5 Reasons Catholics Shouldn't be Campaigning Against Same-Sex Marriage

[_Abyssinia]

OP, you are making opposition to redefining marrage, religiously based. There are many secular reasons why redefining marriage is wrong and an impossibility

 

[Paul89]

OP, you are making opposition to redefining marrage, religiously based. There are many secular reasons why redefining marriage is wrong and an impossibility

There are many good reasons for slavery as well. That’s why it has been used extensively throughout human history. Both secular and religious justifications have been made for its use.

It’s more about whether the benefits outweigh the costs. And in this case creating a society which is open to both heterosexual and homosexual families creates a better environment for people regardless of orientation.

 

[CopticChristian]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention
2. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman
3. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman
4. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?
5. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

Paul,

You forgot that in these Last days He spoke to us through HIs Son…and He said…

In the beginning it was not so…long after the fact of what you say is recorded…

and

while the body count, that you describe, is relevant in your thinking, in consideration of whatever it is you think, Christain thought is based on

Profession of Faith
Sacramental Life
Life in Christ
Prayer

Body counts are realtive to one body Crucified that is the only body count that counts and as a member of the other body that counts, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ…

What is it you believe is relevant to what you point out?

 

[CopticChristian]

I think this thread is just designed to incite a flame war.

Acarlson,

Douse it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Crusades alone did not have a death toll as high as the Holocaust, 3 million vs 4+ million, but when you add in the death toll from Catholic Spaniards conquering the Americas… you go way past.

 

[CopticChristian]

There are many good reasons for slavery as well. That’s why it has been used extensively throughout human history. Both secular and religious justifications have been made for its use.

It’s more about whether the benefits outweigh the costs. And in this case creating a society which is open to both heterosexual and homosexual families creates a better environment for people regardless of orientation.

Paul,

a society which is open to both heterosexual and homosexual families creates a better environment for people regardless of orientation

Is this your agenda?

You are a sociologist?

You believe that homosexual families is a norm?

How is it and on what basis do you find this to be true?

The following study from Journal of Human Sexuality displays differences that you may not have accounted for.

What do you base your opinion of this norm on?

Homosexual Couples and Parenting:
What Science Can and Cannot Say

by A. Dean Byrd, PhD, MBA, MPH7

7 A. Dean Byrd, PhD, MBA, MPH, is president/CEO of the Thrasher Research Fund and Faculty,
University of Utah School of Medicine, with appointments in the Department of Family and Preventive
Medicine and in the Department of Psychiatry. He is also adjunct professor of family studies at the
University of Utah.

Homosexual Couples and Parenting: What Science Can and Cannot Say

Abstract

. Based on sex-typed cultural norms, daughters of lesbian mothers more frequently
dress, play, and behave in gender-nonconforming ways when compared with
daughters of heterosexual mothers.

. Sons of lesbian mothers behave in less traditionally masculine ways in terms of
aggression and play. They are also more apt to be more nurturing and affectionate
than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

. **One of the studies indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young
adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in homosexual behavior (six of
twenty-five) when compared to those raised by heterosexual mothers (none of the
twenty). **

**. Children reared by lesbian mothers were more likely to consider a homosexual
relationship. **

. Teenage and young adult girls reared by lesbian mothers were more sexually
adventurous and less chaste than girls reared by heterosexual mothers. Sons
reared by lesbian mothers were less sexually adventurous and more chaste than
boys reared by heterosexual mothers.

 

[LilyM]

Well, the Nazi reign in Europe only lasted a few years. The Catholic Church has enjoyed thousands of years into forcing people into its beliefs. Just remembered the inquisitions.

Quite a nice place for a group, deciding how the world needs to act and what is/isn’t evil.

The Crusades are not the Inquisitions - and the actions of the Conquistadors in the New World are a completely different thing again. Your specific claim was that the crusaders killed 3-4 million people.

Let’s take the first crusade - by far the most successful, total European forces were 35,000. There were 10 battles/sieges. The total enemy dead, from the whole of this Crusade, could not have been more than about 200,000, including 70,000 when the zenith of Crusader power was reached and Jerusalem taken.

Let us also look at perhaps the best known, the third. Richard the Lionhearted, famous warrior king of England, took the grand total of about 8,000 men on that crusade. His ally Philip of France took about 10,000, and the Germans managed to get about 5,000 into the mix. So we have about 22,000 troops.

They fought a massive total of three whole battles during the entire Crusade. The first, the siege of Acre, resulted in about 2,700 enemy dead, not being a proper pitched battle. The second, Arsuf, saw about 7,000 enemy dead. The third, Jaffa, was in fact a resounding defeat for the Crusaders, who had been negotiating in good faith with Saladin and were taken unawares, so very few enemy killed by them.

That less-than-10,000 dead is the sum total for the entire Third Crusade.

Now there were seven others, all shambolic and unsuccessful. Highly doubtful that they averaged more than 20-25,000 casualties each.

Even allowing for the occasional skirmish etc between the major battles, we still have to realise that the Crusaders completely lost the upper hand after the Third crusade failed to retake Jerusalem, and never regained it. So the fourth to ninth crusades were very much about tiny groups of Crusader knights desperately trying to hang on to the (almost literally) handful of fortified coastal towns that remained to them in the face of the increasing power of Islam. There was simply no question of huge forces with the ability to undertake continued slaughter on a large scale as you suggest they did.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Reconquista in Spain? Records as to casualties are scant or non-existent format of the battles, but as one example the final battle of Granada ended with a mere 1,000 enemy dead. Apart from the admittedly soectacular losses of the Battle
of Las navajas de Tolosa, where 100-150,000 enemy were killed, there is little indication that the battles of the Reconquista were much bloodier than their counterparts of the later crusades in the midddle East. So again, little chance of killing on a huge scale.

A final point - what the fnerk does any of this have to do with gay marriage anyway?

 

[CopticChristian]

The Crusades are not the Inquisitions - and the actions of the Conquistadors in the New World are a completely different thing again. Your specific claim was that the crusaders killed 3-4 million people.

Let’s take the first crusade - by far the most successful, total European forces were 35,000. There were 10 battles/sieges. The total enemy dead, from the whole of this Crusade, could not have been more than about 200,000, including 70,000 when the zenith of Crusader power was reached and Jerusalem taken.

Let us also look at perhaps the best known, the third. Richard the Lionhearted, famous warrior king of England, took the grand total of about 8,000 men on that crusade. His ally Philip of France took about 10,000, and the Germans managed to get about 5,000 into the mix. So we have about 22,000 troops.

They fought a massive total of three whole battles during the entire Crusade. The first, the siege of Acre, resulted in about 2,700 enemy dead, not being a proper pitched battle. The second, Arsuf, saw about 7,000 enemy dead. The third, Jaffa, was in fact a resounding defeat for the Crusaders, who had been negotiating in good faith with Saladin and were taken unawares, so very few enemy killed by them.

That less-than-10,000 dead is the sum total for the entire Third Crusade.

Now there were seven others, all shambolic and unsuccessful. Highly doubtful that they averaged more than 20-25,000 casualties each.

Even allowing for the occasional skirmish etc between the major battles, we still have to realise that the Crusaders completely lost the upper hand after the Third crusade failed to retake Jerusalem, and never regained it. So the fourth to ninth crusades were very much about tiny groups of Crusader knights desperately trying to hang on to the (almost literally) handful of fortified coastal towns that remained to them in the face of the increasing power of Islam. There was simply no question of huge forces with the ability to undertake continued slaughter on a large scale as you suggest they did.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Reconquista in Spain? Records as to casualties are scant or non-existent format of the battles, but as one example the final battle of Granada ended with a mere 1,000 enemy dead. Apart from the admittedly soectacular losses of the Battle
of Las navajas de Tolosa, where 100-150,000 enemy were killed, there is little indication that the battles of the Reconquista were much bloodier than their counterparts of the later crusades in the midddle East. So again, little chance of killing on a huge scale.

A final point - what the fnerk does any of this have to do with gay marriage anyway?

Lily,

A final point - what the fnerk does any of this have to do with gay marriage anyway?

Distraction.

 

[LilyM]

Lily,

Distraction.

Of course. Mind you it gave me a chance to learn more about the Crusades than I knew previously, and I have a passion for history, so not an entirely unwelcome digression

 

[fix]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention
2. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman
3. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman
4. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?
5. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

The nonsense people come up with to defend what cannot be defended.

 

[SamH]

Always, always always remember folks. Marriage is a civil institution that religion decided to get involved with, not the other way around.

Marriage predates recorded history and has been a part of religious society even when there isn’t any government.

Always remember this folks - anything is possible when you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[SamH]

You’re not seriously trying to tell us that the Crusaders, who had tiny poorly-supplied armies who had swords and not much else, and a policy (bar a few exceptional and hashly condemned breaches) of not killing civilians, or at least not women and children, achieved as much slaughter as the Nazis with their huge numbers of armed personnel, machine guns, tanks, bombs, concentration camps, gas chambers that ran 24/7 for years, plus an avowed policy of utter and complete exermination of a whole race of unarmed men, women and children?

Pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells.

Agreed.

During the time of the Crusades the earth’s population of humans was only around 450 million. The idea that 10% of the earth’s population was killed off in the relatively small area of the Middle East without entirely depopulating the area defines logic, common sense and basic math.

 

[marymary1975]

Crusades alone did not have a death toll as high as the Holocaust, 3 million vs 4+ million, but when you add in the death toll from Catholic Spaniards conquering the Americas… you go way past.
.

If you are so knowledgeable about the Spanish conquer you should know that the reason why the great majority of the population in Latin America is from Indigenous origin (while whites tend to be a small minority) v. The majority of population in USA and Canada are White is precisely because fray Bartolome de las Casas arrived to Latin America with the catholic church and they started advocating for the rights of indigenous people. When Christopher Columbus and his other conquistadors came they started killing Indians but the minute the Catholic church stepped into the continent they started to condemn the killings of the conquistadors. Thanks and only thanks to the actions of Fray Bartolome and the church now a days most latinoamerica remains mostly and by far populated by its indigenous people. Compare that to The USA where the Catholic church didn’t go: result all Indians killed and whites are the majority in the US. So again who killed who in the Americas?

 

[marymary1975]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention
2. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman
3. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman
4. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?
5. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

Given that the OP seems to say that the world and society should not run or conform to one religion’s beliefs then I suggest to the OP than if that is the way it should be, then we must eliminate from our society EVERY single rule which has an origin in the bible. Therefore I expect the OP agreeing to legalizing murder, robbery, burglary, etc. According to his logic criminalizing murder is an imposition of Catholics onto society because in the bible burden is a sin so why doesn’t he starts by advocating freedom for all murders from jail?