[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.

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

[talaniman]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[talaniman]

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?

[De Maria]

/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

[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

[retsoksirhc]

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.

[sassyT]

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.

[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. 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?

[retsoksirhc]

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.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

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:

[ChihuahuaMomma]

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.

[Curlyben]

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

Thread Closed.