Hmmm... A new version of raining "fire and brimstone"?. Now for posting quotes??Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
And the funny thing is that the worst offenders are the conservative Christians!!
:D :D :D :D :D
|
Hmmm... A new version of raining "fire and brimstone"?. Now for posting quotes??Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
And the funny thing is that the worst offenders are the conservative Christians!!
:D :D :D :D :D
My question is, did you address the OP? Is Homosexuality wrong, in your opinion? Please state why or why not without making religious comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Only one. I'm the worst offender. I do it because I read every message thoroughly and I address every point that I identify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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 did not suggest that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by margog85
I couldn't find the message you described below... 6/10, 9:52p, page 3 of this discussionQuote:
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! )-
... on page 3.
These stats do not seem to address whether one or both of the individuals were bi or homosexual.Quote:
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."
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.Quote:
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'-
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.Quote:
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'-
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
No, it doesn't. There is no comparison.Quote:
Doesn't make much sense---
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
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.
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
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.Quote:
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Quote:
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
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.
That is your opinion. I believe there is a great deal of room on this planet to sustain human life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
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.Quote:
There are both homosexual and heterosexual marriages that are NOT bringing more children into the world.
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.
But they are not homosexual unions. This thread is about the secular reasons homosexual behavior is wrong.Quote:
Additionally, there are couplings that DO bring children into the world without the benefit of marriage,
Those same secular reasons do not apply to heterosexual behavior outside of marriage.
Frequently, but not always.Quote:
and those children end up somewhat disadvantaged because one parent or the other isn't around to help raise them.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Sex is not just for procreation, and neither is marriage.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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]
Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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!
Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
I know people with gay parents (yes, two moms or two dads) and they're completely straight.
But it is strange that you would mention this. Do you mean that the children were not "harmed" by the experience?
Yes it is learned. Children frequently learn from people other than their parents.Quote:
Being homosexual is not "learned", or no one with two happily married heterosexual parents would EVER become gay, right?
That type of love usually comes only from their natural parents.Quote:
Children should be exposed to love, and love that is unconditional for them, regardless who it comes from.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
I disagree. I believe we need children quite a lot. I can't imagine how dreary this world would be without them.Quote:
And again...we don't NEED more people in this world.
But they are certainly a joy and a blessing.Quote:
Having a child, or adopting a child, to raise together in love is a great thing--but absolutely NOT necessary to a marriage.
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.Quote:
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.
That is wonderful.Quote:
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.
Well, since you mentioned God right above this last statement, I guess I'll mention God also.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Get your facts right !
:rolleyes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
:rolleyes:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Allheart
:)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
/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.
Not fair to who?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
And I believe most gay couples adopting are lesbians.
Hello again, sassy:Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
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.
Here we go with religion again.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
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.
Absolutely OUTSTANDING!!Quote:
Originally Posted by retsoksirhc
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.Quote:
sassyT, A gay man has the same right as any man has to marry a woman.
You are joking right, as if you care what his needs are.Quote:
His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs.
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.Quote:
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
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?
Quote:
Just because your religion only allows it to be one way, that doesn't mean everyone else has to follow it too.
Very well said!Quote:
Anyone can be a family, hon. All you need is love to make a family.
How can they not see that for themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuscany
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.
Separation of church and state... your church might not like it, but the state should recognize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
No actually it is the States that don't like it, that is why it has not been widely accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuscany
It has nothing to do with religion. Just common sense..
Hello again, sassy:Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
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
I didn't know gay marriage legalised in all states? Mmm.. I must have missed that news ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
I was addressing a long post. I like to be thorough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
That's right.. when lies and myths are repeated for long enough people start believing they are true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:34 AM. |