Sandy Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] Gay marriage encourages homosexuality. It condones it, and gives the message that it is okay when [B]clearly[/B] it is not.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] It sure isn't clear to me. You claimed that homosexuality "hurts" people, but you didn't bother mentioning [I]how[/I] it hurts anybody? And don't give me the "they go to hell" answer, because not all of us believe that way. And claiming that individuals have [I]too[/I] much rights? Homosexuality has been declared not to be a crime nor a disorder (at least in Finnish legislation), so why deny our rights? What's wrong with just minding your own business in this matter, as it [I]clearly[/I] isn't hurting anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]In a normal democratic country (ideally, that is) equality and freedom is stressed at the expense of irritating the "special" people who are opposed to granting certain minorities (because of skin color, religion, sexual preference or whatever) rights that should be granted to all men and women equally. I hope your government remains sensible and grants the freedoms discussed in this topic to homosexuals instead of reverting to draconian, theocratic nonsense just because the 'majority' of it's citizens are traditionalists.[/color][/quote] [SIZE=1]What you have done there Ken is effectively contradict yourself, on the one hand you've said that you believe in democracy and granting people basic human rights, which is done in Ireland. While on the other, you've said that a law which would effectively only serve a tiny minority should be implemented even if the majority of the voting population would be against it. I'm sorry but there's something distinctly confusing about that, as it doesn't seem very democratic for one tiny segment of the population to be able to create laws that the majority are against. [/SIZE] [quote=Deathknight][color=crimson]You're not seriously suggesting that we should look to that tiny, specially administrated city-state as an example, are you? [b]All[/b] theocracies (ones that have a [i]real[/i] country to oversee/deal with :rolleyes:) inevitably tyrannize or persecute portions of their population (dissidents primarily) justifying it as a crusade against 'heathens'. [/color][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Are you suggesting then that countries with smaller populations should not have their laws declared valid because they don't rival the U.S. in terms of population size ? The Republic of Ireland has a population total of just over 4,000,000 that's less than 2% of the American population, so because you have more people are your laws somehow more right than ours ? I gave the example of the only Roman Catholic Theocracy I'm aware of, if there are others, please enlighten me.[/SIZE] [quote name='Caine']I'm not sure I understand you here. I know many religious people. I am religious in the sense that I have a religion (Roman Catholic) and I follow it as best as I can. I know people who are more religious than I am. I do not automatically assume they are bigots. You say that it is intolerant of others for them not to follow your beliefs, and I simply do not follow this logic.[/quote] [SIZE=1]I was probably unclear as that my quote was intended to be somewhat sarcastic, what I was basically saying is that the level that "separation of Church and State" is being taken to the point where eventually it will become just "suppression of Church". And that's what I oppose, now please don't even bother attempting to argue the point that the liberal left if they should get all their beliefs through would even consider allowing us on the religious right our say to what we consider to be right and wrong. Despite the name, Liberals are usually as oppressive as Conservatives in the name of universalism, where by anything they think is right, regardless of how morally corrupt it is, should be made legal. If homosexual marriage is made legal, how long before polygamy gets the green light ? It's the same thing really, people who want to get married and who love one another very much. Two women and one man, three men and two women, six women and two men, six women on their own. It's all about love seemingly. The morality of it be damned, if it's legal then why not.[/SIZE] [quote name='Caine']I don't believe it. Is the entire problem simply semantics? For the purposes of any posts I have made on this topic, "marriage" means a legal union between two people unless I explicitly state otherwise. It has nothing to do with what those people did in a church/temple/mosque/whatever. This began as a debate over the "Defense of Marriage Act" It is a US Government thing. It has nothing to do with the Church. Pope Benedict has no official say in what happens with it. It is about what you call civil unions. The Church can do as it pleases, I think this entire debate has been about the legal, state sanctioned marriages which have no relation to the ones performed by an ordained minister of the Catholic Church.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Alright, semantics aside, I've already said that if it's purely legal, let them off, let them get married and have the fifty percent divorce rate heterosexual couples in the U.S. enjoy. Let them have the nasty bitter divorces through the courts, let them have all the misery that comes afterwards. Just because they're allowed get married like anyone else does not mean it's going to be all sun and roses. I mean if people want to be really, really realistic here, gay couples are going to have the same one in two chance of splitting up as straight couples, it's not as if they're somehow going to all have perfect marriages just because they're now allowed get married legally. To lift a phrase from the liberal camp, gay or straight, people are still people. Caine, just by the way, Roman Catholic clergy members are called Priests, not Ministers.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]Oh, right, except for the small fact that the Catholic Church has indeed been relatively corrupt up until the last hundred years or so. The selling of indulgences, the Church owning property, the vast amounts of wealth, all of these scream of corruption. Sure, the Church has been pretty good as of late, but for the last thousand years or so, it's been a corrupt entity that commanded more than just religious authority throughout Europe. Theocracies are corrupt unless there is another body keeping them in check; in modern times, I would assume that globally concerned people are that body. In any event, I'm a staunch liberal who doesn't care much for those on the right wing (Please note I speak only of their beliefs, not their self-worth). I wholeheartedly support all efforts for gay marriage/civil unions, and I hope it's only a matter of time before our nation moves past this 1950s conservative mindset. PS: Very sorry for rehashing anyone's points. I [admittedly] only scanned the thread, however the first page was indeed scary for me. ;)[/size][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]I think Retri what you're referring to would be the Reformation, when acts like Simony, Nepotism and other major corruptions were cast out from the Church is favour of a more pious life. Unfortunately your "hundred year" timeline if off by a few centuries. I'll admit freely that the Church was corrupt for a long time, now however, and we're dealing with the now, it's not, which is impressive for an organisation that has 1,100,000,000, that's 1.1 billion, followers and manages gargantuan sums of money each year. I can't think of a single country/organisation with similar size and income that does as well. And I really don't care for the liberal left in a similar fashion. But as I've said twice already, as long as they're not looking for the blessing of the Catholic Church or it's members, or mind the fact that we won't ever consider their marriages morally official then let them marry in their millions for all I care. Of course the real issue here to the religious, is that gay people by breaking the will of God, who incidentally most gay people don't believe exists, are putting their mortal souls in danger. Now seeing as they don't believe in God that doesn't really matter, but for those of us that do believe in God there is that slight little niggling worry we're allowing countless people to condemn themselves to an eternity in Hell by accepting that homosexual behaviour is appropriate. I'm not persecuting anyone intentionally by denying them the right to get married, what I am trying to do is prevent them from an eternity of pain for not following the laws of God. If anyone thinks I'm being disingenuous with this statement, well there's nothing I can do to prove I'm sincere, but I should hope my reputation for being honest will convince some others.[/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathKnight Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']What you have done there Ken is effectively contradict yourself, on the one hand you've said that you believe in democracy and granting people basic human rights, which is done in Ireland. While on the other, you've said that a law which would effectively only serve a tiny minority should be implemented even if the majority of the voting population would be against it. I'm sorry but there's something distinctly confusing about that, as it doesn't seem very democratic for one tiny segment of the population to be able to create laws that the majority are against. [/SIZE][/quote] [color=crimson]What the majority of people want can be irrelevant if it's [i]wrong[/i]. Not wrong to me, but contrary to the idea of civil liberties and equality which, I presume, most democratic countries stress. My point is that what isn't very "democratic" is to deny these people a basic, simple right that is being argued about into infinity for idiotic reasons.[/color] [quote=Gavin][SIZE=1]Are you suggesting then that countries with smaller populations should not have their laws declared valid because they don't rival the U.S. in terms of population size ? The Republic of Ireland has a population total of just over 4,000,000 that's less than 2% of the American population, so because you have more people are your laws somehow more right than ours ? I gave the example of the only Roman Catholic Theocracy I'm aware of, if there are others, please enlighten me.[/SIZE][/quote] [color=crimson]No, I'm suggesting that the Vatican is a very, very special case (not for it's size, just in general). It is a specially administered entity within the Italian Republic that does not deal with the stresses common to other countries that would cause a theocracy to start to go awry. Theocracies or countries where the Roman Catholic Church had considerable power have existed throughout history, lol. How much blood do you think is on the Church's hands from those periods? And, doesn't history have an odd way of repeating itself? Look to the precedent set, Gavin. And don't even try to imply that I'm having a egotistical American moment here, lol.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaganAngel Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Woo... time to make a bunch of Christians yell at me. Goody! This is a fun thread. Now, how is it right for God to consider homosexuality an outrage and a sin? Homosexuals don't become so on free will or choice. That'd basically be like God saying, "Hey, you, you have a birth defect, so you're going to hell." (just an analogy, I'm not in any way suggesting homosexuals are defective.) Yeah... what? How can He punish people for something that wasn't even their choice? I'm sorry, I'd love someone to clarify that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [quote name='PaganAngel']Now, how is it right for God to consider homosexuality an outrage and a sin? Homosexuals don't become so on free will or choice. That'd basically be like God saying, "Hey, you, you have a birth defect, so you're going to hell." (just an analogy, I'm not in any way suggesting homosexuals are defective.) Yeah... what? How can He punish people for something that wasn't even their choice? I'm sorry, I'd love someone to clarify that.[/quote] [SIZE=1]OK, the short and simple answer to that is that while people may be born homosexual, they don't have to practice their homosexuality. To use another analogy, people are born with the capacity to engage in extra-marital affairs but have the choice not to, if they do, it's wrong but they actively made the choice to make the wrong decision. Now as I said that's the short and simply answer to it, but the vast majority of the choices we make in life, good and bad, are down to burden of choice that was placed upon Mankind by God at our creation.[/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I don't mean to push your buttons, Gavin, but I don't find much wrong in polygamy either. If three people love each other sincerely, what's it got to do with anybody else? Of course I don't believe many people could live in such a relationship, with jealousy being one of the basic traits of humanity, nor could I see myself living like that, but at the same time I wouldn't judge anybody for doing so. As a sidenote to all of you who view homosexuality as a disgusting thing, I've only got this to say: in my opinion vaginas are disgusting, but do I go around condemning women for that? You know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caine Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [quote name='The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I don?t think that?s a plausible argument, stating the unalienable rights. What if killing people made somebody happy? So is it alright now? Of course not, there are laws against it because we believe killing is wrong. If we believe homosexuality is wrong, we should have a law against it. [/COLOR'] [/FONT][/quote] Murder causes harm. What harrm will homosexuals marrying cause? [QUOTE][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]How do you know gay marriage isn?t hurting anyone? I guess it matters mostly on your religious beliefs. If gays go to hell, then yes indeed it is hurting people. Of course there?s no way to determine rather they actually go to hell or not. I personally don?t know whether they do or not. I?m just saying. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE] that argumaent is only valid if we assume one religion is right, but the first amendment seperates church and state, so it is invalid in the US. [QUOTE][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I think the first step in caring for the ?ill? in this case is raising awareness of the ?disease? to begin with, which is exactly what he?s doing. And, you ask sarcastically whether you think God will judge us based on our sexual preference or not, that?s ridiculous. There?s no way for you to know what God will say, and who?s to say both aren?t absolutely wrong and evil? Ultimately there can only be one absolutely right religion. Others can come close, but not right on. Whether God decides to punish the people who are not of the right faith is something we won?t know until He tells us. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE] What did Jesus do? Did he stop sinners from sinning, or did he invite them to turn to him and be saved? There's a difference, and I think anyone who wishes to follow Christ has to contemplate the answers As for there only beign one right religion, not exactly. Itis quite possible that there are no right religions, and that we are all too shortsighted to even begin to see things through God's eyes. [QUOTE][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange] Skin color is irrelevant, yes, but sexual preference is nothing like skin color. Sexual preference does matter, I believe. The way I see it, if god was alright with homosexuality there would only be one sex. Why make two sexes if one sex is all we need? Ah, but there is no way to tell what God?s thinking, we can only speculate. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE] Please don't ask "why" about God, because I have some "why's" that nobody has answered. In this case, there are two sexes because it is a very good design. It allows for sexual reproduction for startes, which is impossible without sexes. How is sexual prefereince different from skin color? Both are affected by heredity and the environment. [quote name='Chabichou'] homosexuality is unnatural[/quote] Not really, since it is influenced and caused by genes. [QUOTE]Its time we focused on what is important.[/QUOTE] Do you mean the environment, not having a nuclear war, humanitarian efforts, eliminating AIDS, curing cancer, rebuilding New Orleans and helping others? [QUOTE]Why should a child have two mothers or two fathers? It makes no sense[/QUOTE] Would you rather the children had one parent? How about no parents? In case you didn't notice this, the difference between gay marriage and smoking is that I have to breathe in smoke from other people's cigarettes. Gay couples do not impose anything on me. [quote name='Gavin']What you have done there Ken is effectively contradict yourself, on the one hand you've said that you believe in democracy and granting people basic human rights, which is done in Ireland. While on the other, you've said that a law which would effectively only serve a tiny minority should be implemented even if the majority of the voting population would be against it[/quote] I think there are two things that you need to understand about what he said 1) the majority shouldn't have the right to deny the minority of their rights (Civil Rights Movement anyone?) 2)I don't know where the original poster is from, but here in the US we do give the minority a lot of power (filibuster, the fact that the Senate gives equal power to all states, regardless of size) [QUOTE]I was probably unclear as that my quote was intended to be somewhat sarcastic, what I was basically saying is that the level that "separation of Church and State" is being taken to the point where eventually it will become just "suppression of Church". And that's what I oppose, now please don't even bother attempting to argue the point that the liberal left if they should get all their beliefs through would even consider allowing us on the religious right our say to what we consider to be right and wrong. Despite the name, Liberals are usually as oppressive as Conservatives in the name of universalism, where by anything they think is right, regardless of how morally corrupt it is, should be made legal. If homosexual marriage is made legal, how long before polygamy gets the green light ? It's the same thing really, people who want to get married and who love one another very much. Two women and one man, three men and two women, six women and two men, six women on their own. It's all about love seemingly. The morality of it be damned, if it's legal then why not.[/QUOTE] A few things. 1) I have never heard of Liberals imposing views on oithers, please give me an ecample of liberals choosing to deny freedom or choice. The only thing that liberals tend to attack is the "right" of others to impose their morals on others. 2) Whose definition of Morality should we use? 3) Why is polygamy wrong? (Before you answer, think of some famous polygamists, and then think about why God never told them to be monogamous) [QUOTE]Alright, semantics aside, I've already said that if it's purely legal, let them off, let them get married and have the fifty percent divorce rate heterosexual couples in the U.S. enjoy. Let them have the nasty bitter divorces through the courts, let them have all the misery that comes afterwards. Just because they're allowed get married like anyone else does not mean it's going to be all sun and roses. I mean if people want to be really, really realistic here, gay couples are going to have the same one in two chance of splitting up as straight couples, it's not as if they're somehow going to all have perfect marriages just because they're now allowed get married legally. To lift a phrase from the liberal camp, gay or straight, people are still people. Caine, just by the way, Roman Catholic clergy members are called Priests, not Ministers.[/QUOTE] I know, but the general description of a priest's job is a religious minister. I was purposefully using the more legalistic term. I also know that they will get the entire marriage package, good and bad. So what? Aren't they entitled to that much? [QUOTE]I think Retri what you're referring to would be the Reformation, when acts like Simony, Nepotism and other major corruptions were cast out from the Church is favour of a more pious life. Unfortunately your "hundred year" timeline if off by a few centuries. I'll admit freely that the Church was corrupt for a long time, now however, and we're dealing with the now, it's not, which is impressive for an organisation that has 1,100,000,000, that's 1.1 billion, followers and manages gargantuan sums of money each year. I can't think of a single country/organisation with similar size and income that does as well.[/QUOTE] 1) that's the counter-reformation, the reformation was Martin Luther pointing out all of these corruptions and breaking away. 2)I believe Retri was talking about the Vatican Councils. 3) The Church is still wealthy, which it probably shouldn't be. [QUOTE]Of course the real issue here to the religious, is that gay people by breaking the will of God, who incidentally most gay people don't believe exists, are putting their mortal souls in danger. Now seeing as they don't believe in God that doesn't really matter, but for those of us that do believe in God there is that slight little niggling worry we're allowing countless people to condemn themselves to an eternity in Hell by accepting that homosexual behaviour is appropriate. I'm not persecuting anyone intentionally by denying them the right to get married, what I am trying to do is prevent them from an eternity of pain for not following the laws of God. If anyone thinks I'm being disingenuous with this statement, well there's nothing I can do to prove I'm sincere, but I should hope my reputation for being honest will convince some others.[/QUOTE] I understand what you're saying, but doesn't the fact that you have to trust that you're being honest about your intentions say something about your arguments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigglyness Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [quote name='Sandy']As a sidenote to all of you who view homosexuality as a disgusting thing, I've only got this to say: in my opinion vaginas are disgusting, but do I go around condemning women for that? You know the answer.[/quote] I have to agree with what you said here... I really don't see why people have to hate homos so much. If they don't affect your own personal life, why should you affect theirs? Is it so wrong to love someone of the same sex? If you don't like it, avoid it. If you love it, good for you. I'm agnostic, so i don't really belong to any religion. As my bio teacher said, one religion says whoever isn't part of their religion, you're going to hell. another religion says the same thing. so does that mean we all are going to hell? discrimination. I mean why can't people see the homos for who they really are, instead of sexual orientation? as for the children thing, it's not like EVERYONE is gonna be homo and not produce children...i mean what about china! its so overpopulated..i'm pretty sure we need some of those homos there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Smurf Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [quote name='Gavin][size=1']OK, the short and simple answer to that is that while people may be born homosexual, they don't have to practice their homosexuality.[/size][/quote] ...Gavin, you do realize how unbelievably bad that sounds? Hopefully you do. If not, I'll use myself as an example why what you're saying is entirely stupid. I've spent a lifetime controlling myself. I am always aware of this rage inside of me, and because I'm aware of it, I'm able to manage it effectively. That rage will never go away. I've accepted that. It's a component of deeper psychological workings--and partly on a chemical level that's not so easily fixed through medication. In the past, I've tried to deny that the rage exists. I've tried to forget about those dark urges in my subconscious, the urges that push me to get really, really bad to a lot of people, to pick random fights and destroy other human beings. And do you know what always happened when I tried to fight/block/suppress that rage? Really bad things to myself. Usually self-inflicted. Denying feelings lead to personal devastation. I've dealt with rage issues. That was stressful enough. Do you honestly believe that "not practicing" one's homosexuality is going to help them in any way at all? Think about how many people in the world today have killed themselves because they didn't think they could "come out." Or think about how many people in the world today have been shunned so much by society for being gay/lesbian that they've entirely withdrawn and would take decades of therapy usually to help them. But you want them to suppress who they really are? Would you rather me have suppressed the rage and wound up dead long before the chance of having this discussion? EDIT: Hopefully people will start seeing why religious doctrine is entirely useless in this discussion. Religion is quite often a black and white view of the world, and black and white views are the last thing anyone needs in a governing body when it comes to making laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Flasher Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [COLOR=Sienna]I think I can sum up this debat in two lines - Gavin: Stop repressing my right to repress and impose my morales on other people! Everyone Else: No. That's stupid. Pretty much that's it. Gavin, I hardly see how giving people the right to do what they believe is opressive of your rights and beliefs. That's stupid.[/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retribution Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 [quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Alright, semantics aside, I've already said that if it's purely legal, let them off, let them get married and have the fifty percent divorce rate heterosexual couples in the U.S. enjoy. Let them have the nasty bitter divorces through the courts, let them have all the misery that comes afterwards. Just because they're allowed get married like anyone else does not mean it's going to be all sun and roses. I mean if people want to be really, really realistic here, gay couples are going to have the same one in two chance of splitting up as straight couples, it's not as if they're somehow going to all have perfect marriages just because they're now allowed get married legally. To lift a phrase from the liberal camp, gay or straight, people are still people.[/size][/quote] [size=1]I'm completely certain that gays would be ecstatic if everyone had this mindset. If everyone said "Fine, but you'll have a 50% divorce rate like everyone else!" the battle for them would be won. Of course they're not going to have perfect marriages, and yes, you're probably right in that they'll have a 50% divorce rate as well. However, they will have had the right to choose to marry another of the same gender, and that is the most important part. However, this is somewhat off topic...[/size] [QUOTE][SIZE=1]I think Retri what you're referring to would be the Reformation, when acts like Simony, Nepotism and other major corruptions were cast out from the Church is favour of a more pious life. Unfortunately your "hundred year" timeline if off by a few centuries. I'll admit freely that the Church was corrupt for a long time, now however, and we're dealing with the now, it's not, which is impressive for an organisation that has 1,100,000,000, that's 1.1 billion, followers and manages gargantuan sums of money each year. I can't think of a single country/organisation with similar size and income that does as well. And I really don't care for the liberal left in a similar fashion. But as I've said twice already, as long as they're not looking for the blessing of the Catholic Church or it's members, or mind the fact that we won't ever consider their marriages morally official then let them marry in their millions for all I care. Of course the real issue here to the religious, is that gay people by breaking the will of God, who incidentally most gay people don't believe exists, are putting their mortal souls in danger. Now seeing as they don't believe in God that doesn't really matter, but for those of us that do believe in God there is that slight little niggling worry we're allowing countless people to condemn themselves to an eternity in Hell by accepting that homosexual behaviour is appropriate. I'm not persecuting anyone intentionally by denying them the right to get married, what I am trying to do is prevent them from an eternity of pain for not following the laws of God. If anyone thinks I'm being disingenuous with this statement, well there's nothing I can do to prove I'm sincere, but I should hope my reputation for being honest will convince some others.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [size=1]As someone else pointed out, I was indeed pointing towards the Counter-Reformation. In addition, it's not like that was the only time during which corruption plagued the Church. I believe I was taught that the Church had been selling indulgences for quite a while, owning property, etc. before, during, and after the Counter-Reformation. I was unaware of creating a "hundred year" timeline... I thought I said one thousand, but I might be wrong. It's great that the Church has shaped up now. However, I'm willing to wager that the Papacy hasn't fumbled because of the 1.1 billion followers who would be outraged to hear of corruption. The loss would simply be too great to even risk corruption - I thought I already said that these people were the check and balance to Papal authority. In any event, the Pope still walks around with his silver-and-gold staff with the crucifix attached to the end in his billowing robes and celebrates Mass in a huge Cathedral that [probably] took millions to build while there are billions suffering. It's not like they're off the hook, yet I digress from the debate. Really, that's all I want -- for you to let gays have their supposed "eternity of suffering" and make their own choice by the millions. As far as I know, no gay person is asking for the Pope's blessing; they are content with living their life with their partner. It's really great that you don't want them to go to hell. I seriously believe you're genuine in your statement. Unfortunately, a vast slice of the population does not share your faith, and as a result, should not be bound by the tenants of Catholicism. God gave man free-will, and all gays are asking for is their continued free-will. The most [and best] you can do is to voice your opinion to others, and let them take it as they list. Christ never shoved his message down anyone's throat. He presented it in a rational, non-confrontational manner and let others make their own decision.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nony Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 There are a lot of issues I would like to address, and I most likely will not remember all of them. But I please ask that you respect my beliefs as a Christian, and my right as a human being to have them. And also, please read the entire post before quoting me in righteous anger. I'd really like it if we could be a bit more civilised towards each other. First off, I'd like to address the original topic: gay marriage and the President of America. I, at this moment, do not agree with gay marriage. I don't know how else to soften it. If you don't agree with me, fine. God gave you that freedom to choose, whether I agree with you or not. As for President Bush, he's made mistakes, like many people in the past. Hopefully, those mistakes may be corrected before it possibly gets worse. And now, onto some other topics. People who aren't Christian, Islam, Muslim, Buddhist, and so on, seem to assume things about Christian beliefs. I'd like to request that you please not group us all after seeing or hearing of one bad example. That tends to lead to oppression, in [i]any[/i] case, not just religious. And honestly, I think many of you have missed Gavin's points. He is expressing his views and beliefs on this topic. Even if you do think he's saying horrible things, and not being open-minded, you in fact are doing close to, if not the same, thing when automatically labelling him off as a bad person, because you don't see eye-to-eye. You don't personally know Gavin, and as far as you know he has done nothing outrageous other than state what he believes. I don't know if you know this, but it takes a lot of courage to say what one believes to a crowd that doesn't want to hear it. I applaud you Gavin, even if no one else does. God said to love one another. I don't see much lovin' in this thread. God created a sinless world, but humans made it sinful. That is one point I would like to make before moving on. Anything bad that has happened, within the Church or not, happened because of sinful people. We try to do good, but everyone has sinned at one point or another, and God views them all as horrible, disgusting acts. I am including myself along with the rest of the world, mind. God loves us, otherwise He would have destroyed us long ago. I really don't appreciate the fact that some people are bad-mouthing America, with one example being it's high divorce rate. Yes, divorce rates are high, but there are also plenty of good marriages, as long as the two in question made the best decisions. The United States, which is run by the people, will not be perfect, because people aren't perfect. That is true for any country. There are always going to be problems. I remember many people saying that a theocracy can never work. True, most couldn't, if you keep considering the case that people are sinful. A theocracy would be started with the intent of doing God's will. But, the people who started it would, most likely, eventually use that power for their own wants, saying they do it in the name of God, so that no one may stop them. That's why the Crusades were so horrible. It was started in the name of God, when really it was for the greed of men. If I'm sounding like I'm preaching right now, I apologize. I have no right to, for I am also sinful. Everyone has that right to choose their beliefs, religion or lack of, and whatnot. I am just hoping that some of you will truly read this with an open heart, and not immediately right me off as another stupid right-wing Conservative; but as someone who is trying to express the basics of her religion, which is what leads me in my decisions, whether the government deems it as right or not. Now, as far as gay people go, as I remember Jesus saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." People who choose to be homosexual are still people; they haven't become some other form of lower being. I do view homosexuality as a sin, but I will not label someone who is gay as a worse person. God still loves them, and that's what matters. Whenever the word "sin" is applied to someone, they tend to get pretty angry. Because, they don't want to be told they've done wrong. But everyone has, which I want to stress throughout my post. I also remember [b]SunfallE[/b] posting something about how the original Founders of America were not, in fact, Christian, but Deists. Now, I do think they were Christian. But, they did not want a government like where they had come from, which had forced people to go to Church. God had given them choice, so they gave that to this new country. And as for that website you posted, it mentioned that if the Founders were Christian, there would have been no Revolution. But hey, they were being oppressed by the British government at the time. Shouldn't they have fought for their rights? You're saying that people should have their rights, and that homosexuals should have the right to marry, and yet you post a link to a page that says something like that? Just doesn't click with me. But, of course, I don't mean to be nasty towards you in any derrogatory way, SunfallE. I just don't agree with you on that point. Finally, I would like to ask again that everyone, not just one side but [i]everyone[/i], be as fair and open as possible. My brother recently got in an argument at his college about gay marriage. And you know what happened? A group of people swarmed on him, giving him no opportunity to say anything. For 30 minutes, he had people shouting in his face. Then one kid called him a Nazi. All the others thought that was out of line, but still. A Nazi? Because he was speaking his opinion, he was called a Nazi. I personally don't know how that fight was even started, but the point is that we [i]should[/i] give each other the right to our own opinion, religious or not, and not be oppressed for it. Whether we actually do that or not is questionable, however. I would like to close off as apologizing for any contradictory statements in my post. Writing such a long one, I'm sure there's one in there. Again, this post is mainly my own opinion and belief. I've tried to state the basics of my religion, without preaching, hoping to have at least someone read the whole post. God loves us, one way or another, and hopefully we may begin to love one another on a better level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaryanna_Mom Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 [quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Its time we focused on what is important. Homosexuality is unnatural, and there is no reason to accomodate it just so some people can enjoy themselves. Homosexual acts are not good, so we shouldn't encourage homosexuals to engage in them because they have the "right" to hurt themselves, and therefore their is no reason to have homosexual marriages.[/COLOR][/quote]I?m afraid that the argument that it?s unnatural is not a very good one for denying people the same rights another human being has. There are quite a few things physically that humans do that are not natural but since they are not sexual in nature they are considered acceptable. We potty train our children since it is considered the socially acceptable thing to do. It makes it easier and far more sanitary for everyone, but when you get right down to it, the muscles involved have to be trained to do something that is not natural. [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Here in Canada, we have Gay marriage and already I can see how messed up soem people's mentalities are. There was a lesbian couple, and they wanted a child, so one of them goes and has sex with a man to impregnate herself. At the same time, she of course doesn't have interest in men. After the child is born, the lesbian couple want the father of the baby to have custody of the child with them, because the baby needs "a father firgure" in his life. What kind of twisted mentality is that? The lady has sex with the man, right there, she is accepting the fact that only with male and female gametes can a child be concieved. And she also accepts the fact that a child needs a father figure. Yet she is forcing this child to have two mothers and a "father". Now of course, you'll all tell me that this is perfectly okay and the child will be perfectly happy, but I know that if I had to deal with that as a child I wouldn't be happy. Biological parents matter, and that's why the biological parents more than anyone else should be the ones who care and love for their children. It's not okay that so many kids are given up for adoption in the first place, and have to rely on adoptive parents for love.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]I cannot agree with this statement either, you are implying that because one person, who is gay/lesbian, is messed up that therefore all of them are messed up. One example of a couple being messed up is not anywhere near enough data to form the conclusion that all gay/lesbian people are ?messed up.? I could easily find hundreds if not thousands of examples that fit similar guidelines to what you have mentioned for supposedly straight people. Would that in turn mean that all of us who consider ourselves straight have messed up mentalities as well? This would seem to indicate that the factors that make one ?messed up? are not sexual in nature or at the very least not dependant on sexual orientation altogether. It would probably be more realistic to say that such issues are a combination of how one was raised, chemical issues within their body and social factors. You are focusing on only one aspect of why you believe a person is messed up as if it was the only cause. [QUOTE=Miss Anonymous]I also remember [b]SunfallE[/b] posting something about how the original Founders of America were not, in fact, Christian, but Deists. Now, I do think they were Christian. But, they did not want a government like where they had come from, which had forced people to go to Church. God had given them choice, so they gave that to this new country. And as for that website you posted, it mentioned that if the Founders were Christian, there would have been no Revolution. But hey, they were being oppressed by the British government at the time. Shouldn't they have fought for their rights? You're saying that people should have their rights, and that homosexuals should have the right to marry, and yet you post a link to a page that says something like that? Just doesn't click with me. But, of course, I don't mean to be nasty towards you in any derrogatory way, SunfallE. I just don't agree with you on that point.[/QUOTE]I hope this is not too far off topic, but seeing that the debate over whether or not the Founders were in fact Christian has been thrown back and forth quite a bit, not here but in the debate over amending the constitution, I thought I?d expand a bit on what I think SunfallE meant by her post. I think the argument here is that whether or not they were Christian is based entirely on a person?s point of view and how they interpret the documents from that time. Unless we could go back in time and actually ask the founders we have no idea if they were religious or not. I think this is what she was referring to. The return to Christian principles is not something that should be used to amend the very foundation of the government here in America since it is something that is not provable. This is the very reason why I oppose the amendment as I think the separation of church and state is part of what makes our country a better place. If we allow one amendment based on the moral values of religious people then what?s next? It would set a dangerous precedent that could in time unravel the very foundation of our government. It was created to keep church and state separate and I believe it should stay that way. Just the thought of all the endless bickering to amend the law based on different moral beliefs is enough to convince me that we should not amend the constitution. As for the bit about they wouldn?t have revolted, yes perhaps that is true that they would have, but often when a group breaks away from the religion they are a part of; if they think it is corrupt, they tend to go and re-form the very religion they left behind. I am not a scholar, but the best example I know is the LDS/Mormon church that had a branch break off to go form the Re-organized LDS church. So the hypothesis that not only did they break away but then proceeded to form a government that essentially stripped the church of having any secular power would mean they were not Christian is a valid conclusion. Whether or not its true is something we will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nony Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] The return to Christian principles is not something that should be used to amend the very foundation of the government here in America since it is something that is not provable. This is the very reason why I oppose the amendment as I think the separation of church and state is part of what makes our country a better place. If we allow one amendment based on the moral values of religious people then what?s next? It would set a dangerous precedent that could in time unravel the very foundation of our government. It was created to keep church and state separate and I believe it should stay that way. Just the thought of all the endless bickering to amend the law based on different moral beliefs is enough to convince me that we should not amend the constitution. [/QUOTE] I probably did miss some points of SunfallE's message, seeing as there were so many posts to read. I am not saying that the American government should rule with only Christian or religious beliefs. Someone would easily take advantage of that, in the end. And yes, separation of church and state is for the best. I just don't want people to misconstrue the whole thing too much, because that also shouldn't happen. Ruling a country according to one religion shouldn't happen, because religion is a choice. I can see where you're coming from, but there are still a few things I can't completely agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caine Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 [QUOTE=Miss Anonymous]There are a lot of issues I would like to address, and I most likely will not remember all of them. But I please ask that you respect my beliefs as a Christian, and my right as a human being to have them. And also, please read the entire post before quoting me in righteous anger. I'd really like it if we could be a bit more civilised towards each other. And now, onto some other topics. People who aren't Christian, Islam, Muslim, Buddhist, and so on, seem to assume things about Christian beliefs. I'd like to request that you please not group us all after seeing or hearing of one bad example. That tends to lead to oppression, in [i]any[/i] case, not just religious.[/QUOTE] I don't believe I've seen anyone here say anything at all about Christians being wrong. I've insinuated that we've screwed up the teachings of Jesus, but that comes from a lot of things, not one example of one person's actions. [QUOTE]And honestly, I think many of you have missed Gavin's points. He is expressing his views and beliefs on this topic. Even if you do think he's saying horrible things, and not being open-minded, you in fact are doing close to, if not the same, thing when automatically labelling him off as a bad person, because you don't see eye-to-eye. You don't personally know Gavin, and as far as you know he has done nothing outrageous other than state what he believes. I don't know if you know this, but it takes a lot of courage to say what one believes to a crowd that doesn't want to hear it. I applaud you Gavin, even if no one else does.[/QUOTE] I have no problem with Gavin as a person. I don't believe anyone else here who posts extensively has given me much reason to assume that they do either. He should speak his mind, and we should speak ours. We should try to be civilized about it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with open debate. [QUOTE]If I'm sounding like I'm preaching right now, I apologize. I have no right to, for I am also sinful. Everyone has that right to choose their beliefs, religion or lack of, and whatnot. I am just hoping that some of you will truly read this with an open heart, and not immediately right me off as another stupid right-wing Conservative; but as someone who is trying to express the basics of her religion, which is what leads me in my decisions, whether the government deems it as right or not.[/QUOTE] NO! We're all sinful, yes, but we still should try to do what we think is right. If that's what you truly believe, then say it. We should all try to be civilized, but discussion is essential. [QUOTE]Finally, I would like to ask again that everyone, not just one side but [i]everyone[/i], be as fair and open as possible. My brother recently got in an argument at his college about gay marriage. And you know what happened? A group of people swarmed on him, giving him no opportunity to say anything. For 30 minutes, he had people shouting in his face. Then one kid called him a Nazi. All the others thought that was out of line, but still. A Nazi? Because he was speaking his opinion, he was called a Nazi.[/QUOTE] People have been told they're going to burn in hell because they say what they think. Please don't judge all of us by one example, I try not to do it to you. [QUOTE] I personally don't know how that fight was even started, but the point is that we [i]should[/i] give each other the right to our own opinion, religious or not, and not be oppressed for it. Whether we actually do that or not is questionable, however. I would like to close off as apologizing for any contradictory statements in my post. Writing such a long one, I'm sure there's one in there. Again, this post is mainly my own opinion and belief. I've tried to state the basics of my religion, without preaching, hoping to have at least someone read the whole post. God loves us, one way or another, and hopefully we may begin to love one another on a better level.[/QUOTE] You say quite a lot, and I agree with you on a good deal of it, but I don't see you explicitly staing your reasons for opposing gay marriage. I don't know if this was intentional or not, I just thought I should point it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 I would like to know why everyone keeps going to the Christian belief on this subject? I know most of you are christian but still. Sence most of you are trying to get me to belive that Gay marriages are wrong in chirstian piont of view, here are my views if I were to include my religion. In my religion there is no heaven or hell. So there is no way for gay/lesbian to burn in hell. We are living in the hell. This world was created by the God and Goddess in my belief not by just one person. If you haven't figured out my religion, I'm a pagan or as some people call a witch. In a pagan point of view I see nothing wrong with marriage between to people of the same gender. Do you understand my point of veiw better knowing what my religion is? What I'm trying to say is that religion is not of any use is this debate, so way use it? If it soulds like I am useing my religion that is because I'm tying to show you that it only effects your views most and not many others. As for gays being unnatural or natural, what are we to say what is natural or unnatural? When natural its self isn't defind well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunfallE Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 [COLOR=RoyalBlue][QUOTE=Miss Anonymous]I probably did miss some points of SunfallE's message, seeing as there were so many posts to read. I am not saying that the American government should rule with only Christian or religious beliefs. Someone would easily take advantage of that, in the end. And yes, separation of church and state is for the best. I just don't want people to misconstrue the whole thing too much, because that also shouldn't happen. Ruling a country according to one religion shouldn't happen, because religion is a choice. I can see where you're coming from, but there are still a few things I can't completely agree with.[/QUOTE]I didn?t exactly spell it out as clearly as I could have. I?ve been following it a little on my own for the past few years and the reason I linked to that site is that I?ve been arguing with other people (not here at OB) that claiming we need to return to the Christian principles on which is was founded is not something that?s really provable. The document in question can be interpreted both ways. Which is what that site shows. ^_~ I was forgetting that I haven?t been discussing this issue with everyone here so I didn?t properly clarify that point. Aaryanna_Mom is right about what I meant with my post, but then I know her in real life and we?ve discussed this many times in the past couple of years. (Oh and by the way Aaryanna_Mom, I?m glad you finally decided to join OB ^_~ ) [quote name='Cat14']I would like to know why everyone keeps going to the Christian belief on this subject? [/quote]I would imagine that people keep using Christian beliefs since it is where they learned or were taught that homosexuality is wrong, so it?s only natural that someone is going to cite the source of their information or belief. I was raised to believe it is wrong, but I decided to make my own choice instead of following what I was told to believe. I think this discussion is starting to run in circles since it?s unlikely any of us are going to change our opinion based on what others think. Though it is interesting to see where people stand on the situation. And to discuss it with people who are civil towards one another. Trying to discuss it with some of the religious fanatics here in Utah is just a waste of time as it quickly turns into a nasty shouting match of how you are going to hell for thinking everyone should have the same rights. Feh! [/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caine Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 I think we are discussing the Christian viewpoint because the main thrust behind the amendment comes form the "religious right" which in America means Christians, mainly fundamentalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 [quote name='Papa Smurf']...Gavin, you do realize how unbelievably bad that sounds? Hopefully you do. If not, I'll use myself as an example why what you're saying is entirely stupid.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Alex, do me a favour, if you're going to be discourteous enough to basically label my opinions as being stupid, then at least do me the courtesy of reading the actual reply in terms of the context. That post was in response PaganAngel's question about why God would punish someone for being homosexual, basically he asked me to answer a religious question, or rather to give the reason the Catholic Church has given as to why God considers homosexuality a sin. [/SIZE] [quote=Papa Smurf]I've spent a lifetime controlling myself. I am always aware of this rage inside of me, and because I'm aware of it, I'm able to manage it effectively. That rage will never go away. I've accepted that. It's a component of deeper psychological workings--and partly on a chemical level that's not so easily fixed through medication. In the past, I've tried to deny that the rage exists. I've tried to forget about those dark urges in my subconscious, the urges that push me to get really, really bad to a lot of people, to pick random fights and destroy other human beings. And do you know what always happened when I tried to fight/block/suppress that rage? Really bad things to myself. Usually self-inflicted. Denying feelings lead to personal devastation. I've dealt with rage issues. That was stressful enough.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Believe me Alex I understand the damage that suppression of rage does, I did it a lot of my childhood over being bullied, quite badly over being overweight, so please don?t even think you can lecture me on what it feels like to have to repress the urge to throttle someone to death with your bare hands. I bottled rage of intensity you can hardly even imagine for so long that I finally began to accept that I had to deal with it, either by doing something stupid like getting self inflicted injuries, or I could talk to people and work out my issues, guess which one I chose ? You can lash out or you can deal with the fact you have a problem, the former is what children do, the latter is what adults do.[/SIZE] [quote=Papa Smurf]Do you honestly believe that "not practicing" one's homosexuality is going to help them in any way at all? Think about how many people in the world today have killed themselves because they didn't think they could "come out." Or think about how many people in the world today have been shunned so much by society for being gay/lesbian that they've entirely withdrawn and would take decades of therapy usually to help them. But you want them to suppress who they really are? Would you rather me have suppressed the rage and wound up dead long before the chance of having this discussion? EDIT: Hopefully people will start seeing why religious doctrine is entirely useless in this discussion. Religion is quite often a black and white view of the world, and black and white views are the last thing anyone needs in a governing body when it comes to making laws.[/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]I honestly believe not practicing it is going to get them anywhere ? I don?t know, and that?s my genuine answer. In a few years I?m going to hopefully enter the seminary in Kildare, which means that eventually I?m going to be ordained a priest of the Catholic Church. Now that means that I?ll take a vow of chastity, I?ve never had sex, and chances are I probably won?t, unless something happens in the next two/three years to change that. Now does the fact that I won?t ever have sex, a basic part of normal human behaviour mean that I?m going to flip out in maybe 25/30 years ? Or will it mean that I simply accept that I promise I made to God is more important than controllable sexual urges ? You talk as if these people not practicing their homosexual behaviour is going to cause them all to go crazy in the same way someone who suppresses homicidal tendency for years does. I think it?s genuinely sad when someone kills themselves because of something they can?t admit to others, but it?s not as if gay people are the only ones who do that. Someone I knew quite well committed suicide because he didn?t get enough points in his Leaving Cert to study medicine and couldn?t admit to his parents that he simply couldn?t live without his dreams, he shot himself alone in a field with his father?s shotgun. I?m not trying to say that a gay person who kills himself/herself because they can?t tell their family for fear or rejection is any less sad than the case of my friend, but what I am saying is that if someone feels they can?t admit something about themselves, they need to seek help, professional help. Do I want someone to suppress who they really are, at the core of their being ? No, probably not, but if what?s at their core is something that puts their immortal soul, regardless of whether they believe it?s there or not, in jeopardy then I most certainly do want them to suppress it, or to deal with it in such a way that that piece of their core being no longer exists. As I?ve said already I?m not trying to oppress anyone else, I?m merely giving my reasons for why I think this kind of behaviour isn?t right, that?s not going to stop anyone from doing so, no more than it should because people need to make their own decisions in life, because that?s what life is. But it does concern me greatly that the world today has become such a spiritually devoid place, where this tiny, tiny span of life is all that matters, as opposed to the infinity of the hereafter. Do I wish you were dead Alex because you didn?t deal with your problems ? Of course not, after all I?d never have had the opportunity to have some many great debates over the years. As for whether religious doctrine and it?s black and white view of the world has any place in law making,, well that?s for governments to decide. But personally I think people confuse civil rights with civil liberties for too much nowadays. [/SIZE] [QUOTE=Cygnus X-1][COLOR=Sienna]I think I can sum up this debat in two lines - Gavin: Stop repressing my right to repress and impose my morales on other people! Everyone Else: No. That's stupid. Pretty much that's it. Gavin, I hardly see how giving people the right to do what they believe is oppressive of your rights and beliefs. That's stupid.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Cygnus, no offence, but if you wish to sum up my own thoughts on this issue, you might do a better job of it. I haven?t said that I want to oppress anyone else?s rights, except sarcastically of course but that wasn?t picked up upon. What I have said is please at least allow my right to protest something I consider wrong, after all it not the vaunted American ideal of freedom of speech based on the idea that anyone should be allowed say anything they feel like, regardless of how offensive of hurtful it may be to someone else. I?m sorry to sound frustrated, but being one of the few on this side of the issue means you have a lot of flack to deal with. Secondly they?re not my morals, because by saying that you?re talking as if I?m the only person, one out of six and a bit billion people who wants to deny gay people their right to get married. They?re the morals of anyone who follows the tenets of the Catholic Church properly, which is somewhere in the one billion mark, and I?m not even counting members of other religions who feel the same way. Now I?ve already said from a legal standpoint only I don?t care if they get married or not, they?re only condemning themselves to an eternity to hellish torture, but seeing as religious beliefs that aren?t in line with giving gay people their liberty to marriage don?t seem to matter, I won?t continue. Thirdly the very fact that you won?t accept other people have a problem with this issue and are simply calling their views stupid because they don?t fall in line with your own is quite pathetic really. I suppose I could be equally childish and make a similar summing up where the facts are skewed completely out of reality, but then again I actually try to put a bit of effort into debating an issue.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]As someone else pointed out, I was indeed pointing towards the Counter-Reformation. In addition, it's not like that was the only time during which corruption plagued the Church. I believe I was taught that the Church had been selling indulgences for quite a while, owning property, etc. before, during, and after the Counter-Reformation. I was unaware of creating a "hundred year" timeline... I thought I said one thousand, but I might be wrong. It's great that the Church has shaped up now. However, I'm willing to wager that the Papacy hasn't fumbled because of the 1.1 billion followers who would be outraged to hear of corruption. The loss would simply be too great to even risk corruption - I thought I already said that these people were the check and balance to Papal authority. In any event, the Pope still walks around with his silver-and-gold staff with the crucifix attached to the end in his billowing robes and celebrates Mass in a huge Cathedral that [probably] took millions to build while there are billions suffering. It's not like they're off the hook, yet I digress from the debate. Really, that's all I want -- for you to let gays have their supposed "eternity of suffering" and make their own choice by the millions. As far as I know, no gay person is asking for the Pope's blessing; they are content with living their life with their partner. It's really great that you don't want them to go to hell. I seriously believe you're genuine in your statement. Unfortunately, a vast slice of the population does not share your faith, and as a result, should not be bound by the tenants of Catholicism. God gave man free-will, and all gays are asking for is their continued free-will. The most [and best] you can do is to voice your opinion to others, and let them take it as they list. Christ never shoved his message down anyone's throat. He presented it in a rational, non-confrontational manner and let others make their own decision.[/size][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Yes, I meant to type in Counter-Reformation but for some reason I seem to have forgot the "counter" bit, still the point was picked up all the same. The sale of indulgences, a foul practice indeed, I?ll admit occurred for a long time, the counter-reformation also led to the Inquisitions, another part of Church history no Catholic should ever be proud of. However the core seeds of the counter-reformation was to try and right the Church after so many years, which was eventually accomplished, though sadly the effects of the counter-reformation as well as the counter-reformation itself are relatively new at just under 500 years old. In all reality Retri, I think most Catholic people are more outraged at how staggering badly the Church handled the amount of paedophilia that went on, rather than if the Church met with a little financial fumble, because what is the value of money if a tiny portion of those supposedly trained in simulation of the twelve Apostles can do such horrific things to children. Besides with the fact amount of different divisions of the Christian faith that exist in the world today, if people don?t like how their Church is handling issues, they can always find another that better fits their beliefs. As for the cost of the building the Vatican itself, well I?ve actually been in the Vatican and I can tell you that if those splendid building to the glory of God is where some of my donations went, or rather the donations of my family generations upon generations ago went, it was money well spent. However the fact is the Catholic Church does give considerable sums to the poor in impoverished countries, most of which have Catholic missionaries already out there, unless of course you?re saying that the Church should donate all it?s money, including that needed to refurbish other churches across the world and keep their priests in some form of habitation directly to the poor then that?s a different matter. Would you allow a child to steal if you knew they?d face punishment, serious punishment ? No you wouldn?t, why ? Because you would feel obliged to prevent the child from being punished, but why ? Because you would feel distressed to see someone do something they would be punished for even if they didn?t know it was wrong, or as the case is here if we?re to compare the two, if someone tells them it?s wrong and they don?t believe it. I don?t want anyone to go to Hell, not the man who murders a child in cold blood, or the person who commits genocide, why ? Because I believe in redemption, and genuinely I?m easily distressed at someone else?s pain. The case is that this liberty being made into law will further jeopardise people?s souls, I know Christ did not force his message to those who did not want to hear it, because he knew people need to make their own choices, but perhaps Christ was able to sleep better at night than I would be able to, knowing someone is going to Hell for what they?ve done. Anyway this issue is really debated to the end of it?s point, that is unless someone would like to start discussing the validity of religious beliefs in Republican law-making policy in the United States. The case remains that many people are for gay marriage while others are not, at this point all we can do is agree to disagree.[/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caine Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 [quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Alex, do me a favour, if you're going to be discourteous enough to basically label my opinions as being stupid, then at least do me the courtesy of reading the actual reply in terms of the context. That post was in response PaganAngel's question about why God would punish someone for being homosexual, basically he asked me to answer a religious question, or rather to give the reason the Catholic Church has given as to why God considers homosexuality a sin. [/SIZE][/quote] 1) You actually haven't told us why homosexuality is a sin. You've told us why it's not hypocritical to call it a sin, but as for the actual reasoning of why it is one, you've never given that. 2)Keep in mind what you say here about people labeling you. [QUOTE]Do I want someone to suppress who they really are, at the core of their being ? No, probably not, but if what?s at their core is something that puts their immortal soul, regardless of whether they believe it?s there or not, in jeopardy then I most certainly do want them to suppress it, or to deal with it in such a way that that piece of their core being no longer exists. As I?ve said already I?m not trying to oppress anyone else, I?m merely giving my reasons for why I think this kind of behaviour isn?t right, that?s not going to stop anyone from doing so, no more than it should because people need to make their own decisions in life, because that?s what life is. But it does concern me greatly that the world today has become such a spiritually devoid place, where this tiny, tiny span of life is all that matters, as opposed to the infinity of the hereafter. [/QUOTE] 1) Let me get this straight. Yous just said, "No I don't want to suppress part of them, but I do want to to supress part of them." Is that pretty much what you said? 2) Should we pass a laww oultawing Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Athiesm, Paganism, Agnosticism, and Protestantism because that would keep people's souls safe? [QUOTE][SIZE=1]I haven?t said that I want to oppress anyone else?s rights, except sarcastically of course but that wasn?t picked up upon. What I have said is please at least allow my right to protest something I consider wrong, after all it not the vaunted American ideal of freedom of speech based on the idea that anyone should be allowed say anything they feel like, regardless of how offensive of hurtful it may be to someone else. I?m sorry to sound frustrated, but being one of the few on this side of the issue means you have a lot of flack to deal with.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Please make any sarcasm painfully obvious (try [/sarcasm]) because there are people who hold the views you expressed sarcastically. You every right to say what you want, but so do we. If we don;t like what you say, tough for us, but by that same token, if you don't like what we say, tough. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Secondly they?re not my morals, because by saying that you?re talking as if I?m the only person, one out of six and a bit billion people who wants to deny gay people their right to get married. They?re the morals of anyone who follows the tenets of the Catholic Church properly, which is somewhere in the one billion mark, and I?m not even counting members of other religions who feel the same way. Now I?ve already said from a legal standpoint only I don?t care if they get married or not, they?re only condemning themselves to an eternity to hellish torture, but seeing as religious beliefs that aren?t in line with giving gay people their liberty to marriage don?t seem to matter, I won?t continue.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE] Semantics: If they are morals that you hold, then they are your morals. Actual Debate: Does it strike you as odd that you said "anyone who follows the tenets of the Catholic Church" and not "anyone who follows the teachings of Christ" [QUOTE]As for the cost of the building the Vatican itself, well I?ve actually been in the Vatican and I can tell you that if those splendid building to the glory of God is where some of my donations went, or rather the donations of my family generations upon generations ago went, it was money well spent. However the fact is the Catholic Church does give considerable sums to the poor in impoverished countries, most of which have Catholic missionaries already out there, unless of course you?re saying that the Church should donate all it?s money, including that needed to refurbish other churches across the world and keep their priests in some form of habitation directly to the poor then that?s a different matter.[/QUOTE] I think we should follow the example of Christ and feed the Pope simple meals and give him a simple but adequate house. Render unto God what is God's and render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's. If artists donate work, that's one thing, but most of the Vatican was payed for. When Jesus sent forth the 72, what did they bring? The apostles "left everything" to follow Jesus. Should we praise God through wealth and greed or through good works, charity, and helping our fellow man? [QUOTE][SIZE=1] Would you allow a child to steal if you knew they?d face punishment, serious punishment ? No you wouldn?t, why ? Because you would feel obliged to prevent the child from being punished, but why ? Because you would feel distressed to see someone do something they would be punished for even if they didn?t know it was wrong, or as the case is here if we?re to compare the two, if someone tells them it?s wrong and they don?t believe it. I don?t want anyone to go to Hell, not the man who murders a child in cold blood, or the person who commits genocide, why ? Because I believe in redemption, and genuinely I?m easily distressed at someone else?s pain. The case is that this liberty being made into law will further jeopardise people?s souls, I know Christ did not force his message to those who did not want to hear it, because he knew people need to make their own choices, but perhaps Christ was able to sleep better at night than I would be able to, knowing someone is going to Hell for what they?ve done.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE] Are you caliming to know better than Jesus did? That is honestly what it sounds like you are saying, that Jesus was wrong to not force people to conform and that you know better and should correct his mistake. [QUOTE][SIZE=1]Anyway this issue is really debated to the end of it?s point, that is unless someone would like to start discussing the validity of religious beliefs in Republican law-making policy in the United States. The case remains that many people are for gay marriage while others are not, at this point all we can do is agree to disagree.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] How'd you know what my favorite topic was? My view is that the early disciples were communists or socialists, so why should the right claim to be religious while deriding the system used by the founders of their religion. Jesus preached of kindness to the poor, so how can they oppose being good to the poor? That's just how I see it though. I also think they might want to read that passage about "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter The Kingdom" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaganAngel Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Another question... one of you (too lazy to pull up the quote) argued that homosexuality should be frowned on because it's "not natural". Well, was not Jesus unnatural? And yet you consider him your Savior. And if God doesn't agree with anything that's natural, there would be no miracles, no divine intervention, thus undermining a great deal of what your church stands for, and it makes you more Deists than Christians. The "unnatural" argument is severely flawed, because the extraordinary is a necessity for everything in life- one of the stages in Darwin's theory of natural selection was mutation. There has to be some change in our world, and not everyone's going to agree with it all. But does the fact that you completely oppose it mean that it will go away? No. I don't care what bills they pass or if some church or another starts a bona fide witch hunt against gays. Homosexuality is here to stay. Welcome to the Age of Aquarius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Smurf Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 [quote name='Gavin][size=1']Alex, do me a favour, if you're going to be discourteous enough to basically label my opinions as being stupid, then at least do me the courtesy of reading the actual reply in terms of the context. That post was in response PaganAngel's question about why God would punish someone for being homosexual, basically he asked me to answer a religious question, or rather to give the reason the Catholic Church has given as to why God considers homosexuality a sin.[/size][/quote] Gavin, but take the logic one step further, as that logic is the reasoning behind the push to ban gay marriage. The reasoning behind the push is religious in nature. And what you said there was religious in nature. So take it to the next logical step, and realize that you are in fact discriminating, and that you are in fact wanting people to repress who they are, and what they really want...that's what's going to happen if gay marriage is banned. You're telling people "No, you can't have this because of my religion." What effect is that going to have? [quote][size=1]Believe me Alex I understand the damage that suppression of rage does, I did it a lot of my childhood over being bullied, quite badly over being overweight, so please don?t even think you can lecture me on what it feels like to have to repress the urge to throttle someone to death with your bare hands.[/size][/quote] Gavin, then if you know exactly what I'm talking about...why aren't you realizing the dangers in what you're suggesting? Make no mistake, my friend: your common sense is being overtaken by your religious values--and religious values should never, ever factor into policy-making. [quote][size=1]You talk as if these people not practicing their homosexual behaviour is going to cause them all to go crazy in the same way someone who suppresses homicidal tendency for years does.[/size][/quote] What I'm talking about is the psychological strain an individual experiences when said individual is entirely unable to feel comfortable with both who he or she is, and how he or she does or does not "fit in" with society. You know how being ostracized feels. Don't let religious upbringing make you forget that. [quote][size=1]Do I want someone to suppress who they really are, at the core of their being ? No, probably not, but if what?s at their core is something that puts their immortal soul, regardless of whether they believe it?s there or not, in jeopardy then I most certainly do want them to suppress it, or to deal with it in such a way that that piece of their core being no longer exists. As I?ve said already I?m not trying to oppress anyone else,[/size][/quote] Yeah, but surely you see the problems there. One, not everyone shares the same religion. Two, beliefs regarding eternal damnation are entirely subjective (and often entirely illogical). Three, religion is probably the worst Litmus test I can think of, because you're never going to get an objective assessment of anything. Eternal damnation has absolutely zero bearing on any properly functional government. And you are absolutely trying to oppress people, Gavin. I can see how you're trying to walk the line here so that your views don't seem very extreme, so they seem mildly reasonable, but most people here can see right through the doublespeak. Just admit it, man. You [i]are[/i] trying to oppress people, because your [i]religious values[/i] oppress people. [quote][size=1]As for whether religious doctrine and it?s black and white view of the world has any place in law making,, well that?s for governments to decide. But personally I think people confuse civil rights with civil liberties for too much nowadays.[/size][/quote] Well, there's a reason why Britain had hundreds of years of violence and bloodshed that were directly related to the religious affiliation/structure of the government. It's no coincidence that the most brutal totalitarian regimes over the past few centuries have largely been religion-based. It's no coincidence that teenagers were hanged in Iran. Religion has a black and white view of the world. Law-making absolutely cannot have a black and white view of the world. And honestly, I have no idea what you're even trying to get at regarding civil rights vs civil liberties, because I think it's missing the point entirely, the point being that if blacks were finally granted basic civil rights as recently as the 1960s...basing government policy on an individual's sexual orientation is absolutely wrong, because there is zero fundamental difference between skin color and sexual orientation. And thus, it becomes discrimination. If you don't believe me, read through something as simple as an employee's handbook, or recruiting guides. "Company will not discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity" etc etc is a phrase you see 100% of the time. What makes it even worse now? Because it's utter discrimination on a national/global scale but some groups believe it to be okay because of their religious upbringing. And again, that is why religion should never, ever be a factor in government policy-making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 [QUOTE=Gavin] [SIZE=1]I honestly believe not practicing it is going to get them anywhere ? I don?t know, and that?s my genuine answer. In a few years I?m going to hopefully enter the seminary in Kildare, which means that eventually I?m going to be ordained a priest of the Catholic Church. Now that means that I?ll take a vow of chastity, I?ve never had sex, and chances are I probably won?t, unless something happens in the next two/three years to change that. Now does the fact that I won?t ever have sex, a basic part of normal human behaviour mean that I?m going to flip out in maybe 25/30 years ? Or will it mean that I simply accept that I promise I made to God is more important than controllable sexual urges ? You talk as if these people not practicing their homosexual behaviour is going to cause them all to go crazy in the same way someone who suppresses homicidal tendency for years does.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE] The others have already shredded your logic to pieces, Gavin, but I just wanted to add that there's a HUGE difference between making an own choice to not have sex (as seems to be your case) and being forced not to have sex (whch would be the case if homosexuality was altogether forbidden). I know you realize the difference too, but you really can't expect people to make the same choice you have just because [I]you[/I] think it's the right thing to do. Sex is a wonderful thing when done with somebody you love and who loves you back. The beauty of it isn't affected by marriage or the intention to breed, it's the act that makes us feel good. You are taught that sex outside the aforementioned two conditions is wrong and unpure, but then again, how would you know if you've never done it. ;P (I'm not saying you should abandon your belief and do it, just that your opinion in this matter doesn't weight much.) Sorry for straying a bit from the topic, but I just wanted to bring up my freedom of sharing my body with whomever I want, because it is my body and my choice. And I'm not a child anymore (responding to your stealing kid analogy), I'm perfectly capable of doing my own choices without your guidance. You're not above the rest of us just because you have Catholic morals, Gavin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodeca Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 [quote name='Gavin][size=1']Secondly they?re not my morals, because by saying that you?re talking as if I?m the only person, one out of six and a bit billion people who wants to deny gay people their right to get married. They?re the morals of anyone who follows the tenets of the Catholic Church properly, which is somewhere in the one billion mark, and I?m not even counting members of other religions who feel the same way.[/size][/quote] [SIZE=1]So just because six and a bit billion people want to deny gay people's right to get married instead of one, that makes it better? If six billion people believe they have just cause to oppose something that has little to no relevance to them, just because it doesn't fit with beliefs that the affected people don't share, then those six billion people really need to get their priorities sorted. I'm a Christian, and although I may not feel all that comfortable with homosexuality, I'll be damned if I'm going to force my beliefs onto other people.[/SIZE] [quote name='Gavin][size=1']Now I?ve already said from a legal standpoint only I don?t care if they get married or not, they?re only condemning themselves to an eternity to hellish torture, but seeing as religious beliefs that aren?t in line with giving gay people their liberty to marriage don?t seem to matter, I won?t continue.[/size][/quote] [SIZE=1] But are they really damning themselves any more than any other person? This may just be the fruit of my Protestant allignment, but I was lead to believe that any person, Christian or otherwise is affected by sin, even something as simple as refusing to acknowledge God's existence, and that nothing other than Christ's intervention could remove that sin. From what I've been taught, one extra sin on the pile isn't going to make hell any less bearable for a non-Christian, and stopping them from practicing homosexuality insn't going to do anything if they don't come to Christ. Think for a moment, if the Church suppresses homosexuals' ability to make their own decisions, would they be more likely to 'join up' or less likely? You may disagree with me, and have every right to, but I think you'd be condemning more people than you'd be saving with that approach. [Don't take any of this as a personal attack against you, Gavin. Your points are well-structured, and I [i]can[/i] sort of understand where you're coming from, but there's not much else that I can argue against, really. : P][/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 [quote name='Dodeca][SIZE=1']So just because six and a bit billion people want to deny gay people's right to get married instead of one, that makes it better? If six billion people believe they have just cause to oppose something that has little to no relevance to them, just because it doesn't fit with beliefs that the affected people don't share, then those six billion people really need to get their priorities sorted. I'm a Christian, and although I may not feel all that comfortable with homosexuality, I'll be damned if I'm going to force my beliefs onto other people.[/SIZE][/quote] [SIZE=1]I can understand that Dodeca, and respect the fact that you believe that you shouldn't force your beliefs down anyone else's throat. In all honesty I fear I've been being far too dogmatic in my application of my beliefs while at the same time missing the equally vital respect and compassion that is preached, I suppose it's just the frustration perhaps of being the only one of this side of the issue while at the same time finding myself unable to reconcile with the fact that I may be being genuinely discriminatory against people for something they simply can't help. It's never been my intention to insult anyone else by voicing my beliefs, nor making people who are homosexual feel somehow wrong or evil, and if I have then I am sincerely sorry for it. As I've said earlier in the thread, the way the world is becoming such a secular place with no time for spirituality is something that genuinely concerns me, now whether that spirituality be Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion doesn't matter, but I feel people are losing touch with the fact that there is something far greater out there than any of us and people are beginning to forget that. Which is why I feel spirituality of some description is important for people, and perhaps I've let that cloud my opinion on this issue. I think it's a case that my beliefs are such an integral part of me, and so bound to the history of Ireland by blood, that it's very difficult to look at any issue from a purely secular point of view. And as this thread is the greatest proof, I've most certainly failed to adequately look at the issue in all it's aspects rather than black and white. I think I've been hating the sinner as well as the sin, which for someone who normally considers compassion the most important part of myself is very unsettling.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Dodeca][SIZE=1]But are they really damning themselves any more than any other person? This may just be the fruit of my Protestant alignment, but I was lead to believe that any person, Christian or otherwise is affected by sin, even something as simple as refusing to acknowledge God's existence, and that nothing other than Christ's intervention could remove that sin. From what I've been taught, one extra sin on the pile isn't going to make hell any less bearable for a non-Christian, and stopping them from practicing homosexuality isn't going to do anything if they don't come to Christ. Think for a moment, if the Church suppresses homosexuals' ability to make their own decisions, would they be more likely to 'join up' or less likely? You may disagree with me, and have every right to, but I think you'd be condemning more people than you'd be saving with that approach. [Don't take any of this as a personal attack against you, Gavin. Your points are well-structured, and I [i]can[/i] sort of understand where you're coming from, but there's not much else that I can argue against, really. : P][/SIZE][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Well I was talking about it from a Catholic point of view, by which anyone can seek forgiveness for sins by going to Confession, so actually seeking redemption is something anyone can do if they believe. You're right of course in the fact I've been sounding like a dogmatic evangelist rather than a concerned future-priest, at least hopefully future-priest, although I believe a friend may be right when she says I am too rigid in my application of beliefs. Again I'd like to apologise to anyone who took offence from my previous replies, I know it's not an excuse but perhaps ironically enough I've found it hard to discuss the fact I wish to become a priest with my own family. Out of the three children I was the only one likely to go to college, something neither my mother or father did, and there seems to be an onus on having me "live" before I make the commitment of entering the seminary. I've been probably transferring this fear and anger into my posts on this topic, making them harsher and much less in keeping with my usual respectful and sincere manner. I truly don't have anything against anyone who is homosexual, they're all people like everyone else and as deserving of their pursuit of happiness, and I suppose unless they make the choice to believe what I believe, I'm very wrong to try to stop them pursuing their happiness in whatever form it takes. I mean the person I respect most as a role-player on OtakuBoards, and who has helped me become a far more accomplished writer generally in the last few months is Josh [Shy] who I have never seen as anything other than a friend and a very decent person. I think I may have done him and our friendship a great disservice by taking such a hard-line on this issue. Oh and Sandy, I'm sorry for making it sound like you were a child in regard to my example, or that my beliefs elevated my above you as that wasn't my intention. I just meant it in regard that I don't want anyone to come to harm for what I perceive as being something wrong, but my perceptions aren't your perceptions, and if you feel there's nothing wrong with it, then what I say shouldn't matter.[/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts