with the same person. I think at this point its futile.

Completely agreed.
This thread has run it's course, what ever that was.

Thread Closed.