Gay marriage OK because homosexuals born that way and deserve to have romantic relationships too?

[thewalrus]

Yeah! and without the crusades no tom hanks movie or dale brown anti catholic book what was it? drawing a blank. sequel coming out.

Dont you like the crusades? guys in armour riding big horses around with lances and swords.

and they left there maidens all locked up with those metal belts what a business for locksmiths, great time in history- and they knew how to deal with Muslim terrorists

You’re right, the Crusades were really just invented for a novel and embellished for a video game.

 

[Bennie_P]

And they got a great start with the Crusades.

Though the Church may have made grave mistakes during the Crusades it was response to invasion of Islam into Christian lands and to secure the safety of those in those lands. During that time is when the Catholic Church produce for the displaced and sick a thing we now refer to as hospitals.

Real History Of The Crusades

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity — and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion — has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. …

…Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

 

[michaelcollins]

You’re right, the Crusades were really just invented for a novel and embellished for a video game.

I dont know during that time there were all those joisting tournaments with long lances and banners flying all different colors, I bet there was some gay guy who designed it all. and chasity belts had to be a gay guy in charge of the key, wasnt he having a ball with all that was left in his contriol.

 

[thewalrus]

I dont know during that time there were all those joisting tournaments with long lances and banners flying all different colors, I bet there was some gay guy who designed it all. and chasity belts had to be a gay guy in charge of the key, wasnt he having a ball with all that was left in his contriol.

Nor were the Crusades your ongoing fantasy.

 

[thewalrus]

Though the Church may have made grave mistakes during the Crusades it was response to invasion of Islam into Christian lands and to secure the safety of those in those lands. During that time is when the Catholic Church produce for the displaced and sick a thing we now refer to as hospitals.

Well, in that case…

 

[court14]

Yeah! and without the crusades no tom hanks movie or dale brown anti catholic book what was it? drawing a blank. sequel coming out.

Dont you like the crusades? guys in armour riding big horses around with lances and swords.

and they left there maidens all locked up with those metal belts what a business for locksmiths, great time in history- and they knew how to deal with Muslim terrorists

They got their buts kicked more often than not by the Muslims and what’s even crazier is they couldn’t even get the eastern half of the church to unite with them most of the time.

Can you imagine if those groups had had weapons of mass destruction?

 

[michaelcollins]

Nor were the Crusades your ongoing fantasy.

no, im a physical coward who only tolerated pain in sports, i dont think i would have survived in the old west or the times of the crusades. its different between bad physical pain and that temporary non life threatening pain from sports that I could take.

 

[goofyjim]

Fundamental Catholic teaching is that you be open to life.

Only within marriage. There is no fudnamental teaching that says one has to get married.

 

[jean8]

jean8…did you even read what I wrote? You completely missed the point, obviously.

mulepadre, So why does the whole slippery slope have to begin with gay marriage? People said the same thing when interracial marriage came into play. The thing is, those other types of marriages don’t have to do with equal rights…gay men and women are pushing to marry regardless of sexual orientation…polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

You can make excuses ‘til the cows come home’ Homosexuality is a sin. Those who think otherwise will pay the price at Judgement Day.
Marriage? between the same sex people? give me a break.
We can’t help what race we are born to be, but homosexuality is a chosen , sinful liestyle. Look it up in the Bible. Ask your priest. Ask your mother. God hates this sin.

jean8

jean8

 

[thewalrus]

You can make excuses ‘til the cows come home’ Homosexuality is a sin. Those who think otherwise will pay the price at Judgement Day.
Marriage? between the same sex people? give me a break.
We can’t help what race we are born to be, but homosexuality is a chosen , sinful liestyle. Look it up in the Bible. Ask your priest. Ask your mother. God hates this sin.

jean8

jean8

No, jean8, no break will be given to you for being closedminded and judgmental.

 

[goofyjim]

You can make excuses ‘til the cows come home’ Homosexuality is a sin. Those who think otherwise will pay the price at Judgement Day.
Marriage? between the same sex people? give me a break.
We can’t help what race we are born to be, but homosexuality is a chosen , sinful liestyle. Look it up in the Bible. Ask your priest. Ask your mother. God hates this sin.

jean8

jean8

And I will keep clarifying these ridiculous notions. The behavior is a choice. Being homosexual is not a sin and is not hated by God. Look that up in the Bible. The orientation or state of being ahomosexual is not a sin.

 

[court14]

You can make excuses ‘til the cows come home’ Homosexuality is a sin. Those who think otherwise will pay the price at Judgement Day.
Marriage? between the same sex people? give me a break.
We can’t help what race we are born to be, but homosexuality is a chosen , sinful liestyle. Look it up in the Bible. Ask your priest. Ask your mother. God hates this sin.

jean8

jean8

Maybe so maybe not but you sound like you are looking forward to the event. Like, "Yep, your gonna it get come judgement day and I am gonna see it and say I told you so!

Maybe you will be granted a window into hell so you can watch!

Keep winnin those souls over to Christ!

 

[alan1941]

Never liked the animals are homosexual argument much- many animals eat their young and some their mates, would not want to start that as a trend in humans because animals do it it’s natural.

Dear Michael, You are just too clever but what is your valid argument in response to mine. The Church (which believe it or not I love) speaks sometimes with forked tongue about natural law and the laws of nature. So you wouldn’t eat your young but you would have sex with your wife and animals do that (have sex with their mates). So rejecting homosexuality on the basis that it is a function of animals isn’t valid. The Church says that a homosexual pairing isn’t open to life but if two elderly heterosexuals marry (she past menopause and he past his climacteric) that union is not open to life either yet the church permits it. What about the friendship and companionship between two people of the same sex and there is a companionship in a sexual relationship that just doesn’t exist between friends just as sexual intimacy between hets. I’m not arguing that the Church should call it marriage but that they should not oppose gay unions for those not of our faith or those of a different conscious.
(Irrelevant question: Do you work for Publishers Clearing House?)

 

[alan1941]

I am not persuaded that various scriptural references to homosexual practices are relevant to discussions of homosexual identity and practice in the current time. Each scriptural reference fits within the historical context that the writer was immersed in, and I do not find that any of those contexts replicates our contemporary situation.You statement is beautiful and very rational which is not entirely present in much of this discussion.

Beyond issues of scripture, however, a key notion at work in some of the current official Catholic stance on homosexuality and other issues is the very strange notion that Every sexual act must be open to conception. I have never seen any convincing reasons to support this idea. If one throws out this idea, all kinds of new perspectives on sexuality become possible. For one, it voids many of the arguments against the use of contraception. Abandoning of the rather bizarre notion that contraception is an evil would give an impressive set of tools to deal with abortion, which is indeed an evil. But also, throwing aside the notion of every sexual act open to abortion opens a door to an understanding of how the fact of homosexuality need not be understood as, per se, unnatural or perverse, and to an understanding that homosexuality can have legitimate sexual expression and how gay marriage might be good. Needless to say, such an approach still requires one to ask about what kind of sexual behavior are appropriate to Christians. But it does reframe the dialogue.

 

[RobbyS]

Dear Michael, You are just too clever but what is your valid argument in response to mine. The Church (which believe it or not I love) speaks sometimes with forked tongue about natural law and the laws of nature. So you wouldn’t eat your young but you would have sex with your wife and animals do that (have sex with their mates). So rejecting homosexuality on the basis that it is a function of animals isn’t valid. The Church says that a homosexual pairing isn’t open to life but if two elderly heterosexuals marry (she past menopause and he past his climacteric) that union is not open to life either yet the church permits it. What about the friendship and companionship between two people of the same sex and there is a companionship in a sexual relationship that just doesn’t exist between friends just as sexual intimacy between hets. I’m not arguing that the Church should call it marriage but that they should not oppose gay unions for those not of our faith or those of a different conscious.
(Irrelevant question: Do you work for Publishers Clearing House?)

Homosexuality is a contrived tern, and now you use one that is even more so, heterosexuality. That is like calling people who are not alcoholics, nonalcoholics. Or speaking of people who have lost np legs, nonamputees.

But as to the comparison between gay couples and aged couples, that is beside the point. You want to change the very definition of marriage. This is the issue.

 

[thewalrus]

Homosexuality is a contrived tern, and now you use one that is even more so, heterosexuality. That is like calling people who are not alcoholics, nonalcoholics. Or speaking of people who have lost np legs, nonamputees.

But as to the comparison between gay couples and aged couples, that is beside the point. You want to change the very definition of marriage. This is the issue.

Man, that doesn’t even make sense. Are you saying that homosexuals just don’t exist? Is there no distinction between alcoholics and nonalcoholics? Amputees and nonamputees? Did you choose to be heterosexual? If not, why are you implying that homosexuals chose to be what they are? I mean, if your cool with double standards, I’ll leave you alone but for clarity’s sake I think a few of us might benefit.

 

[RobbyS]

Man, that doesn’t even make sense. Are you saying that homosexuals just don’t exist? Is there no distinction between alcoholics and nonalcoholics? Amputees and nonamputees? Did you choose to be heterosexual? If not, why are you implying that homosexuals chose to be what they are? I mean, if your cool with double standards, I’ll leave you alone but for clarity’s sake I think a few of us might benefit.

Well, homosexuals exist just as adulterers exist. Indeed, there are alcoholics and nonalcoholics, but alcoholics do not start political movements to force their preferences on the general propulation. Aduterers, of course, did not have to engage in politics since their deeds are no lomger thought to nothing of great consequence. Of course, assuming that couples engaged in homsexual activities do have marital rights, adultery is more common among them than among 'straights."

 

[thewalrus]

Well, homosexuals exist just as adulterers exist. Indeed, there are alcoholics and nonalcoholics, but alcoholics do not start political movements to force their preferences on the general propulation. Aduterers, of course, did not have to engage in politics since their deeds are no lomger thought to nothing of great consequence. Of course, assuming that couples engaged in homsexual activities do have marital rights, adultery is more common among them than among 'straights."

I’m still not quite sure this makes sense but I’ll grant you the 1 AM pass b/c I might need it at some point. Alcoholics and adulterers are both allowed to marry by law (that is, if they are heterosexual). I’m not following your analogy at all. And I certainly don’t understand your “adultery is more common among” homosexual couples comment.

 

[SallyMargie]

It’s so bad now in Japan (I live here) that the local city governments are giving cash sums to new parents. We just had our 5th daughter, and the city government dropped $4000 in my bank account a month later. So, yeah, even in this seemingly-crowded island country, overpopulation is a myth. The data is there; the evidence is available for any random dude on the Internet to debunk this myth.

Yup “overpopulation” is and always has been a myth spread by Leftists, and is a slap in the face to God, the Creator of life.
Population Research Institute has tons of info on this.

 

[buffalo]

Interesting that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and that the sin of Sodom & Gomorha was a sin of of breaking the laws of hospitality. See what Jesus said about that.

No - we do not know that. The Bible does not record it.