Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You wouldn't be judging them (Christians, Muslims, Jews) and expecting them to live by your morals, would you?
actually i think encouraging hatred is immoral
and, for the record, i'm a *them*.
Is this another of those modern liberal doctrines that it is imperative that all subscribe to?
1. Most dramatic societal change in my lifetime…
2. Being gay is not under discussion…there are some folks who find that they cannot be attracted to members of the opposite sex. I have no desire to say that they must live a lonely existence.
3. What hubris, arrogance exhibited by those who demand this change in society….when no other religious leaders put forward this idea….Were Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Thomas Aquinas, stupid, immoral leaders? Not one religious and nonreligious moral thinker in history has advocated changing the definition of marriage to include the same sex/
4. What other moral issue has been so ignored? Not slavery…many spoke out against it throughout the ages. Not religious bars to marriage. Christianity was not opposed to interracial marriage. Nor Judaism, nor Islam, nor Hindus nor Buddhists… But none espoused gay marriage.
Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.
Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....
Any thoughts?
Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage
It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19 4-6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 6-9
It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.
You wouldn't be judging them (Christians, Muslims, Jews) and expecting them to live by your morals, would you?
Yes, in fact I am most definitely judging them (no need to question it timidly, Newby).
If a top Catholic official calls for the various religions of the world to unite under the pretext of making the lives worse for people they do not know or care about (gays), yes I think it's fair to pass judgment.
Don't you think it's funny that issues like poverty, world hunger, and war aren't important enough for a religion-transcending "call to unite"?
And also, you accusing me of "expecting" people to live by my morals. But I say, if you're against that sort of thing, isn't that exactly what this Italian official is doing?
I don't think I was being timid, but whatever makes you happy.
I was pointing out your hypocrisy, that's all. Should it be illegal for them to think that gay marriage is wrong and try to do something about it? Who are you to judge what is more important to focus on? I also already know that most religious folks already work daily to help the poor and the hungry and those that are victims of violence. What do you do? Perhaps you should list your own list of accomplishments in that regard before you judge others?
actually i think encouraging hatred is immoral
and, for the record, i'm a *them*.
Is this another of those modern liberal doctrines that it is imperative that all subscribe to?
1. Most dramatic societal change in my lifetime
2. Being gay is not under discussion there are some folks who find that they cannot be attracted to members of the opposite sex. I have no desire to say that they must live a lonely existence.
3. What hubris, arrogance exhibited by those who demand this change in society .when no other religious leaders put forward this idea .Were Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Thomas Aquinas, stupid, immoral leaders? Not one religious and nonreligious moral thinker in history has advocated changing the definition of marriage to include the same sex/
4. What other moral issue has been so ignored? Not slavery many spoke out against it throughout the ages. Not religious bars to marriage. Christianity was not opposed to interracial marriage. Nor Judaism, nor Islam, nor Hindus nor Buddhists But none espoused gay marriage.
well, given that we don't live in a theocracy, you're free to do as you wish as is everyone else, in that regard.
but as a citizen of the united states, my presumption was that you support the constitutional mandate of equal protection under the law.
you don't get to pick and choose the parts of the constitution you like... you know, like you do from leviticus.
Top Pope official Mennini called for people of all faiths - including Christians, Jews, and Muslims - to "unite" to defeat gay marriage.
Funny that issues like fighting poverty, hunger, and war weren't important enough to unite on, but when it comes to the gays, well....
Any thoughts?
Archbishop Antonio Mennini, Pope's Representative, Calls For Christians, Jews, Muslims To Unite Against Gay Marriage
It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.
[/I][/B]
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10 6-9
It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.
The church(s) can make their own rules about religious marriage. They have no right to make the rules about civil marriage.
It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.
[/I][/B]
[/I][/B]
It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.
The church(s) can make their own rules about religious marriage. They have no right to make the rules about civil marriage.
Marriage has a religious background, that's where the concept originates. Why not use a different term then, such as 'legal civil union'? If it's so important to you, then why insist on it being called a 'marriage'? That's why most of the time I really don't believe it's about the legal issue at all, it's about overiding a religious/moral precept and changing it's entire meaning. If it were only about gays having equal legal rights, then call it a civil union and move on. Most religious folks would be agreeable with that, I know I always have been. It's up to the individual church as to whther they'll bless it as a marraige after that or not. If you want to keep the legal and religious separate, then term it a civil legal union in civil law, and reserve marriage for the church.
It's not about the 'gay' part, it's about the 'marriage' part. I do wish people would understand that. It is not Christian to 'hate' gays.... but we cannot support gay marriage. Why? Because it's against the teachings of Christ.
[/I][/B]
[/I][/B]
It's the 'marriage' part that is the problem, not that they are gay.
The church(s) can make their own rules about religious marriage. They have no right to make the rules about civil marriage.
Marriage has a religious background, that's where the concept originates. Why not use a different term then, such as 'legal civil union'? If it's so important to you, then why insist on it being called a 'marriage'? That's why most of the time I really don't believe it's about the legal issue at all, it's about overiding a religious/moral precept and changing it's entire meaning. If it were only about gays having equal legal rights, then call it a civil union and move on. Most religious folks would be agreeable with that, I know I always have been. It's up to the individual church as to whther they'll bless it as a marraige after that or not. If you want to keep the legal and religious separate, then term it a civil legal union in civil law, and reserve marriage for the church.
The church(s) can make their own rules about religious marriage. They have no right to make the rules about civil marriage.
Marriage has a religious background, that's where the concept originates. Why not use a different term then, such as 'legal civil union'? If it's so important to you, then why insist on it being called a 'marriage'? That's why most of the time I really don't believe it's about the legal issue at all, it's about overiding a religious/moral precept and changing it's entire meaning. If it were only about gays having equal legal rights, then call it a civil union and move on. Most religious folks would be agreeable with that, I know I always have been. It's up to the individual church as to whther they'll bless it as a marraige after that or not. If you want to keep the legal and religious separate, then term it a civil legal union in civil law, and reserve marriage for the church.
Yep. One wonders whether this is about legal rights at all, or whether it is about undermining the role of faith in our society.
Marriage has a religious background, that's where the concept originates. Why not use a different term then, such as 'legal civil union'? If it's so important to you, then why insist on it being called a 'marriage'? That's why most of the time I really don't believe it's about the legal issue at all, it's about overiding a religious/moral precept and changing it's entire meaning. If it were only about gays having equal legal rights, then call it a civil union and move on. Most religious folks would be agreeable with that, I know I always have been. It's up to the individual church as to whther they'll bless it as a marraige after that or not. If you want to keep the legal and religious separate, then term it a civil legal union in civil law, and reserve marriage for the church.
Yep. One wonders whether this is about legal rights at all, or whether it is about undermining the role of faith in our society.
If gay marriage is allowed in the secular world, this somehow will lessen or prohibit the faith of those in the non-secular world?
I don't understand.
i guess it's okay to deprive others of their rights as long as one can cite the appropriate verse in the bible.
i find that fascinating.
Yes, in fact I am most definitely judging them (no need to question it timidly, Newby).
If a top Catholic official calls for the various religions of the world to unite under the pretext of making the lives worse for people they do not know or care about (gays), yes I think it's fair to pass judgment.
Don't you think it's funny that issues like poverty, world hunger, and war aren't important enough for a religion-transcending "call to unite"?
And also, you accusing me of "expecting" people to live by my morals. But I say, if you're against that sort of thing, isn't that exactly what this Italian official is doing?
I don't think I was being timid, but whatever makes you happy.
I was pointing out your hypocrisy, that's all. Should it be illegal for them to think that gay marriage is wrong and try to do something about it? Who are you to judge what is more important to focus on? I also already know that most religious folks already work daily to help the poor and the hungry and those that are victims of violence. What do you do? Perhaps you should list your own list of accomplishments in that regard before you judge others?
Of course I don't think it should be illegal. Don't I have the right to call this church official out when he makes a plea for all religions to unite for the purpose of making the lives of a certain group of people - in the secular world - worse, rather than better? You make it sound like its wrong for me to voice my opinion about this particular issue.
If gay people were lobbying to make straight marriage illegal, THEN perhaps I'd be more (well, a lot more) empathetic towards the church. But gays are not. So why does the church have to stick their noses in this secular issue? What satisfaction do they get from making everyone else outside their church abide by their views and laws?
i guess it's okay to deprive others of their rights as long as one can cite the appropriate verse in the bible.
i find that fascinating.
marriage is not a right.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people think it is.
i guess it's okay to deprive others of their rights as long as one can cite the appropriate verse in the bible.
i find that fascinating.
marriage is not a right.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people think it is.
take it up with the supreme court, ace.
they've decided otherwise.
The church(s) can make their own rules about religious marriage. They have no right to make the rules about civil marriage.
Marriage has a religious background, that's where the concept originates. Why not use a different term then, such as 'legal civil union'? If it's so important to you, then why insist on it being called a 'marriage'? That's why most of the time I really don't believe it's about the legal issue at all, it's about overiding a religious/moral precept and changing it's entire meaning. If it were only about gays having equal legal rights, then call it a civil union and move on. Most religious folks would be agreeable with that, I know I always have been. It's up to the individual church as to whther they'll bless it as a marraige after that or not. If you want to keep the legal and religious separate, then term it a civil legal union in civil law, and reserve marriage for the church.
Yep. One wonders whether this is about legal rights at all, or whether it is about undermining the role of faith in our society.
marriage is not a right.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people think it is.
take it up with the supreme court, ace.
they've decided otherwise.
they like to avoid that salient fact....
Loving v. Virginia
but then again, dominion over one's own body is a right... and they've never let that stop them.
I don't think I was being timid, but whatever makes you happy.
I was pointing out your hypocrisy, that's all. Should it be illegal for them to think that gay marriage is wrong and try to do something about it? Who are you to judge what is more important to focus on? I also already know that most religious folks already work daily to help the poor and the hungry and those that are victims of violence. What do you do? Perhaps you should list your own list of accomplishments in that regard before you judge others?
Of course I don't think it should be illegal. Don't I have the right to call this church official out when he makes a plea for all religions to unite for the purpose of making the lives of a certain group of people - in the secular world - worse, rather than better? You make it sound like its wrong for me to voice my opinion about this particular issue.
If gay people were lobbying to make straight marriage illegal, THEN perhaps I'd be more (well, a lot more) empathetic towards the church. But gays are not. So why does the church have to stick their noses in this secular issue? What satisfaction do they get from making everyone else outside their church abide by their views and laws?
Exactly, just like you make it sound like the church is wrong to unite and voice their opinion about this particular issue. Pot meet kettle, you're doing what they did only on the flip side of the coin, no different in concept at all.
Should the church or religious folks have to keep their noses to themselves then? They have no voice? There is no such thing a 'secular' issue, everything effects everyone at some point, and all should have a voice if they so choose. Your political idealogoy is just as much a 'religion' as being christian, jew, or muslim, it shapes how you feel about issues. To say that certain morals based on religion get to be thrown out, while those morals based on secular idealogy get to be included is hypocritical. You're basically implying that anyone who follows a religious standard should have no voice in the public areana.
take it up with the supreme court, ace.
they've decided otherwise.
they like to avoid that salient fact....
Loving v. Virginia
but then again, dominion over one's own body is a right... and they've never let that stop them.
Thanks.
In a ironic way, this very ruling can, and should be used to crush every single last unconstitutional law that restricts the right to bear arms.
but that's different, somehow. it just is.
If you don't like the government telling you how you can live, don't support it telling me how to live.
or
get used to shit like this.
