Catholic Church Says It Will Stop Charity Work If D.C. Passes Gay Marriage Law

[Stylites]

Right. Discriminating against gay marriages is not discrimination because it is not really marriage. Just like slavery was not evil because the slave owners knew that blacks were not really human.

Atheists have a hard time coming up with a convincing argument for human rights. A person has to be a theist in order to believe in human rights.

 

[Stylites]

I am well-aware that we disagree with regard to the rights of people to love whomever they love. The Church’s war on gays has been well publicized.

You would be unable to document any such ‘war’. The Church teaches that certain behaviors are wrong and immoral, and it would be heartless and cruel to do otherwise.

Homosexual sodomy destroys both the body and the soul. Where is the ‘love’ in murder? Where is the ‘love’ in suicide? A true ‘war against gays’ is one in which people encourage their destruction, such as DC city council.

 

[Charlotte408]

Right. Discriminating against gay marriages is not discrimination because it is not really marriage. Just like slavery was not evil because the slave owners knew that blacks were not really human.

I see what your getting at, and your wrong. Its not discrimination to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Laws are made to discriminate against ACTIONS not PERSONS.

For example. A man is NOT allowed to ride a bicycle on the freeway. That same man however, is able to get into a car, and drive on that freeway.

Now if a law stated something like, WOMEN can not own land. or, BLACKS can not vote. Those are clearly discriminatory against a PERSONS.

In the instance of marriage, the law is that ‘MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN’. A homosexual can either be a man, or a woman. They are both included in this. A homosexual man CAN get married. It just has to be to a woman.

Its almost like arguing that the DMV is discriminating against those with no licenses because they cant drive

 

[Charlotte408]

I am well-aware that we disagree with regard to the rights of people to love whomever they love. The Church’s war on gays has been well publicized.

our ‘war’ on gays?>>>!!> lol…thats funny…I never got the memo??? so was it a bulletin on myspace?? in the newspaper…and the church actually used the term ‘war on gays’???

you really shouldnt put words in other peoples mouths…i think maybe you’ve been spoonfed hate for our church…

unless, you care to post a link to a statement from the church validating this ‘War’???

 

[Charlotte408]

Are you speaking from experience here?

Maybe you can demonstrate how easy it is to change a preference. Start with something simple. See if you can, say, make yourself prefer chocolate if you already prefer vanilla or vice-versa.

I am. I used to mess with chicks ALL the time…me and my girls…we’d party…make out…in the circles I used to run in, it was thought of as sxy as heck…you know…

but then I grew up and realized I didnt need attention, at least not negative attention, to have respect…

My personal story…call me an EX bi, whatever- I did that…

And theres a LOT of EX homosexuals, who were once actively, loudly and proudly gay…but now, arent.

Interesting I’ve never met an EX african american…or an EX caucasian…or an EX asian…

 

[Leela]

Atheists have a hard time coming up with a convincing argument for human rights. A person has to be a theist in order to believe in human rights.

Really?? I’m not a theist, and I believe in human rights.

Whether an argument is convincing will depend on who we are trying to convince. I suppose theistic arguments will be more convincing to theists, but I doubt that either of us are likely to come up with arguments that will convince anyone who does not already believe in such rights (Want to try to convince Kim Jong Il with your knock-down arguments for human rights?) Our only hope will be to show others the humanity of those who are unfamiliar. Telling our personal stories and books and movies will always be more convincing than rational arguments.

I’m glad we agree that humans have rights, I just wish I could convince you that we ought to extend such rights to homosexuals.

 

[Leela]

I am. I used to mess with chicks ALL the time…me and my girls…we’d party…make out…in the circles I used to run in, it was thought of as sxy as heck…you know…

but then I grew up and realized I didnt need attention, at least not negative attention, to have respect…

My personal story…call me an EX bi, whatever- I did that…

And theres a LOT of EX homosexuals, who were once actively, loudly and proudly gay…but now, arent.

Interesting I’ve never met an EX african american…or an EX caucasian…or an EX asian…

You seem to be confusing sexual relations with love. Homosexuality is not about chicks making out with other chicks. It is about human beings falling in love with other human beings who happen to be of the same sex.

I have a hard to imaging that if Jesus were around he would be saying, “yes, it is important that we deny health care to spouses of same-sex employees because it is just wrong for them to be in love, and offering health insurance to such people would simply send the wrong message.”

 

[Charlotte408]

You seem to be confusing sexual relations with love.

noooooooo…thats what homosexuals do. They think because they LOVE someone of the opposite sex, that they should physically BE with them- no.

Homosexuality is not about chicks making out with other chicks. It is about human beings falling in love with other human beings who happen to be of the same sex.

I have a hard to imaging that if Jesus were around he would be saying, “yes, it is important that we deny health care to spouses of same-sex employees because it is just wrong for them to be in love, and offering health insurance to such people would simply send the wrong message.”

oh so your saying that we should allow same sex marriage to homosexuals, but ONLY homosexuals that are in love? and whos the judge of THAT??? lol…

well isnt THAT discriminatory…feel bad for the girls who have to fight to prove how much they love eachother…

 

[Leela]

oh so your saying that we should allow same sex marriage to homosexuals, but ONLY homosexuals that are in love? and whos the judge of THAT??? lol…

well isnt THAT discriminatory…feel bad for the girls who have to fight to prove how much they love eachother…

I don’t know where you are getting this. No, I wouldn’t recommend that some official should judge whether a given couple loves one another enough to marry.

 

[Leela]

You would be unable to document any such ‘war’. The Church teaches that certain behaviors are wrong and immoral, and it would be heartless and cruel to do otherwise.

Homosexual sodomy destroys both the body and the soul. Where is the ‘love’ in murder? Where is the ‘love’ in suicide? A true ‘war against gays’ is one in which people encourage their destruction, such as DC city council.

The war on gays is not a literal war. It is an effort like the war on drugs or the war on poverty. The Church has generally viewed its war on poverty to be more important than discriminating against gays and promoting bigotry against gays. I applaud the Church’s efforts to help the needy.

 

[Charlotte408]

You seem to be confusing sexual relations with love. Homosexuality is not about chicks making out with other chicks. It is about human beings falling in love with other human beings who happen to be of the same sex.

You implied that I wasnt Bi sexual and/or homosexual at the time, when in fact I was comitting homosexual acts, and believed I was Bi sexual.

The conclusion I came to on my own 8 years later is irrelevant. And I only brought it up to bring to light that people can and DO change.

At the time, I thought I was bi sexual, if not possibly a lesbian. I enjoyed homosexual acts with other females.You are saying that in itself is not enough to justify same sex marriage, and that its about ‘love’. Well, lets say you had met me back then, who are you to judge how much I love another female? If same sex marriage is legal, it should be legal for ALL homosexuals, regardless of how long their relationship has been, etc…unless theres a ‘love standard’ of some sort that you’ll hold them to?

 

[Leela]

You implied that I wasnt Bi sexual and/or homosexual at the time, when in fact I was comitting homosexual acts, and believed I was Bi sexual.

The conclusion I came to on my own 8 years later is irrelevant. And I only brought it up to bring to light that people can and DO change.

At the time, I thought I was bi sexual, if not possibly a lesbian. I enjoyed homosexual acts with other females.You are saying that in itself is not enough to justify same sex marriage, and that its about ‘love’. Well, lets say you had met me back then, who are you to judge how much I love another female? If same sex marriage is legal, it should be legal for ALL homosexuals, regardless of how long their relationship has been, etc…unless theres a ‘love standard’ of some sort that you’ll hold them to?

I didn’t realize tha you were an honest to goodness homosexual. The gist I took from your description was that you experimented with making out with girls to excite boys. My mistake.

People tend to associate homosexuality with sex acts and heterosexuality with Prince Charming and Cinderella. I think when people come to see homosexuality as an aspect of the same sort of romantic love we associate with such fairy tails the bigotry against homosexuals as propogated by the Catholic Church will abate.

Also I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal for ALL homosexuals.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I think this analogy is fine and the solution would be the same. The Church would then likely opt to not receive public money, but it would not be “forced” to do so. It would be a free choice.

Exactly. The Church would not be “forced” and both the city and the recipients of the services would lose. And that’s the way the city wants it. They would rather pay more and/or provide fewer services than allow the Church to act in accordance with her teachings.

 

[Leela]

Exactly. The Church would not be “forced” and both the city and the recipients of the services would lose. And that’s the way the city wants it. They would rather pay more and/or provide fewer services than allow the Church to act in accordance with her teachings.

Pretty much, except the Church can act on its teachings no matter what. The question is whether the Church is able to work with the government and whether the government is able to work with the Church and still respect their respective values. The Church has said it cannot if the government passes this legislation. It is now up to the legislature to decide whether its value for human rights supercedes its value for the services it pays the Church to perform.

 

[tomarin]

I am well-aware that we disagree with regard to the rights of people to love whomever they love. The Church’s war on gays has been well publicized.

If this is a war it’s a defensive war in support of traditional marriage, the family and natural law – ideas which are much older than the idea of being “gay” or “gay rights.” Marriage requires a husband and a wife. Two husbands, or two wives, do not a married couple make, if only because there can be no biological issue from such a union. Insisting that they can is unnatural, and perverse.

Added: gay people are already loving whomever they please because they cohabitate pretty freely. That’s the status quo of the world we live in. Therefore allowing people to love one another freely is not a justification for altering the public definition of marriage, as far as I can see.

 

[edwest2]

Well, seeing as the United States won’t bow down to a religious group and thank God for that, I just think they’ll raise taxes to make up the difference. Either way the citizens pay. Don’t get me wrong I love my Catholic faith, but I hate the politcal aspect of it. To me it is a faith and moral dogma, but not a secular law. Secular laws are made and enforced by the citizens of the nations they inhabit.
You may say its bad that I would applaud the government stance on faith but you see if they bow to us then they bow to ISLAM. Catholics can be and have been extremely violent to those against their views but we don’t hold a candle to how ruthless the Islamic extremists get. So, I’d rather have a strong religiously neutral government that fights islamic extremists than a turn the other cheek government that cowers over a religious organization.

Just my two cents.

Very sad that you exploit one religion against another. You want a government that is secular to fight another religious group that you also accuse of being extremely violent?

Troll alert.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Leela]

…unnatural, and perverse.

…two words we would likely have heard bigots of the past use in opposition to interracial marriage.

“Unnatural” and “perverse” for you just seem to ammount to “behavior that I don’t like.”

 

[tomarin]

…two words we would likely have heard bigots of the past use in opposition to interracial marriage.

“Unnatural” and “perverse” for you just seem to ammount to “behavior that I don’t like.”

As I said before, I don’t accept your analogy between sexual orientation and race. It would be nice if you could engage us at the level of our principled objections rather than offering overheated rhetoric and name-calling.

I have nothing against gay people per se, so I know that I am not a bigot. I just don’t think their unions can be treated like those of married couples for the reasons I gave above. I should think reasonable persons could disagree about these things.

 

[Leela]

Very sad that you exploit one religion against another. You want a government that is secular to fight another religious group that you also accuse of being extremely violent?

Troll alert.

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed,

I am quite sure that the person you are responding to is sincere. The first ammendment protects the religious as well as the irreligious in gauranteeing that we won’t be forced to practice any particular religion. Catholicism is not the majority religion in the US. You are Constitutionally protected from being forced to practice whatever the dominant religion is at any given time just as I am protected from practicing Christianity right now.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

As I said before, I don’t accept your analogy between sexual orientation and race. It would be nice if you could engage us at the level of our principled objections rather than offering overheated rhetoric and name-calling.

I understand that you don’t accept the analogy, but drawing parallels to shared experience is the best I can hope to do. I don’t think there is any hope for “engaging at the level of principled objections” because what you call “principled objections” I see as bigotry. They are the same sorts of “principled objections” that the Southern slave owners used in support of slavery and the sort used to oppose interracial marriage. People opposing such also thought that their objections were principled and had the support of their religions.

I have nothing against gay people per se, so I know that I am not a bigot. I just don’t think their unions can be treated like those of married couples for the reasons I gave above. I should think reasonable persons could disagree about these things.

No one ever thinks that they are guilty of bigotry. That is a part of the phenomenon.

I think you are a reasonable person, but I see a contradiction in claiming that you have nothing against gay people while also believing that what they do is “perverse,” “unnatural,” and I assume “immoral” and “disordered” as the Church also teaches.