[De Maria]

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

I did prove it. *** edited

[Synnen]

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.

[Tuscany]

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

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




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.

[Tuscany]

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.

[De Maria]

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.

[Tuscany]

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?

[talaniman]

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:

[De Maria]

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."
jgrantswankjr: HOMOSEXUALS: 'WE SPREAD AIDS/HIV'

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

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[margog85]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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

[Fr_Chuck]

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)

[margog85]

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. =)

[talaniman]

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

[De Maria]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[margog85]

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

[Fr_Chuck]

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?

[De Maria]

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

[Credendovidis]

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 !

;)