Comments for Pope likens saving gays to saving the rainforest | Lifestyle | Reuters »
Posted By david_nwpa 11 months, 3 weeks ago in ReligionPope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.
Read Full Story at uk.reuters.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 199
-
93%
david_nwpa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Pope has zero credibility when it comes to preaching about gays and lesbians. Since I am no longer Catholic, I frankly couldn't care much less what the Pope says. However, it his blind followers who vote in large numbers and sway public opinion. It is nonsense like this that leads people to vote against gays and lesbians from having civil rights. As I have said repeatedly, this pope has zero moral authority on any topic.
Reply-
25%
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Homosexuals have civil rights. They want to make a cultural change. They wish for us to applaud their behavior. If a person wishes to live single they have the same civil rights as any citizen. If they wish to live together (man and a woman) without marriage they still have civil rights. They can create a will, set up legal structures to have the same benefits as others. Homosexuals can do the same. It is not about heterosexual couples who are married having some added civil rights. We have several "classes" of people in our society with special rules for them or for which we have made special allowances. Racial minorities, (blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc), the blind, and the physically handicapped. Handicapped persons have special parking spaces and we aid them in other ways. No one says those without handicaps are being slighted. Nor do they have more "civil rights than others. Marriage (one man and one woman) is a "class" to be advanced because it is the core foundational stone of society.
Reply
People who take on the task of creating the next generation and training them to be contributing citizens need help and should have advantages financially and otherwise. That is not a slap in the face of those who do not, any more than to fine a person who parks in a handicapped zone is. It is just a decision of the majority as to what they wish to promote and approve. We have that responsibility and privilege.
The reason society has set up protections for marriage (one man and one woman) is because it is beneficial to do so. It provides a stability for the society. If this "model" is destroyed then civilized society is in jepodary. Previous societies have self-destructed once that model changed or homosexuality was accepted as a "norm."-
94%
lvrofwolves11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Redneck-How would your so called model be destroyed if Homosexuals were allowed to have the very same rights as Heterosexuals that marry? Just give 1 real example please.
Reply
Have the Homosexuals that have married so far, in the states that allow it, in the countries that allow it, has that changed anyones marriage in any way shape or form,that you know of?
And even IF it did change anyones marriage, that's just too bad, why don't you believe in equal rights for everyone?
Homosexuals should have the very same rights as Heterosexuals, to marry the consenting adult that they love and are attracted to, just like Heterosexuals do.-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gay couples are denied civil unions in most states. They are denied input into end-of-life and other medical decisions and have been removed from wills by family members. They cannot file joint tax returns or be covered under the same insurance policy.
Reply
As to your point on 'rights': where is it written that straight couples have the right to marry? Rights not enumerated in the Constitution are assumed unless said activity violates the rights of another. If a legal standing is granted to a particular class of people but not another then that is unequal treatment under the law and is specifically prohibited in the Constitution. -
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
88%
hamy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Reading really IS fundamental.
Reply
Here is a list of the over 1,000 RIGHTS and responsibilities associated with marriage in the United States.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
Try that link. See for yourself. And you didn't answer the question. What harm has come from the gay couples already enjoying marriage equality? How has one straight couple's marriage been harmed in any way?
Don't dodge the question simply because you can't answer it. Say "There are none!" and let everyone know that your argument is based solely on your own prejudices. If you are going to have a bias against a minority, at least have the testicular fortitude to wear it on your sleeve.
And the Pope of all people shouldn't be throwing so many stones inside his glass house. Every time he says something ignorant about gay people, someone somewhere should shout 'CHILD MOLESTER' at his face.
-
-
-
85%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The reason society has set up protections for marriage (one man and one woman) is because it is beneficial to do so. It provides a stability for the society. If this "model" is destroyed then civilized society is in jepodary. Previous societies have self-destructed once that model changed or homosexuality was accepted as a "norm.""
Reply
Seriously? Have you seen the kinds of 'models' offered by many "one man and one woman" couples? That's the real danger to the consecrated union of marriage -- not same sex couples who love one another.
Plus there are numerous homosexual couples who adopt children -- thus raising the next generation of people. Why shouldn't committed couples be allowed to marry?
You should at least be honest with your reasons against homosexual marriage (and homosexuality). They're based on dogma from whichever conservative church you follow. Because they're not based on scripture as nowhere in the Bible does it say homosexuality itself is a sin or 'abomination.' It only states that a single, particular homosexual act between two men is an 'abomination.' In a section of the Pentateuch where it also discusses what kind of slavery is a-ok.
So if you want to stick to your dogma, that's fine. Just please don't try to cloak your hatred and bigotry in the clothing of 'saving society.' Dogma and pointed misinterpretation of Scripture has been destroying society for thousands of years. Homosexuality's been around just as long and caused much less damage.-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, Leviticus says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."
Reply
That refers to an act not an emotion.
The Bible also discusses the love between David and Jonathan, so it seems romantic but chaste love between two men is okay, even to the point of forming a 'covenant'.
1 Samuel:
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."
2 Samuel:
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women."
-
-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
-
25%
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have watched the gay agenda over the years. There has been a steady progession. It has not stopped. With each step a different demand has been offered. Now we are to the point they are demanding we teach that homosexual activity is just as valid as heterosexual acts and we should teach children to "explore" homosexuality.
Reply
They did not demand that twenty years ago. They were just "coming out of the closet." They are now demanding we redefine marriage to suit them and their definition. Do not tell me there is no agenda or that they merely want to "just live their lives." There are many in the homosexual community that have expressed condemnation of the "agenda." If they recognize there is one for some then how can you deny there is one?-
91%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Now we are to the point they are demanding we teach that homosexual activity is just as valid as heterosexual acts and we should teach children to "explore" homosexuality."
Reply
That's a BS straw man argument. You're trying to paint a picture where third-graders will be taught how to give a good blow job! That simply is not the case. Your rabid hyperbole aside, where is the harm in teaching children diversity? Heck, where is the harm in homosexuality in the first place?
As to the 'progression' of demands, the same thing happened with the women and minority civil rights movements. And the same bogus, bigoted arguments were leveled: "What? They want to vote? Next they'll want to live in our neighborhoods! Next they'll want to marry our daughters!"-
38%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Your rabid hyperbole aside, where is the harm in teaching children diversity?"
Reply
I've pointed this out before, but this assumes that "you" are right and homosexuality is OK. Others do not agree with that and so having school, a government sponsored required activity, deliberately teach against the parent is a direct harm.
Teaching that diversity exists is fine. "Look folks, there are gays, there are straights, there are blacks, whites, yellows, reds, there are male female" period! When the government starts teaching morals (ie, homosexuality is "OK") why don't people get livid that they are "forcing their morals on impressionable children"? Other than, those people, in this case, agree with the moral...-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personally, I don't find homosexuality to be at all immoral, so I have no problem with my children knowing that there are gays out there. Teaching awareness and tolerance is not teaching acceptance. If you have a huge problem with that particular section of the curriculum, you would have every right as a parent to have your child sit that part out without penalty (as they allow now for elementary 'growth and development' portions that cover human sexuality).
Reply
"I've pointed this out before, but this assumes that "you" are right and homosexuality is OK." Yes, I do make that assumption, since I can find no harm. But than, I'm a Rationalist. The point is: I'm not trying to deny anyone's inherent rights. If one is going to specifically deny a particular class of people access to a legal institution, you'd better have a damned good reason for doing so!-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I provided evidence of a harm as you requested.
Reply
Additionally, diversity is rarely about tolerance in the "don't hit the gay guy" sort of way. It is now "homosexuality" is "OK". "You should support your gay brothers and sisters". Or it would be as I presented above you "There are gays and straights" without any moralizing. And why should "my child" have to sit out when there is an activity that offends "me" at the school? Or should we have Christian celebrations again? Jews et al can just "opt out"... Prayers are OK, just let the atheists opt out. I thought seperate but equal was inherrently unequal.-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I provided evidence of a harm as you requested. " You provided evidence for not bringing up homosexuality in a school setting. I'm still waiting for a reply as to how gay marriage itself in harmful.
Reply
The only harm you brought up as far as teaching diversity was that I was assuming I was correct, unless I misread you. Reporting on a phenomenon is not teaching that something is 'OK'. You can teach a child about Hinduism, but that is not ADVOCATING for Hinduism. You go swiftly from presenting homosexuality as a social/cultural phenomenon right to presenting homosexuality as 'moral'. Ever hear of 'teaching the controversy'? Besides, how does presenting a different point of view harm a child? Does the classroom setting supersede the ability of the parent to help a child interpret?-
Neutral
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"where is the harm in teaching children diversity?" That is the issue I was addressing. The difference is that my experience is that "diversity" and "tolerance" is usually taught as biggotry and condemnation. You don't see it that way so we have different oppinions and expectations.
Reply
"Besides, how does presenting a different point of view harm a child? Does the classroom setting supersede the ability of the parent to help a child interpret?" If it is Christian theology being taught, do you feel the same? Or muslim theology, or Jewish, or Communist, take your pick. I think we have made clear here several times in the past that most do not feel that way.
Yes, every example I have ever been has been trying to convince that someone's personal morals on "diversity" are correct. That whatever the diveristy of the day seems to be, that is "ok". I disagree.
-
-
-
100%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I provided evidence of a harm as you requested."
Reply
--Actually you didn't. You wrote:
"I've pointed this out before, but this assumes that "you" are right and homosexuality is OK. Others do not agree with that and so having school, a government sponsored required activity, deliberately teach against the parent is a direct harm."
--Your "direct harm" premise is based on the assumption that all parents will disagree with the information their children are being taught regarding gay people. You don't speak for all parents. -
100%
david_nwpa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No you have not demonstrated how being gay is immoral or wrong. It is not the same as being straight, but that is perfectly fine. Who put you in a position to make moral decisions anyway? As for teaching children, they are pretty resilient and are becoming more accepting of gays and lesbians by the day. Your arguments just simply do not hold water, KISA, and they come off as purely bigoted.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When the government starts teaching morals (ie, homosexuality is "OK") why don't people get livid that they are "forcing their morals on impressionable children"?"
Reply
When the government then does as you're asking and teaches that homosexuality isn't okay, then why won't you get livid that the government is forcing someone's morals on impressionable children. Or does it only upset you when the morals being enforced don't match up with yours? -
100%
hamy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You said yourself that teaching the existence of something is OK. Well if you teach children that being different is OK, why isn't it? It sounds like you are teaching a double standard to your kids. And again, saying that it exists isn't promoting it. You seem to think that by teaching kids that their friends who have gay parents aren't any different than they are is somehow endorsing homosexuality.
Reply
Teach your kids to hate people all you want. The rest of us will continue to rebuild our society. -
100%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When the government starts teaching morals (ie, homosexuality is "OK") why don't people get livid that they are "forcing their morals on impressionable children"?
Reply
--I'm not sure I follow you...If you don't want the government "teaching morals" then it shouldn't be encouraging people to marry at all. The same goes for religion. If we're going to promote religion in government, promote ALL religions. Or don't promote any at all.-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
".If you don't want the government "teaching morals" then it shouldn't be encouraging people to marry at all."
Reply
I don't think the government does encourage people to marry, what with the marriage penalty for taxes. Though all of the legal benefits regarding right of survivorship and medical issues are positive.
You're right about promoting all religions or none, though. That's what the anti-establishment clause says. We agree completely on that issue.-
Neutral
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I don't think the government does encourage people to marry, what with the marriage penalty for taxes."
Reply
--Dionysis I often hear people complain about the marriage penalty but married people also benefit from our tax laws in significant ways. Just ask Cindy and John McCain or Bill and Hillary. Ask Madonna's ex-husband or Paul McCartney's ex-wife.
If you're married, you inherit a share of your spouses estate in a way that comes with far fewer strings than it does when unmarried couples are involved. Marriage exempts a surviving spouse from the so called "death tax" and the spouse is automatically first in line if one needs to make financial or medical decisions on the other's behalf. Marrieds get special Social Security, medicare and disability benefits as well as vet and military benefits and benefits for education healthcare and certain types of loans. I'm just getting started...
Also, one could argue that to the extent government supports certain types of commerce (the wedding industry, for instance), it promotes marriage.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
hamy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I have said many times, you are free to hate me all you want. I don't care what you think about what I do or who I am. I know who I am and what I do. I don't require or want your approval or tolerance. But, in the eyes of the LAWS of this country where I reside and pay taxes, I deserve and demand the same rights afforded to straight Americans. And if you are looking for an agenda, that's it. EQUALITY. The reason we didn't fight for it a long time ago was that the laws weren't on our side. Homosexuality was illegal in many states up until just a few years ago. With the overturning of those laws came a new sense of pride. A sense that we didn't have to be beaten in our neighborhoods, burned in the streets, dragged behind cars or shot in the face anymore just because of who we love.
Reply
That is the agenda. Equality. Nothing else. No recruiting. That's ridiculous. If homosexuality could be taught, then heterosexuality could as well. And my parents will tell you that you can't teach a gay person to be straight.
Now. ONE MORE TIME. Show me proof of physical harm to someone's relationship because of the existence of a homosexual relationship. -
100%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I have watched the gay agenda over the years. There has been a steady progession."
Reply
--I'm not familiar with a "gay agenda" but that's usually the way a movement works. No different from women and racial minorities.
"Now we are to the point they are demanding we teach that homosexual activity is just as valid as heterosexual acts and we should teach children to "explore" homosexuality."
--You're distorting, mischaracterizing, exaggerating and lying here. All children are being taught is that same sex couples exist. No one is teaching children about anyone's sexual activity.
"They are now demanding we redefine marriage to suit them and their definition."
--LOL. You're outrageously misinformed or lying. Gay people don't want to re-define anything. As the laws read, they could already marry so they didn't have to do anything. It's you who wants to re-define marriage. This "one man and one woman" crap is something you bigots just recently pulled outta your azzes. Marriage was never meant to exclude gay couples in the first place. That's why the bigot brigade i s running around in a gay panic trying to ram through petitions for Constitutional Amendments. *You're* the ones who are jumping through hoops to nullify rights gay people already have. Get serious. ;-(
-
-
-
100%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"No one says those without handicaps are being slighted."
Reply
--Kinda funny you cherry picked the disabled as an example to elaborate on your point. I guess you knew better than to claim that racial minorities aren't accused of getting special treatment.
"Nor do they have more "civil rights than others. Marriage (one man and one woman) is a "class" to be advanced because it is the core foundational stone of society."
--I guess...But if 50% of marriages fail and people can repeatedly marry and divorce with the speed of fashion models changing clothes between runway turns, isn't this "foundation" pretty much already in ruins? Just wondering... ;-(
"People who take on the task of creating the next generation and training them to be contributing citizens need help and should have advantages financially and otherwise."
--Ok, but the thing is people who are "taking on the task" *are* getting help (financially and otherwise). Gay people pay taxes for a right they are being denied. And consider, for example, all the school teachers (gay or not) who spend more time with our children than we do. Now think about it. Would you want your kids in your face 24/7? Exactly, dude. Gay people are raising our children all the time. They just don't get top billing (parents can be such divas). We owe them BIG TIME. Get outta their way. ;-(
"It provides a stability for the society. If this "model" is destroyed then civilized society is in jepodary. Previous societies have self-destructed once that model changed or homosexuality was accepted as a "norm."
--Again, it ain't all that "stable." Stop over-glamorizing something that people can do and undo with ease.-
Neutral
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We taught our own children. And yes i would perfer to have our children and grandchildren with us all the time. That is how many generations before taught and raised their children and some cultures still do. Your comment is revealing.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And yes i would perfer to have our children and grandchildren with us all the time. "
Reply
--K...But absent any evidence whatsoever that children are harmed by knowing about or spending time with gay people, why would you even want to try to singlehandedly socialize them? That sounds unhealthy and a bit scary. ;-(
-
-
-
ekklesiawarriorComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
83%
hamy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're absolutely right. He and his followers PROTECTED AND EVEN PROMOTED KNOW CHILD MOLESTERS. Do you read? They are still in the process of settling claims. They are paying people for having had sex with their children. If you are truly as concerned about the mental health of your children as expressed in your earlier posts, why would YOU care what he says?
Reply -
-
-
-
100%
tchef11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is one thing that Christians fail to recognize.
Reply
All things = all things, good and evil. Who created Satin? God did, he was his favorite angel. Then he turned on God and was cast out of heaven. God is supposed to be all knowing, past, present and future. Therefor he knew what was going to happen when he created Satin, just as he knew what was going to happen when he put the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. And in doing so he created sin. So yes God created Adam and Eve, and Adam and Steve.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23%
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Pope has the obligation to give direction to his church. He would be remiss if he did not. He at least has the moral right to voice his objections to things which offend his conscience and the clear teaching of the Church Universal and that which centuries of civilized society have rejected.
Reply
As for "moral authority" the Pope has it and you do not. He has been vested with that moral authority by the people who have chosen to follow his leadership. The number of people who have vests him with vast moral authority. If one says a policeman who attempts to enforce the law or says you have broken the law has no "moral authority or Legal Authority" to do so because he beats his wife and yells at his kids and fights with his parents and.. and.. and .. You sir are WRONG. You will be arrested and thrown into jail for resisting a duly appointed authority!!
It is the position not the personal character in this case that is the issue!!! AND the consequences of ignoring a basic principle of both the Bible and life.-
93%
lvrofwolves11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anyone can ignore the bible, our constitution trumps the bible, nobody should be allowed to ignore the constitution in America.
Reply
The Pope protecting and turning a blind eye to the many Pedophile priests has done WAY more damage to their very own credibility, the church and society as a whole,then 2 consenting adults who choose to be together ever will.
As far as this Pope goes, the people's choice was wrong, just like the people who chose Bush for President. Both have an obligation, both were bad choices. It is the person that is supposed to represent the position, if that person is a bad representation, it puts a stain on the position in people's minds, as it should, how is that a good thing? -
83%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"of ignoring a basic principle of both the Bible and life"
Reply
The Bible says nothing about homosexual marriage. Nor does it say anything about homosexuality itself being a sin. It states that a certain male-male homosexual act is a sin, but that's it.
Considering that the next Chapter discusses under what circumstances it's okay for me to take a slave, in considerable length and detail (unlike the 'anti-homosexual act' portion so often quoted), one should consider whether or not to take into consideration Historical Critical Method and exegesis in examining a passage.
If you do that, you have to do that with each section and passage and not apply your method of analysis willy nilly.
I do agree that the Pope has moral authority for the Church. But the Church's stance on homosexuality is established dogma, not scripturally based revelation. To say otherwise is to intentionally misread the Bible to fit your agenda and is the work of the Adversary.-
0%
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quote: "I do agree that the Pope has moral authority for the Church. But the Church's stance on homosexuality is established dogma, not scripturally based revelation. To say otherwise is to intentionally misread the Bible to fit your agenda and is the work of the Adversary."
Reply
So do you accept the writings of Paul as Scripture? Do you accept the Book of Revelation as Scripture? Do you accept the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel as Scripture?-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you stone disobedient children to death?
Reply
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."
The point is, clearly the Bible is open to a certain amount of interpretation and selective acceptance.-
0%
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So what does that passage of Scripture teach you? For me it says parents should take responsibility for their children as to whether they are productive citizens with a positive impact on society.
Reply
We are not a theocracy but a constitutional republic so we have decided that even some horrible crimes receive less punishment than most societies demand. But it might cut down on crime if parents were required to pay for the criminal actions of their offspring while they are still minors.
As for Bible interpretation you are speaking about application rather than interpretation. And as to selective acceptance it is also a question of application. Since we are not Israel and not a theocracy then my opinion of how this should be applied does not matter. -
-
-
86%
lovemylibs11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Redneck, in many opinion pieces that I have read regarding homosexuality and Catholicism, it was explained that the main reason the Catholic Church took their position on homosexuality was due to monetary reasons. The Church could not collect multi-generational tithes from childless, homosexuals. So, when it comes to reasoning why theCatholic Church does what it does, follow the money like with any other institution.
Reply-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, Roman emporer Constans who, along with Constantius II, made homosexuality punishable by death, himself had several male lovers. Up until that time, same-sex unions had been legal.
Reply
Such things are seldom proven. However political and economic machinations were (and arguably ARE) common influences on the people guiding the various sects.-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They are often, that is a fact. But it is quite easy to make the comparison saying that unsubstantiated claims like this (unsubstantiated so far) creates hatred and fear and might well lead to violence against Catholics. Therefore, most propeller-ites should say lovemylibs should not say them...
Reply
That said, I am interested if there is support for this inflammatory comment. I may or may not buy the argument, but it would be good to see what this is based on other than (I suspect) bigotry. -
-
-
100%
lovemylibs11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sure:
Reply
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index.html-
-
100%
lovemylibs11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Read the article and the comments below the article - as I said opinion pieces .
Reply
http://www.pobronson.com/blog/2006/07/gay-marriage... -
100%
lovemylibs11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This book alludes to the concept several different times:
Reply
http://www.johnjmcneill.com/TCTH.HTML -
100%
lovemylibs11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And another good one:
Reply
http://www.whosoever.org/v12i4/open.shtml
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So do you accept the writings of Paul as Scripture? Do you accept the Book of Revelation as Scripture? Do you accept the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel as Scripture?"
Reply
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
Paul tailored his letters to fit the questions of whichever group he was trying to answer for. If you want to read his writings in the original Greek, in the context of the time he was writing, for the audience he was writing for -- let me know and we'll talk.
Revelations? I know people with multiple doctorates in Divinity and Theology who won't touch trying to interpret that with a ten foot pole because of the vast amount of knowledge needed to interpret apocalyptic literature of that time. The symbology and inherent knowledge needed to read Revelations is sketchy at best because you're trying to interpret something written in an extremely high-context society from the viewpoint of someone in a low-context society -- and often times the people interpreting it are doing so in English -- a wildly futile quest. -
-
-
-
-
100%
jakesguile11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Two things:
Reply
1) Well this chickenshit has one thing right, the psychological textbook definition of Homosexuality is that it IS a deviation. But let's use this in context shall we? "A natural deviation in which one is attracted to another of the same gender" See..a NATURAL deviation, and really there's no other word to describe it, I'm gay and I'll admit, I deviate from straightness, but deviate is not deviant, get what I'm sayin?
2) Was Pope John Paul II this bad? I wasn't politically aware during his life (bein' only 20 and not awakening until late 17s) He struck me as a good honest man with a good soul, I CANNOT see him supporting this kind of hatred and utter insanity. But perhaps I'm wrong, does anyone have anything they can say to enlighten me to his positions?-
100%
jakesguile11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just checked Wiki for 2
Reply
It appears he was 'almost' as bad, he seemed to reaffirm the modern church standing that gay was okay but gay marriage wasn't (he didn't really go into details). I don't like his social policies but he "seemed" from the wiki as if he was more centrist than this pretender we have in here now.
I have to say I'm not surprised, I figured as much, it'd be a stretch for millions of catholics to start hating on the church for their actions against gay rights in every year but the years John Paul II was Pope, so I naturally figured I'd probably be outraged. It saddens me because I held the man in high regard and this tarnishes my image of him somewhat. I still hold him up there where I hold Bill Clinton, as a man of great charisma and inherrant goodness, but in the same breath I say I hold Benedick't in the same light I hold Bush in, unwise, petty, with a dark soul and inherrantly evil-
90%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John Paul II was a heck of a lot more centrist.
Reply
Benedict is *extremely* conservative and frankly would love to set the church back a few decades or few hundred years. He's already been moving towards a return of the Latin Mass (which I personally love and know) -- but for conservative, rolling back the 'advance' of liberal reasons. If anyone will be bad news for the continuation of the Church in gaining rather than losing members, it will be Benedict. Certainly his policies will solidify the uber-conservative groups within the Church, but it will alienate centrist or liberal groups and parishoners.-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"would love to set the church back a few decades or few hundred years"
Reply
I always find that sort of comment interesting. You think it is set back because it disagrees with you. There is no inherent forward or back. Assume the Catholic Church now said that all Jews should be rounded up and killed, a al Hitler. Would setting the church back be OK?
Why do you seem to define the goal of the church as having higher member count? This should be irrelevant to the church who's purpose is to present the word of God. Assuming this is correct (you can argue if they get it right, but that is irrelevant to this discussion), then the member count is not a worthy goal.
I just find your comments interesting.-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There is no inherent forward or back."
Reply
Um, I disagree. The Roman Catholic Church was originally opposed to women's suffrage, now they are for more open to equal rights for women (well, except among the clergy). I definitely see a progression 'forward' towards equality.
One could make the point, however, in that in the 9th century the Catholic Church DID, in fact, allow the ordination of women as deacons. So a temporal movement 'back' might actually lead to a moral movement 'forward'. I think, overall, that is the exception rather than the rule.-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We've discussed it before. Question your assumptions.
Reply
Why is equality forward? There are many cultures throughout history that have succeeded very well without equality of various sorts. Egypt had slavery. China has always been patriarchical. Arguably 2 of the most amazing cultures of history. On what basis do you say they are backward?-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Egypt didn't really start relying on slavery until very late and appears likely to have been a symptom of a society in decline. For most of it's history, infrequent groups of conquered prisoners endured a sort of indentured servitude, but could eventually earn their freedom. The 'high period' of Egyptian culture was extremely 'civilized' by modern standards; valuing science, art, medicine, etc.
Reply
Egypt was actually remarkably egalitarian regarding gender. They had women represented in every level of society and even a couple of female kings. Surrounding cultures occasionally recorded remarks of alarm at the way women and men had no real distinct gender roles. Their religion had huge reverence for both the male and female aspects of reality, so it doesn't appear superiority of one gender over another really ever entered their collective consciousness.
Rationalism tells me equality is necessarily more 'moral' (or 'forward') than assumptions of inferiority or superiority, since I cannot assume anyone else's experience of or in this world is any different than mine. I do not accept being placed below another, therefore how can I justify placing myself above another. That is the essence of self-evidence of equality.-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I made sure not to stick with Egypt for gender ;-)
Reply
Very interesting discussion and good information, thank you.
I disagree with your conclusion about equality, but it is the first time I've seen it presented as such so I can't come up with a cogent counter argument off the cuff. But it would go along the lines of "Every society has a hierarchy except for communism theoretically. We accept this fact that there are up and down in society and inequalities. Therefore, we are not all equal. We consider groups as better in various things (child-rearing=women; sports, music, dancing=blacks, smarts = asians). It is only if we claim that the majority is superior in something that we get bent out of shape. Inherent inequalities are accepted". Or something vaguely like that ;-)
Claiming equality does not equate to having equality.-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We consider groups as better in various things (child-rearing=women; sports, music, dancing=blacks, smarts = asians)"
Reply
YOU may make wide generalizations about people like that based on race or gender, but please don't assume everyone does. -
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excellent discussion.
Reply
I would counter that social Hierarchies do not necessitate a designation of 'inferior' or 'superior'. I may be 'better at' math than another person, but that does not make me 'better than' another person on the whole. Me being 'better at' math might get me a 'better job' and make me 'better money' than another person, but that still doesn't make me intrinsically 'better than' another person. Indeed, my high-fallutin' lifestyle might make me a superficial dickwad, and the McDonald's toilet-scrubber might well be 'better at' treating other people nicely.
"It is only if we claim that the majority is superior in something that we get bent out of shape." On this particular issue, then, the majority is indeed claiming it has superior morality.-
Neutral
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are right that it social status does not equate to being "better". Yes, I saw that flaw in my arguemtn too, lol! Good catch. I'll have to think things through and see if I can better articulate next time this comes up.
Reply
Thanks for the good conversations.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You think it is set back because it disagrees with you."
Reply
Please don't tell me what I think as you have no idea. I say it's being set back because it is literally being set back in terms of rolling back advances that have been made over the past 50 to 100 years in terms of theology, dogma, tradition and interpretation of Church Law.
It has nothing to do with what I agree or disagree with. As I said -- I love that we're returning (in some cases) to a Latin mass. I agree with that decision. The reasons behind that decision, however, are contrary to the theology, dogma and traditions that have evolved over the past 50+ years. It's not whether or not I like it, it's simply being set back. Or rolled back, if you prefer.
"Why do you seem to define the goal of the church as having higher member count? "
I don't. I just think that in a time when Church membership is already declining that it is stupid to try and re-define dogma, Church Law, traditions and Theology to fit Benedict's ideas of how the Church should be run rather than to fit the Theological developments offered in modern scholarship within the Catholic Church.
"This should be irrelevant to the church who's purpose is to present the word of God."
It is. Irrelevant, that is.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
reallypsst11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems that humanity has taken a twist by extremes and our technology has been applied to validate the union,i have no problem with these couples who by choice or medical abnormality join in these unions,but will their children have the same free choice after been reared in that environment and will this type of parenting instill those tendencies.imagine if in the animal kingdom these tendencies occurred we wouldn't be speaking of this now.And what about procreation without our present medical technology.there are many issues that can be debated,you still need a male and female to exist!
Reply-
-
-
100%
willottica11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
not the zoo. In nature. In the wild. It's observable. And not just homosexual acts, but homosexual pairings where occasionally 2 same-sex animals will pair-bond.
Reply
(Or were you talking about the second part, I suppose the decision not to have children may be forced on couples because the 'cages' we live in are too expensive to upkeep on a single salary and therefore children are out of the question.)-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
88%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"but will their children have the same free choice after been reared in that environment and will this type of parenting instill those tendencies."
Reply
Gay men and women typically come from heterosexual unions/couples/partners/marriages and from all spectrums of wealth and education. Are you saying that all homosexuals had parents who instilled their homosexuality?-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, one can be a product of one's environment, but there is zero data that a child growing up with gay parents is any more likely to be gay than one who grows up with straight parents. They may be influenced to recognize it earlier and be more comfortable with themselves, but evidence suggests sexual preference on a gender level has a very strong genetic component (passed through the mother) and simply cannot be 'taught'.
Reply-
-
0%
reallypsst11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is not true children always mimic their parents and parents always impose their life styles religious and political views,and when does a child have the mental capacity to distinguish what he is or what he should be in that type of setting ,when they go to school and are confronted with other children they are in a mental identity turmoil and then come the problems.how many gay parents exert normal role models for their children and how can they be neutral!
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Garbage to the nth degree. I have three children: one is a straight boy, one is gay, and my youngest is only 4. Children identify with what they like as they age. They come to terms with their sexual identity much better if they do not have uptight and oppressive parents lording their bigoted ideas over their children. They can be neutral because children come to terms with these concepts over time.
Reply-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Precisely what I am saying. They reached their own conclusions without my influence and been abundantly clear about that. Folks who have been on Propeller or Netscape long enough know I have described and discussed my family repeatedly on here.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That is not true children always mimic their parents and parents always impose their life styles religious and political views,and when does a child have the mental capacity to distinguish what he is or what he should be in that type of setting ,when they go to school and are confronted with other children they are in a mental identity turmoil and then come the problems.how many gay parents exert normal role models for their children and how can they be neutral!"
Reply
So homosexual children are mimicing their heterosexual parents how?
-
-
-
100%
hamy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As a gay man, you are so wrong it hurts me. AGAIN, my mom and dad tried everything to make me straight. If she could, my mother would give up anything for me to be straight. Well, she used to. Now she likes that I can't get married because I am the executer of her estate and she fears that if I were married and got divorced, my spouse could get half of HER money.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"but will their children have the same free choice after been reared in that environment and will this type of parenting instill those tendencies."
Reply
--Are you asking this because you have evidence that being raised in "that environment" or with "that type of parenting" is harmful to children?-
0%
reallypsst11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You bet i am do you know what happens to kids in school that are gay or have gay parents they are humiliated and tortured many don't go to school a lot turn to drugs and have problems adjusting and have bad relationships and identity problems .That is the reality of the problem!
Reply-
100%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You bet i am do you know what happens to kids in school that are gay or have gay parents they are humiliated and tortured..."
Reply
--I see...gay people should be denied the right to marry or be parents because their children could be victimized because some heterosexuals raised their children to be bullies and intolerant bigots.
"Many don't go to school a lot turn to drugs and have problems adjusting and have bad relationships and identity problems .That is the reality of the problem!"
--That sounds just awful...But this happens to kids of hetero parents all the time and I don't think anyone circulates petitions to deny all heterosexuals the right to marry or become parents. ;-(
-
-
-
-
-
25%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the Propeller-ites come out to demand that conservatives not speak. The Pope did not mention violence in any form and has spoken against it many times. To say he should not state his beliefs because some people might take it to incite violence is rediculous. How about saying the liberal gay-rights activists should not say anything because it might incite violence? No? That is because you think only those who say what "you" think should be allowed to speak. I hate to defend myself preventatively, but I've seen too many times that people on here can't read. I have never said the gay-rights activists should not speak, nor did I do so here. Free speech is for all not just those who agree with "you".
Reply
He has no moral authority? Did you say that when he opposed the Iraq invasion?-
-
100%
hamy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you don't think that saying "homosexuals will be the end of the Earth" doesn't incite violence against gay people, you are truly as ignorant as you sound.
Reply
I engage the people who protest at rallies. The problem is that their arguments, like yours, dry up very quickly and just become "it's wrong because God said so!" Any further scrutiny just reveals a personal prejudice 9 times out of 10.
He is allowed to say what he wants. I really don't care. It is the people who give what he says credence who should look at why they do it. Because he is talking politics though, shouldn't the Catholic Church go ahead and pay taxes though? If I am not mistaken, politicians still have to pay taxes.
-
-
89%
Kit11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
0%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
-
50%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am interested. I liked one I heard a while ago that homosexuality increases as populations increase thereby limiting the growth of the population. I don't remember any details how they came to that conclusion, but I thought it was a cool idea.
Reply-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've heard that theory as well, but there would have to be some way to 'trigger' the gene into either more or less activity depending on the population density and proportion of males to females.
Reply
The one that seems more likely has to do with the social nature of human early history, with many testosterone-laden males and fewer 'available' females composing bands of hunter-gatherers. The consistent presence of homosexual males might have taken pressure off the females and provided occasional relief of sexual tension among the always-ready-for-action males. If a band had lost all the females through predation, or the perils of childbirth, homosexuality would have been a socially cohesive factor.
As an addendum, males who weren't interested in competing over the available females would add strength resources to the community without being a threat to the alpha male.-
50%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting. I like that one, too. But wouldn't this mean that there is no gay gene to trigger? There is no genetic difference between gays an heteros? If this is true, then many pro-gay arguments go out the window and it becomes more a matter of socialization, no?
Reply-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, the gay gene itself would not have a trigger, as it would in the population control scenario, but there would still be a gay gene. Gayness would simply emerge on a fairly regular basis, like left-handedness, rather than being turned on or off based on 'need'. Again, there would be no 'choice' on the part of the homosexual (though there would be on the part of the straight band member that decided to 'indulge').
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
jakesguile11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey ****head, just one problem! Only Neurofibromotosis is considered to be an inheritable genetic trait, although the argument can be made for lefty-ness too. Moya-Moya is not genetic and obviously you can't inherit homosexuality, although it is caused by genetic factors.
Reply-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
:P I was making a joke about the Royal Family. Not your issues.
Reply
If Homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, then it is obviously inherited (which I firmly believe) -- though I doubt it's as easy as a double-recessive. Probably more like people who have a greater likelyhood of cancer -- multiple genetic markers coming together in the 'perfect storm' of homosexuality.-
Neutral
jakesguile11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry Dionys lol, it's been a while since I posted on the boards (barring this last week) I have to refamiliarize myself with who's a sock puppet and who's not.
Reply
And in that light, you have a very valid point, although I come to the idea of a "gay gene" with mixed emotions. Finding one would prove it's truly genetic (which it is) but at the same time then wouldn't some freaky scientists try to go too far and force the cure for it? I could see this f*cky 1984-esk world where two gay lovers are carted off and made to get this treatment and when they come out they look at each other and can't feel anything and it causes them both agony cause they feel like they should. Yeesh, the freakyness that'd entail.... guess I shouldn't be giving the Phobes ideas though huh.
Merry Christmas man, keep fighting the good fight.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My point is, assume God created cancer and homosexuality. We try to "cure" cancer. Why should we not try to "cure" homosexuality? If we should not try to "cure" homosexuality because "don't create junk or mistakes." doesn't that imply that we should not try to "cure" cancer?
Reply-
100%
HannibalBarca11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As you said, homosexuality is not a disease, why try and cure it.
Reply
I am not considered a Christian as I believe heaven has many doors, and somewhere between Genesis and the big bang, there is an answer as to how our planet got started.
As for cancer, a mutation that is harmful....Gays are not any more harmful as so called normal people.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned7 Replies
-
-
-
-
29%
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A comment to all the above comments.
Reply
Our laws have restricted marriage to a man and a woman for more than one hundred years. All states have an minimum age requirement. These define marriage and restrict it. Society has the power and obligation to codify its mores. Can we say those who wish to have three mates (usually one man with three wives) have less "civil rights" than those who only choose to have one mate and have that marriage recognized in law? But even if persons who would have more than one mate do not march in the streets demanding the "right" to "marry" a twelve year old girl or to have five mates and claim that if their demands for this restructuring of society's mores or norms is a bigotry, hatred or some similar charge. There are few who will publicly stand up and defend those who insist it is their right or religious belief to have more than one legally recognized mate in the same way some demand homosexual unions be given that recognition.
Explain to me why we are required to redefine marriage. Also explain why we should not then apply your logic to the age or the number of mate restrictions.-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned21 Replies
-
88%
pokydoke11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've read all these posts and I have to tell you R, you don't have a leg to stand on. You and the Pope are a couple of close minded socially conservative bigots. Your arguments are specious and ill conceived. Gay marriage has not and will not hurt society in any way shape or form. You need to realize that society is evolving and will continue to evolve despite your protestations.
Reply-
-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Redneck-The right to marry who you love and are attracted to (another consenting adult)
Reply
Did you have the right to marry who you loved and were attracted to? if you are Heterosexual, the answer is YES! you have that right. If you are Homosexual, you do not have that right. yet........-
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what are the facts I'm missing Redneck? Are you married? did you find the person you love, and are attracted to? decide for yourselves to marry? didn't need anyones approval but the court house for a marriage license that says 1. you are of legal age, and 2 not blood relatives? then did you decide on your own when and where you were going to marry? then you did. Simple as that. You had all those choices, you didn't have to fight for anything. Sounds like you, and I, and every other Heterosexual had those 'rights' FREELY!
Reply
-
-
-
100%
hamy11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I posted the link above.
Reply
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
Here it is again. Feel free to browse.-
Neutral
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Benefits yes. Recognition of need or help extended to a group who qualify as decided by the society and in these cases the Congress. Society has the right to do that even under this Constitution. We do it all the time for various groups or persons or corporations. But rights are the discussion. The rights of persons as guaranteed under the Constitution. Those rights are not given to married or singles. They are given to citizens.
Reply
I am not opposed to individuals who choose to name a person to share their financial wealth or medical decisions, etc. There can be structures created for that if those are what one is after. I just do not see that is the issue. There are cultural issues in play here. And for religious people there are moral issues as well as convictions.-
Neutral
hamy11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But as you may not know, familial status can trump any legal benefits arranged prior to death. I have friends who were kept out of the hospital by their families or had the families enter their home and take everything that didn't have a receipt with both names on it. If they were married, then the family wouldn't be able to do that.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mores are codified into law because of demonstrable harm, not because 'God said so'. An ,albeit arbitrary, age of contest was determined because it is not at all clear when a child is truly capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. The argument against polygamy is less clear, but I would say a man marrying two women would essentially be saying one man was the equivalent of two women, and would be inherently unjust.
Reply
Neither of these arguments apply to same-sex marriage. Laws are primarily instituted to prevent demonstrable personal or societal harm. Where is the harm in gay marriage?-
17%
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmmm. To the bigamy question. Why would "you" stand in the way of consenting adults behaving as they choose? Truthfully, there is no justification for homsexual unions and not bigamy that I have ever seen. Unjust that 2 women decide to marry the same guy because??? There are fewer women for the other men?
Reply
Age of consent. This is obviously outdated. We all know that kids have sex prior to 18 (or 17 with parent's consent and I thik down to 14 in some states). To say "it is not at all clear when a child is truly capable of understanding the consequences of their actions" as a justification to remove the "right to marry" from an entire population (<18 or whatever) seems rather arbitrary and moralistic of "you". What harm is done? Size matters? Should we prohibit well endowed men from marrying? Getting pregnant? Marriage has nothing to do with children, just as the pro-gay-marriage group.
Honest questions. I have trouble finding anything other than forcing "your morals" onto others as a justification.-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Honestly, I don't have much against polygamy, but I can sorta see how outlawing the practice makes sense. I do wonder about these polygamist 'compounds' where the girls grow up within an isolating paradigm.
Reply
Yes, the age of consent seems arbitrary until you consider the vast amount of psychological control adults (even strangers) generally have over developing children so it is even difficult for a child therapist to distinguish between real events and a child giving the therapist what he/she thinks the therapist wants to hear. This sort of ego cognition only comes with age. Therefore the age of consent laws, while seemingly arbitrary, are based on developmental science, rather than dogma. Statutory sex violations are not illegal because 'God said so', they are illegal because there is demonstrable psychological harm to the child that may not show up until the child is fully capable of 'processing' the event.
Perhaps you see that as 'forcing' my morals on others. I don't quite see it that way. It just so happens my morals seem to align with the moral base of the Constitution. Allowing gays to marry doesn't mean they HAVE to marry, or that their relationship is SUPERIOR to another, nor does it in any way damage anyone else's marriage. Forbidding gays from marrying means they CAN NEVER do so, and that their relationship is somehow INFERIOR to that of a straight couple. In my mind that is a dogmatic judgment and has no business on the law books of a country which is arguably founded on Rationalist principles more than it is founded on any particular dogma.-
Neutral
KISA452a11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, no discrimination based on age is allowed under the con. But some <18 aren't old enough in "your" mind so no one < 18 can marry. Some above 18 are not mature enough, either but we allow it. It is arbitrary and removal of rights of an entire group based on characteristics of some. Is 18 the age that the median can make a reasoned judgement? or is it 1 or 2 standard deviations above or below it? Or is it made up? No matter the answer it denies resonable people to make reasonable choices because of the group they are in and a group specifically protected by the constitution.
Reply
Just a thought.
-
-
-
-
100%
NoWayMan11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Explain to me why we are required to redefine marriage."
Reply
The simple fact is that we are NOT required to live with the current defintion of marriage, or any defeintion for that matter. The defintion of what marriage is is fluid and has changed A LOT just over the last 200 years in America. In fact, WE'VE CHANGED THE DEFINTION OF MARRIAGE VERY RECENTLY by letting inter-racial couples marry, and we didn't fall into the pits of hell.
So, to think or believe that we are bound by some defintion of marraige is just not reality. NOTHING IS SET IN STONE when it comes to marriage. And we have very concrete examples to prove this.
and in this country, its the state that grants the privlige of marriage. not the church. when two people get married, they MUST go to the courthouse and sign papers in front of a state-appointed agent. the church has nothing to do with legalizing or sanctifying any marriage whatsoever. so to think the church has any real power in this case is wrong. a church wedding is simply for show or for "tradition" but isn't necessary in any real legal sense.
"Also explain why we should not then apply your logic to the age or the number of mate restrictions."
Marriage is an equal partnership. The age of consent in this country has been set and agreed upon. So, to have someone enter a binding, legal contract with someone else (and yes, MARRIAGE IS A BINDING, LEGAL CONTRACT) you must be of the age of consent to enter into this contract, or any contract for that matter.
and the arguement about polygamy is just stupid. first, when more people are added into the equation, the idea of an EQUAL partnership flies out the window. two is the only number wherein an EQUAL partnership can exist.
BUT, for all those bible thumpers out there (which you seem to be one of) the idea of polygamy is condoned big time inthe bible. so why aren't you in favor of polygamy since the bible says its a.o.k.? (and while we're at it, if you beleive inthe bible, are you in favor of child slavery?) .
but the real BOTTOM LINE is this:
this is NOT a religious issue or a social issue.
ITS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.
and above, I saw you made a post about gays getting rights but not being allowed to marry. thats called "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" and the supreme court ruled in Brown V. Board of Education that "separate but equal" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law.
my advice: get used to the idea of gays getting married. because its INEVITABLE.-
100%
david_nwpa11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is another reason. We live in a nation of laws, and we supposedly follow the rule of law. One of our Constitutional claims stems from the "Full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution. Since marriage equality exists today in two states: Massachusetts and Connecticut, and is honored in New York from other jurisdictions, then California and all 50 states should be compelled under the Full Faith and Credit clause and the 14th Amendment in which no person shall be deprived of his or her rights without due process of law.
Reply
For Constitutional reasons alone, gay marriages from Massachusetts and Connecticut should be honored in all 50 states.
-
-
100%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Our laws have restricted marriage to a man and a woman for more than one hundred years."
Reply
Nope. If it was restricted to men and women, why would you need to revise the Constitution to exclude gay people? Anyway, just because something was or wasn't done "hundreds of years ago" doesn't mean that it was just or that we should continue to do things the same way.
"Explain to me why we are required to redefine marriage. Also explain why we should not then apply your logic to the age or the number of mate restrictions."
--Maybe you should explain it since you're the ones who're running around acting crazy and re-writing Constitutions to specifically exclude gay people. Why would you need to do that if this is all as clear cut as you continue to claim? ;-(
-
-
20%
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A contrast in definitions of a single well worn word:
Reply
A very good one:
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)
Thius one fits the thinking patterns of many on Propeller:
Ambrose Bierce
Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
My favorite:
Gilbert K. Chesterton
We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.
Wisdom has never made a bigot, but learning has.
Josh Billings-
100%
pokydoke11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.[5] Another quote from G.K.Chesterton.
Reply -
-
-
60%
RedstateLib11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not Catholic. The Pope's bigotry does not affect me. I am an American when the President elevates a bigot to a position of honer it does affect me. Damn it he should not use my tax dollars to bestow honor on a man who spews hate towards me. As far as gays are concerned it looks like 4 more years of the same crap. Go ahead Obama wink and nod to the religious right, your sheeple will look the other way as long as it's only the gays who get shafted. At least Bush was honest about his views on gays.
Reply-
100%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As far as gays are concerned it looks like 4 more years of the same crap. Go ahead Obama wink and nod to the religious right, your sheeple will look the other way as long as it's only the gays who get shafted. At least Bush was honest about his views on gays."
Reply
--LOL...Thanks for the laugh Redstate. I'm getting a real hoot out of the con media writing Obama's legacy while while the voting machines are still warm from Election Day.
Bush destroys the country beyond all recognition and these same people are blathering crap about how we won't know what his "true" legacy is for another 20, 30 years...blah blah... ;-x -
100%
sumptuousdigs11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sourgrapes...what poppy says, or any church leader espouses influences their flocks. Though the flocks are as varied as their leaders, they are numerous. They vote their religious convictions, they stubbornly adhere to their talking points, while ignoring the answers and enlightenment offered to them (ala Redneck).
Reply
This is a fact that affects and effects you more than any nod to them from Barack Obama.
Get over it.
-
-
-
100%
neel71111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can’t believe a pope can say that. It is hurtful and offensive statement given by pope.
Reply
Aren't Gays human being? It is scientifically proven 10% animal’s behaviour is gay and gays are born with this way. If someone is straight, that person can’t be gay. It’s very simple and clear to understand. Eastern religion (Hindu and Buddhist) mentions there are three gendered behaviour in human. Why pope deny others existence and does his God permit him to say something like this against human being.
We all understand that there should be creation and reproduction of human. Those straight people are there to produce.-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Eastern religion (Hindu and Buddhist) mentions there are three gendered behaviour in human"
Reply
Yet Tibetan Buddhism and various other forms of Buddhism believe that homosexuality is, according to Buddhist teachings, immoral and against Buddhist teachings. Not across the board, but a fairly large minority. (I don't agree with those philosophical views, btw).
"Why pope deny others existence and does his God permit him to say something like this against human being."
It's called Free Choice. We're permitted to make the choices we need to, have to or want to and in the end we'll find out if we made positive ones or not-so-positive ones.
-
-
-
-
0%
Yining_Yinou11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mntnman444 wrote :
Reply
Why do you need an explanation?
Isn't it clear in the bible that ALL of gods children are important?
Listen m-man let's start by defining WHO ARE GOD'S CHILDREN.
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.
-->yes, those who believed. But "believe" doesn't mean just to say "I believe" but to follow His commandments and His will.
and also says:
Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
-->this means, if you don't enter heaven you are not God's (adopted) child.
Again, He says "only who does the will of my father" will be saved and thus is children of God. Not all humans. All humans are God's creation but not Sons and Daughters. Same as all cats and dogs are God's creation. get it?
and also :
John 8:43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do
-->Jesus told these people whey were NOT children of God because they refused to understand the truth and the will of God, even though they (the pharisees) had great knowledge of the Scripture.
And so, gay people are against God's will because the scripture says Homosexuality is a sin, that's it. I'm not defending a personal view, but what The Holy Bible says.-
-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yining_Yinou-Cats and dogs different species, all humans same species, get it?
Reply
Aren't all people sinners?
Name all the sins, isn't one just as bad as the other in the eyes of 'God'?
and when it is mentioned (not by Jesus by the way) that Homosexuality is a sin, what other oddities were mentioned? mixing cotton and wool, eating shellfish, isn't there like more then 600 sins mentioned? what are your sins ms. Shirley Phelps Roper, huh?
Why don't you think it's still ok to own slaves? huh??? bible tells you how to treat them etc.......where in the bible does it say owning slaves is wrong?
You want to follow the bible, don't cherry pick, then you're just a typical judging hypocrite. -
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"gay people are against God's will because the scripture says Homosexuality is a sin"
Reply
It says no such thing in the scripture. There is nothing in the Bible concerning Homosexuality in general.
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.
-->yes, those who believed. But "believe" doesn't mean just to say "I believe" but to follow His commandments and His will."
God did not say that to 'believe' doesn't mean just to say "I believe" but to follow God's commandments and God's "will." Why are you trying to usurp the role of God? Don't you think that might make God angry? We are all, each and every one of us, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, sock preference, et cetera God's children. You don't get to decide who is and who isn't based on your ideology. Thank God.
"this means, if you don't enter heaven you are not God's (adopted) child."
Nope. It doesn't mean that. See the danger of idiots like you trying to tell people what this or that means without even a basic education in English, much less Biblical languages, history, context and the theological underpinnings of scripture?
"And so, gay people are against God's will because the scripture says Homosexuality is a sin, that's it. I'm not defending a personal view, but what The Holy Bible says"
The Holy Bible doesn't say anywhere that homosexuality is a sin. So you're defending a personal view, or more likely some angry, hateful preacher's personal view based on the self-hatred bred out of enjoying man-on-man relations behind his wife's back.
-
-
100%
Ciera-Marie11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Redneck first I have to thank you for your comments. By your posting your comments you have caused me to agree with lovemylibs and that normally only happens on the humor and/or music threads.
Reply
You and others (I to a point count myself in this. However I'm learning more and more about the history of religion and theology and a lot of the views and beliefs I was brainwashed to believe growing up no longer hold water.) who believe that Gays and Lesbians do not have the right to marry, I have a couple of questions for you.
First though, what changed my thinking from being against Gay and Lesbians marrying were several things. First that many are denied their Christian faith by their churches and families (if one were to read the Old Testament and NOT the mistranslated Christian version.). Second, I have two cousins raised in Catholic Church, one in a very small conservative WI town, another in a small town in IL. Both have the love of their families unfortunately not their support in being who they are. They have always been two of my favorite cousins. I know they're Gay and it doesn't bother me one bit, hasn't changed my mind about them, or the fact that I look forward to seeing them at the next family gathering. I found out that they were, not from them but from some cousins at our Grandmothers funeral. It bothered me then and bothers me now that they have to hide who they are because of the bigotry of their families, friends, communities, etc. It still bothers me to this day that can not be fully the men that God made them. Third, I would love, support and be there for child/ren no matter if they're Gay, Lesbian, bi, etc. I wouldn't deny them my love and support (I know what that's like.). After learning about my cousins, and learning more about the struggles of Gays and Lesbians, I asked further questions of myself.
I want Gays and Lesbians to marry. I want them to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I want them to be able to own property together and be able to keep it should one of them die. I want them to be able to have children no matter how it happens. I would want this for my son. I want this for my cousins.
Now answer my questions, have any of your children, cousins, nieces, nephews, friends come out? Are you 100% sure you don't know anyone in your family that is Gay or Lesbian? If they have come out do you force your beliefs on them? Still love them, spend time with them or has the relationship changed? What if it's your child? Would you disown them? Or God forbid force them / make them go to a therapist or "program" that claims to change them (BTW it's been proven not to work.)?-
0%
Redneck11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I appreciate your civil tone and remarks. However, I feel you are coming at the discussion on the wrong terms. I have not said anything derogatory about people in this discussion. The term bigot is thrown around to imply one is close minded and stupid and just unenlightened or worse still a Christian with convictions about issues. Heaven forbid!
Reply
I too have done some reading on this issue recently and discovered several who speak to the issues better than I have here. Let me quote a couple:
What do Homosexuals Want? by Eve Tushnet
"The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what marriage is. ... Why does society give marriage special honor? Because it’s this honor that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties) that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions "marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.
What they are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor – a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So we should start with the fact that our society exalts marriage over all other chosen relationships. Yet marriage is hardly the only important kind of relationship."
With this I agree. You raised a legal issue which seems to means they are not equal. But they have the same recourse single people who cohabit with opposite sex partners who choose not to marry.
Quote: Marriage is Cultural "Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life.
Cont.
-
-
100%
NoWayMan11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what really needs to be eradicated is poverty. and the bible says so, with over 2500 passages dedicated to poverty.
Reply
maenwhile, how many passages in the bible are dedicated to ending homosexuality? one?
(and while we're at it, how many passages in the bible CONDONE polygamy, slavery, etc?)
bottom line: if the pope wants to "save" gay people he doesn't need to look far since the catholic clergy is one of the gayest groups in existence.-
100%
lvrofwolves11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Pope says-saving humanity FROM homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
Reply
He doesn't want to save them........
I don't know how many gays are in the clergy, but many Pedophiles, now that's something the Pope should be busy trying to eradicate for sure.
-
-
0%
Yining_Yinou11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the Catholic is full of impious ministers (homosexuals, etc)but that doesn't make homosexuality any better. I'm not supporting the Pope or the Catholic dogmas, but he (Pope) is right in this one issue, even if, he should start cleaning house first. And yes, as someone said the pope has zero credibility.
Reply
And this is because he belongs to a zero credibility institution in the first place. But based on the Bible, which is the only legit book of God, it is wrong to practice this lifestyle.
And it is not convenient to humans because there are Spiritual consequences to it and also earthly consequences.
Rom 6:23 The wages of sin is "death". And this is serious stuff when you talk about Spiritual Death, it means you are going to hell whether you believe it or not-
100%
Dionys11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And this is because he belongs to a zero credibility institution in the first place. But based on the Bible, which is the only legit book of God, it is wrong to practice this lifestyle."
Reply
You mean based on the Bible created, solidified and canonically "okayed" by the Catholic Church which has zero credibility (and the Jews before that with the OT)?
So which Bible is the only legitimate book of God? The one in English? The one in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? The one that includes the Apocrypha or the one without? The Muratorian Canon or the one okayed at the Council of Carthage?
The one where "Blessed are the Poor" is truly understood (as in the Greek) to mean the wretchedly poor or the one where it's spiritualized to make Christians feel less guilty about the lack of blessings on the 'poor' in this nation of the rich?
"Rom 6:23 The wages of sin is "death". And this is serious stuff when you talk about Spiritual Death, it means you are going to hell whether you believe it or not"
You sure like to talk about hate, death, damnation, hellfire and such a lot. So much for being a 'little Christ,' huh.-
Neutral
Yining_Yinou11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
should we candy-coat the commandants of God just to keep "the majority of sinful people" happy? and avoid using the 'reality' words such as "hell", "damnation", "brimstone & fire", etc just so you won't get scared? Because your conscience is accusing you and you want to hide your head in the sand. . . You know deep inside what is wrong anyway. . . but keep fooling yourself if that's a consolation you think will save you forever
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Yining_Yinou11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys "We are all, each and every one of us, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, sock preference, et cetera God's children. You don't get to decide who is and who isn't based on your ideology. Thank God."
Reply
ha ha ha Who told you that? your 'ideas' are really laughable.
Where in Scripture does it say we are all children of God?.
The Catholic Church probably preaches that.(maybe you heard it there?).
Jesus said you need to be "born again", He didn't say you were already saved. I see you are totally ignorant of The Holy Scripture, you want to argue something you don't know about and shoot insults on top -
0%
Yining_Yinou11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys "And this is because he belongs to a zero credibility institution in the first place. But based on the Bible, which is the only legit book of God, it is wrong to practice this lifestyle."
Reply
You mean based on the Bible created, solidified and canonically "okayed" by the Catholic Church which has zero credibility (and the Jews before that with the OT)?
----------------------
Ans:
Did I say that? I think you need to learn the process of :
1-Read,
2-focus on what you read
3-Think, understand, meditate
4-Write an answer
You are skipping steps 2 and 3
there's a period after the first sentence. Then I say
"BUT based on the Bible. . ." which is another idea, another sentence that is not an extension of the former.
I'm saying : "I can care less about what the Pope says or whatever the Cath says, because it is not credible" BUT
"since the Bible teaches this, then it IS credible"
So which Bible is the only legitimate book of God? The one in English? The one in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? The one that includes the Apocrypha or the one without? The Muratorian Canon or the one okayed at the Council of Carthage?
-------------------
ANS:
in regards to the canon, I'm referring to the accepted
(by the faithful and inspired by God)
Christian Bible version (King James)including 66 books, (No apocrypha, No Catholic versions,etc).these were based on Septuagint and Greek new Testament very close to what Luther translated from originals (in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) to German.
An equivalent faithful version is Reina Valera 1602, mostly all others are adulterated. not to talk about NIV which is a joke, etc.
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.