Then why bother with the House votes, at all? Why not tally up the votes, figure out which party won, and turn the government over to them to handle by committee. No need to have votes on any bills or issues if they’re just going to act as a party.
Because debates bring up issues that the framers of legislation have missed or need to reconsider - also the opposition parties need to have their say (after all they may be the next Government and the current Government’s supporters would like to have their say in future).Then why bother with the House votes, at all? Why not tally up the votes, figure out which party won, and turn the government over to them to handle by committee. No need to have votes on any bills or issues if they’re just going to act as a party.
Harmed: statistically, those who are raised in single parent homes are seven times more likely to be sexually abused, physically injured, or killed by their parent or step parent or male friend of the mother. Many will suffer emotional problems which will linger throughout their lives. Many will suffer depression. They will be far more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. They will be much more likely to commit suicide. THey will be much more likely to commit crimes. They will be much more likely to fail at school. They will be much more likely to never attend a college. They will earn less. They will contribute to society less. They will be much more likely to be promiscuous.
So you disagree, but based on what statistics? The statistics on population are so grim they make me want to weep.
Given what you’ve written above, I expect that if would be better if we closed this particular conversation. A lot of my discussions here have been precisely about this subject (to me, the ‘problem’ is almost entirely within the minds of American Conservatives) and, perhaps, I’m getting a little ‘tired’ of it myself.
There’s a distinction that needs to be drawn here. In a parliamentary form of government it is true that one votes for a party leader. But in the United States - a representative democracy - each seat in each house of Congress is an elected position. Citizens vote for the individual - not just for the party leader. In the case of american politics, individual conscience is not subservient to party platforms. That’s why - e.g. there are democrats (few but some) who are pro-life, and Republicans who are pro-choice. They were elected because of these stances (or in spite of them in some cases) but in most every case the person’s individual beliefs were veted in the electoral process. This differs markedly from the parliamentary form of government.
I see no problem with this. Why should GLBTQs be alienated. They are Catholics and Christians too. I see this decision is done looking at the humanity of the GLBTQ people in the pews and seeks to unite, not divide.
my sentiments exactly. is anyone here not also a sinner? perhaps we should quarantine all Masses eh? so long as they are not celebrating any sins during the Mass, i believe anyone should be welcome.
Thought experiment: if Hitler decided to go to Mass. Would we presume he had repented and give him communion?
Ofcourse we’re all sinners, but we should never celebrate that sin, and we should never be proud of it.
Having homosexuals have their own separate Mass does not unify catholics, it can only devide them.
That statement shows how truely uncatholic this whole affair really is. Homosexuality is an abomination, it must be repented for forgiveness. Being proud of it makes the sin even worse, it shows how happy they are to slap God in the face.
Dear Me!
Yes, I agree. It is the act that is the sin. However, I don’t think we can honestly believe that these people are not practicing. It is only those who are homosexual and proud of it with no intention of repenting who would attend one of these Masses.
Unfortunately, it seems that the Masses are not geared towards homosexuals staying celibet but are indeed telling them that there is nothing wrong with homosexual lifestyles (celebration of same sex civil partership, advertisement for gay-pride thing etc.).
i am assuming the “gay mass” does not celebrate the sins commonly associated with homosexuality (namely sodomy, infidelity, etc). i was also assuming the “gay mass” was not exclusively attended by LGBTQ members, but that it represented a form of outreach effort from the rest of the community.
i assume that if one is present at mass and behaves appropriately (i.e. no outward sign indicating intent to abuse the sacrament), then s/he should not be denied the host. who are we to judge if someone is repentant? Paul says that one “eats and drinks to his own condemnation” (somewhere in 1 Cor 14 or 15…) so the condemnation (if deserved) is brought about by the abuser her/himself through God’s own judgement, not ours. of course, if anyone present were privileged to know that “Hitler” has ill-intent or needs to go for confession first (perhaps a close buddy or spiritual director, etc), then that privileged person is responsible for informing “Hitler”. the rest of the congregation need only focus, during mass, on their own sins, and perhaps the sins of those whom they’ve personally encountered. even then, it is prayer for reparation and penance - not judgement!
Different Parishes have different views on homosexuality. There is no uniform opinion in the Church on this matter. Suggesting that the only way they can go is to be like a “normal” person infers they are not-“normal” in some way. They are regular people like you and me, all made in an imperfect image of God. These masses are masses of acceptance of them as a entire person, like everyone else who attends every other mass. I would welcome them if they came into my parish (along with a few other people).Having homosexuals have their own separate Mass does not unify catholics, it can only devide them.
The right think to do after “looking at the humanity of the GLBTQ people in the pews and [seeking] to unite, not divide” would be to have them all repent, confess their sins, do penance and sin no more and to go to normal Mass as a normal person. That would unite, separate Masses divide.
I find it shocking that homosexuals think that they are somehow special for being homosexual, one wouldn’t have separte Masses devoted to pædophiles, rapists or theives.
From the article:
That statement shows how truely uncatholic this whole affair really is. Homosexuality is an abomination, it must be repented for forgiveness. Being proud of it makes the sin even worse, it shows how happy they are to slap God in the face.
Besides, pride is sinful in the first place.
Dear Me!
We can’t have that can we!
I was not saying “normal” as if homosexuals are not people or something, I was saying that if they were truely repentant and/or intent on not living a homosexual lifestyle they would go to a “normal” Mass (i.e. one for everyone and not specifically for homosexuals).
Paragraph 1 - no, there’s a responsibility to avoid scandal. That is, afterall, what so incensed our Lord when he expelled the money lenders. Perhaps we are differing in the concept of “homosexual”. I am assuming here that this is a person openly declaring himself to be homosexual. Perhaps that is because …